Re: Guilt, satiety, calorie restriction...

[Guest guest]

Well, it nevertheless concerns me. If I knew weighfliting to my full

potential would cut my lifespan by 10 years, I would stop right away.

Right now I don't know them. Damn I have indecision and lack of facts.

-

> > Perhaps the factors are too numerous to make a conversion, but

> there's

> > reason to doubt the extrapolation from mice to humans. (I'm not the

> > one making the claim here).

>

> I don't see any reason to doubt it... I just see lots of reasons we

> can't be sure of it. The same goes for calorie restriction, and even

> moreso, in my opinion, because despite the increased breadth of

> subjects and replications, they've had less success in isolating the

> single variable they are looking for.

>

>

> > I said I trained two years ago (I was 15)...for a year and stopped

> for

> > a year. I've just starting lifting again. When I feel like I'm

> > over-eating I can always justify it by telling myself it help in the

> > pursuit of muscle and strength. ;-)

>

> Guess I remembered wrong. If you are weight-training, overeating is

> the LAST thing you need to concern yourself with.

>

> Chris

[Guest guest]

It'd be great if F/F turned out to be even better than CR. It's

certainyl more feasible for most people to handle and far less

stressful. CR, IMHO, really affects quality of life.

-

>

> >Because there are literally hundreds of studies showing that CR works

> >in pretty much all animal species. Feasting and fasting has been shown

> >to work only in mice (I think) and as I've mentioned, the carryover

> >might be minimal to humans.

> >

> >I wish feasting/fasting has the same benefits though...it sure would

> >be easier!

> >

> >-

>

> OK, I'll buy that. You are young ... I suspect that in a few years there

> will be hundreds of studies with feast/fast so you can

> think about it then.

>

> Actually I suspect F/F will be quite a fad in a bit. It DOES have a lot

> more appeal than semi-starving for 130 years.

>

> Also I never could figure out why CR didn't cause muscle loss?

> I've been on plenty of restricted diets and they ALWAYS caused

> muscle loss.

>

> -- Heidi

[Guest guest]

Hi Heidi,

I cook rarely (occasional recipes aside) but I do influence the

cooking in my house. I eat well 95% of the time. I'm not sure about

CR, which is my problem. If I was 100% convinced it was the best and

only way I think I'd muster the pyschological power to do it. But I'm

not convinced just yet...so I'm torn everytime.

-

>

> >Yeah, that's exactly the case with me. I suspect it is for most

> >people...which is why they keep eating badly (especially younger

people).

> >

> >The only improvements I've noticed in eating clean are:

> >

> >1.) Better bowel movements

> >2.) Cleaner teeth--less brushing required (less sugar, essentially)

> >3.) No more headaches due to not having eaten.

> >

> >-

>

> I also wonder ... do you cook for yourself? My family eats well ...

> partly because they eat whatever is on the table. If

> a big dinner is served, one doesn't have much ROOM

> for dessert. I snack much less if there are meals " happening " .

> Now that I have a family and MUST cook, I don't have much

> desire to eat, say, a candy bar.

>

> Another trick that works is

> to have " junk day " -- say on Sunday you eat all the

> junk you want. That makes it easier to wait. Plus, you will

> find you don't feel all that good on Sunday and maybe you

> don't WANT to eat so much junk.

>

> That and the house is FULL of good snacks. There is a basket

> on the counter full of dried fruits and nuts, and a bowl

> of peanuts, and a bowl of fresh fruit. So people tend to

> snack on those because they are there.

>

> A 17 year old male seems to need a LOT of calories, in

> my experience, so eating a bunch of pistachios or whatever

> is pretty normal and I wouldn't even think it is harmful

> (unless you are overweight or want to go on a CR diet).

>

> -- Heidi

[Guest guest]

Interesting. I don't like the 400lb analogy because nobody ever got

that big until this century. But I think your point about grazers

simply being less efficient is a good one; I'll ponder it a bit.

-

>

> >What I don't understand is why something which throws of the apestat

> >(haven't heard the term before so I'm inferring its meaning) is

> >necessarily bad? Well, it's bad in that it causes over consumption of

> >food, but isn't increased apestat a completely natural feeling? From

> >an evolutionary perspective wouldn't those with continued cravings

> >have a better shot at survival than those who only ate what they

> >needed to sustain them in the next few hours?

>

> If that was ALL it did, then maybe not. But the things

> I mentioned in the last post all cause health risks.

>

> Stuffing the body too full of food on a constant

> basis is NOT a survival trait. It causes obvious

> and measurable damage -- too much STUFF for

> the body to handle. Look at any 400 lb person ...

