Jump to content
RemedySpot.com

Re: CR, Fasting & Mice

Rate this topic


Guest guest

Recommended Posts

Hi Bernadette:

" 5% CR " means that the person doing it ingests five percent less

calories than they would be eating if they ate what they normally

would like to eat. So, for example, if normally a person would be

eating 2000 calories a day then 5% CR is five percent less than that,

which is 1900 calories.

Similarly, 33% CR is eating thirty-three percent less than one would

when eating as much as one feels like eating. In the case of the

2000 calorie example, that means 33% less than 2000, which works out

to 1333 calories a day.

Among the groups they had chosen to study, the one which initially

dropped intake just 5%, and only later dropped by 33%, seemed to have

better protection against cancer than the group which went suddenly

from normal feeding to eating 33% less. This is interesting because

it is evidence that going at things gradually is not only safer, but

provides more cancer protection also. Which, of course, Francesca

has been repeatedly advocating here for years.

They did not study a group which dropped in stages from ad lib to 5%,

to 10%, to 15% .................. until 35% was reached in 5%

stages. But one might suspect that, had they had such a group in

their study, it might have experienced still better results.

Curiously, and by coincidence, Tony and I had been calculating just a

while ago that a mere 100 calorie per day reduction in intake would

result in a sizeable (based on my calculation about fifteen pounds)

drop in weight. The 100 calories is exactly 5% of 2000 in the above

example. So, this latest study seems to support the idea that

dropping intake just 100 calories at a time may be the best method of

making the transition to full CR status.

My suggestion is to drop intake by one hundred calories and wait for

the first to occur of the following: A) Weight drops fifteen

pounds, or B) Three months has elapsed. Then, once either A) or B)

has occurred, drop another 100 calories from intake and wait for A)

or B) again, and repeat as many times as is judged to be desirable.

[One hundred calories is about one banana. Not one heck of a lot.

Just resisting that snack between dinner and bedtime would do it for

many people.]

And I still insist that after a few months restriction my experience

is that I no longer want as much food. It is as if my stomach has

shrunk in response to the reduction in demand for its services. Some

here, I realize, find this latter proposition a bit comical :

^ )))

Rodney.

>

> I'm not very good with science, so could you clarify for me what 5%

CR and

> 33% CR would translate into for humans?

>

> Thank you!

>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Bernadette:

" 5% CR " means that the person doing it ingests five percent less

calories than they would be eating if they ate what they normally

would like to eat. So, for example, if normally a person would be

eating 2000 calories a day then 5% CR is five percent less than that,

which is 1900 calories.

Similarly, 33% CR is eating thirty-three percent less than one would

when eating as much as one feels like eating. In the case of the

2000 calorie example, that means 33% less than 2000, which works out

to 1333 calories a day.

Among the groups they had chosen to study, the one which initially

dropped intake just 5%, and only later dropped by 33%, seemed to have

better protection against cancer than the group which went suddenly

from normal feeding to eating 33% less. This is interesting because

it is evidence that going at things gradually is not only safer, but

provides more cancer protection also. Which, of course, Francesca

has been repeatedly advocating here for years.

They did not study a group which dropped in stages from ad lib to 5%,

to 10%, to 15% .................. until 35% was reached in 5%

stages. But one might suspect that, had they had such a group in

their study, it might have experienced still better results.

Curiously, and by coincidence, Tony and I had been calculating just a

while ago that a mere 100 calorie per day reduction in intake would

result in a sizeable (based on my calculation about fifteen pounds)

drop in weight. The 100 calories is exactly 5% of 2000 in the above

example. So, this latest study seems to support the idea that

dropping intake just 100 calories at a time may be the best method of

making the transition to full CR status.

My suggestion is to drop intake by one hundred calories and wait for

the first to occur of the following: A) Weight drops fifteen

pounds, or B) Three months has elapsed. Then, once either A) or B)

has occurred, drop another 100 calories from intake and wait for A)

or B) again, and repeat as many times as is judged to be desirable.

[One hundred calories is about one banana. Not one heck of a lot.

Just resisting that snack between dinner and bedtime would do it for

many people.]

And I still insist that after a few months restriction my experience

is that I no longer want as much food. It is as if my stomach has

shrunk in response to the reduction in demand for its services. Some

here, I realize, find this latter proposition a bit comical :

^ )))

Rodney.

>

> I'm not very good with science, so could you clarify for me what 5%

CR and

> 33% CR would translate into for humans?

>

> Thank you!

>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...