>

> If Ori is right, then humans DID normally stuff

> themselves, but not every few hours. And, after

> being stuffed, they were satisfied and ready to go,

> not moaning with hunger the next day, or too

> dizzy to think straight. Food takes a good 24 hours

> to digest, and it makes sense to me that a person

> should be relatively satisfied for that long. So

> I think " getting stuffed " is natural and probably good.

>

> But when I get " the hungries " I am NEVER satisfied,

> and never feeling very good either. That can't be

> good! If I can't think straight because of " low blood

> sugar " symptoms, then I'd be easy prey. And

> a lousy hunter. Or driver. " The hungries " don't

> come about, for me, from high carbs or even

> from lack of calories ... just from certain food

> triggers.

>

> -- Heidi

[Guest guest]

Is it really that bad?

I know many people who have eaten badly their whole lives and they

feel no direct health side effects...which is exactly why they

continue eating so poorly.

-

> > A study I saw showed that people still found

> > most junk foods delicious after 6 years of abstinence.

>

> *Most* junk food that I used to love just does not appeal any more,

> those nasty cookies notwithstanding. Just a few days ago my mom

> brought home a lemon pound cake-y kinda thing from the Safeway bakery

> that I would have demolished in a heartbeat. I took a bite and spit it

> out. I mean, it just really wasn't that good, certainly not worth the

> heart palpitations and headache.

>

> Lynn S.

>

> -----

> Lynn Siprelle * Writer, Mother, Programmer, Fiber Artisan

> The New Homemaker: http://www.newhomemaker.com/

> Siprelle & Associates: http://www.siprelle.com/

> People-Powered ! http://www.deanforamerica.com/

[Guest guest]

Hi Mike!

I must say our experiences with food are very different. When

confronted with good food I find it extremely hard to restrict myself.

It's almost painful. It's truly a test of will...and a battle I feel I

will lose eventually, anyway. I wish I could share your disoveries

into the more elegant features of various foods but I often find

myself simply craving the 'raw' power of certain foods. Maybe it's

simply a question of progression and I hope to achieve something

similar over time.

And yeah, I use green tea bags as I've found no alternative. I figure

a little stevia can't hurt!

Cheers,

-

> > Chris-

> >

> > Half of me is amazed that anyone, let alone anyone here, would

> consider

> > such a hair-brained scheme. The other half of it chalks it up to

> the

> > strong threads of guilt and Puritanism running through this country

> (and,

> > to varying degrees, the rest of the world).

> >

> > >though there are long-living

> > >populations, and calorie restriction would lead to a less enjoyable

> > >life, making the merits of life-lengthening highly questionable.

> @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 10/1/03 3:45:00 PM Eastern Daylight Time,

liberty@... writes:

> Good gods, you people on this list make me alternately angry,

> then hungry! Have you posted your recipe for donuts here

> before Chris? If not, would you please do so?

yes, under a subject of something like " donut report. " It should be in the

archives from somewhere around August, possibly end of July.

Chris

[Guest guest]

Hi

Thanks for sharing your personal experiences. I hope I'll eventually

come that point although I'm extremely skeptical. I get the feeling

you perhaps simply created a psychological aversion to things that are

processed.

Part of the problem is that I don't consider any form of grains or

sugar to be of nutritive value. When I said white bread...I could have

gulped down whole wheat bread as well.

-Zulu

> > Alright, I checked back and the study wasn't exactly too good. What

> > kind of things do you find revolting, exactly (could you

> elaborate)?.

>

> Store-bought cakes and pies I find particularly revolting. Homemade

> versions I do not find revolting, but also have no desire to eat

> either. To the extent it is made with refined ingrediets, I find it

> proportionally less enjoyable in terms of taste and texture.

>

> > Would you eat NT icecream if it were sweetened with stevia, for

> example?

>

> I wouldn't make it with stevia, because I think the taste is

> inferior. I make blueberry ice cream with a little over 1 quart

> heavy cream, 2 cups of wild blueberries, and several tbsp of raw

> honey. There are only about 10 grams of carbs in a half-serving, and

> it is absolutely loaded with nutrients, so I don't consider this an

> unhealthful food in any way.

>

> > There are healthy versions of foods that I find are better (such as

> > natural nut butters) but in most cases I'd still prefer the

> unhealthy alternative it boiled down simply to taste.

>

> I suggest that either a) you've only found poor formulations of

> the " healthy " version, you're idea of " healthy " is rather skewed,

> or c) you still are having problems or simply haven't spent enough

> time eating a healthy diet.

>

> Sometimes whoever comes up with a healthy version of something is

> just better making things healthy than they are making good recipes.

>

> But please, you can't possibly tell me you've had french fries fried

> in free-range organic lard and you prefer the ones fried in

> hydrogenated vegetable oil. It's impossible.

>

> My donuts made with whole grain flour that had been soaked in kefir

> and raw honey overnight to neutralize the phytates and pre-digest

> starches,with no refined sugar (and 30% less total sugar) than the

> recipe called for, fried in free-range organic lard, were absolutely

> delicious, and my grandparents had no idea they were made with

> unrefined ingredients until I told them well after they ate them and

> thought they were fantastic. Sometimes it comes down to recipe and

> skill putting the recipe to work.

>

> You also have to give your brain time to figure out what tastes go

> out with what health benefits; over time you lose your taste for less

> healthy versions of things.

>

> > I wish I could get rid of cravings and know they'd never come back.

> I

> > just tried drinking non sweetened green tea for about a month and I

> > just couldn't get used to it, so I've started adding liquid stevia

> > drops again. And just now I was very tempted by a loaf of white

> bread

> > so I dug into a jar of cashew butter.

>

> Seriously? Have you tried sourdough whole grain breads? The taste

> is so much richer.

>

> Manna Bread (sprouted) is also great tasting-- and wheat free, if you

> buy the rye.

>

> Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 10/1/03 4:09:47 PM Eastern Daylight Time, bwp@...

writes:

> furthermore, i've found that

> CR has INCREASED my enjoyment of life in two ways.

Well, it is clearly a lifestyle choice, which I believe would be less

enjoyable for me, but not necessarily for someone else.

I am lighter and sharper during the day now that I do the WD, so I certainly

agree that CR could lead to this, as I believe it's from being on an empty

stomach.

On the other hand, I've greatly increased my enjoyment of life from weight

lifting, and it would be impossible to gain muscle mass while doing CR, so I'd

rather have the best of both worlds.

I use tea bags for green tea, and do not understand why it would be

sweetened. I do, however, like a half teaspoon of raw honey in my black tea.

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 10/1/03 5:30:25 PM Eastern Daylight Time,

paultheo2000@... writes:

> Maybe I must be way below my set point (I'm not extremely lean or

> anything about 13% bf) then because anything good pretty much makes me

> hungry. Liver included, coconuts, anything.

After eating for how long? Maybe you just need to eat more?

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 10/1/03 5:56:40 PM Eastern Daylight Time,

paultheo2000@... writes:

> Part of the problem is that I don't consider any form of grains or

> sugar to be of nutritive value. When I said white bread...I could have

> gulped down whole wheat bread as well.

Well, that's simply wrong. Grains do have nutritive value, though most whole

wheat bread probably has little of it. But we've been down this path

before-- if you don't consider it worth your time to go to the health food store

and

buy some sprouted whole grain bread, so be it.

All kinds of sugars have nutritive value, which is why we have taste buds for

sweetness! Berries are primarily sugar in terms of macronutrients, and are

some of the most nutritious foods.

So if you want to restrict yourself of a whole category of foods and deprive

a whole subset of your taste buds of any stimulation, without regard to the

quality of foods in that category, then it is no wonder you find dietary choices

frustrating.

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 10/1/03 7:11:31 PM Eastern Daylight Time,

heidis@... writes:

> It could also be your age. Like I said, my brother ate LOTS of food at

> that age and remained skinny. He was always starving. I've heard

> that from moms of many young men. I don't know why that

> should be the case, or where the food GOES, but it seems

> to be endemic. Maybe the Dinka young men drink tons

> of milk ...

A 17 year old male should probably be eating at least 3000 calories a day,

more if he's lifting weights. From what I've seen, CR diets run 1200 -1500,

though I guess it's not strictly defined.

Chris

[Guest guest]

At 02:27 PM 10/1/2003, you wrote:

>Maybe I must be way below my set point (I'm not extremely lean or

>anything about 13% bf) then because anything good pretty much makes me

>hungry. Liver included, coconuts, anything.

>

>-

It could also be your age. Like I said, my brother ate LOTS of food at

that age and remained skinny. He was always starving. I've heard

that from moms of many young men. I don't know why that

should be the case, or where the food GOES, but it seems

to be endemic. Maybe the Dinka young men drink tons

of milk ...

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

>Hi Heidi,

>

>I cook rarely (occasional recipes aside) but I do influence the

>cooking in my house. I eat well 95% of the time. I'm not sure about

>CR, which is my problem. If I was 100% convinced it was the best and

>only way I think I'd muster the pyschological power to do it. But I'm

>not convinced just yet...so I'm torn everytime.

>

>-

At your age, I would follow your instincts, really. Except avoid wheat,

which messes people up (esp. in their late teens and early 20's, and again in

the

early 40's). And sugar. A guys body is undergoing so many changes at that age

that CR is the last thing you want to worry about. Esp. if you are

lifting weights.

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

>Interesting. I don't like the 400lb analogy because nobody ever got

>that big until this century. But I think your point about grazers

>simply being less efficient is a good one; I'll ponder it a bit.

>

>-

Until the invention of preservatives and refrigerators, no one

ate constantly either. I don't think it is a coincidence. They

say even the Sumos are much bigger now than their predecessors.

There is something triggering the 400 lb people -- I think a messed

up appestat coupled with constant stuffing is a great candidate!

If you read historical novels, you will see that people didn't graze.

Or snack. Some cultures had 3 meals a day, some had 2 and a half or 1

big meal and 2 small ones. But it just was not feasible to

eat all day long, nor did people care to. They still don't,

in most of Europe.

The 6 small meals might be required to build those ultra-sized

muscles for body builders, but the idea took off after the

invention of refrigerator bags, microwaves, food bars, and

instant powders.

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

>From what I've seen, CR diets run 1200 -1500,

>though I guess it's not strictly defined.

>

>Chris

It has been defined as eating 70% of what

you would NORMALLY eat. Though I suspect

a lot of people go more extreme than that.

A 1,500 calorie diet for a guy that would

normally be doing 3,000 is a 50% reduction,

and would be pretty extreme! But I can

live just fine on 1,500 calories, and 1,800

is about normal.

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 10/1/03 10:38:21 PM Eastern Daylight Time,

heidis@... writes:

> It has been defined as eating 70% of what

> you would NORMALLY eat. Though I suspect

> a lot of people go more extreme than that.

> A 1,500 calorie diet for a guy that would

> normally be doing 3,000 is a 50% reduction,

> and would be pretty extreme! But I can

> live just fine on 1,500 calories, and 1,800

> is about normal.

Sounds like a fair definition... assuming by " normal " you mean what you

should be eating for maintenance. If it means what you were eating before you

started CR, that's pretty meaningless.

1800 might be normal for adults, especially women, but, as you pointed out,

not for a teenage male.

Even when I went vegetarian, (18-20) I ate *tons* of food, and ate lots of

fat too. I was usually dumping olive oil or something in what I ate, and tofu

has a lot of fat to begin with.

But certainly before that, eating an entire bag of pistachios or tortilla

chips or whatever would be little more than half a snack.

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 10/2/03 3:07:58 AM Eastern Daylight Time, bwp@...

writes:

> of course the range of calorie intakes, CR or otherwise, depends on

>

> voluntary activity, muscle mass, and size. there's a huge range of

> CR intakes, and there are plenty of people well beyond 2000 calories,

> people who exercise a lot and such. at 5'9 " , 132 lbs, i take in

> about 1700/day.

I don't think people realize how much energy exercise burns. Anyone who is

even moderately athletic needs an extra probably 1000 calories a day. I work

out for about an hour and a half, and while I don't know what I'm burning while

I'm lifting weights, my 20 minute cardio warmup exceeds 1000 calories per

hour. And I'm sure the >15 pounds of muscle I've gained are using up calories

while I watch tv too.

Chris

[Guest guest]

Heidi,

In the CR world, there isn't any such definition. 30% restriction

would be considered fairly extreme (for humans--other animals have

been tested on more than 30%), and there's hardly anyone who would go

past 20%. the majority of people do " mild CR " , which is around

10%. within the next few years i'm planning to get to around 15-

20%. i don't think i'd ever go beyond that unless i had extremely

convincing and thorough evidence of its safety. also keep in mind

that the numbers depend on a standard of " normal " or a " set point " ,

which is very hard to pin down, and is generally just a person's

rough estimate based on the general ranges they've experienced in the

past, which is typically skewed by dietary and lifestyle variation.

the difference between an NT diet with a good appestat and a SAD with

a dysfunctional appestat could be a difference of 20 lbs right off

the bat for a lot of people, and similar variation depending on

physical activity. i would put something like a +/-5% precision

disclaimer on anyone's numbers.

of course the range of calorie intakes, CR or otherwise, depends on

voluntary activity, muscle mass, and size. there's a huge range of

CR intakes, and there are plenty of people well beyond 2000 calories,

people who exercise a lot and such. at 5'9 " , 132 lbs, i take in

about 1700/day.

mike parker

>

> >From what I've seen, CR diets run 1200 -1500,

> >though I guess it's not strictly defined.

> >

> >Chris

>

> It has been defined as eating 70% of what

> you would NORMALLY eat. Though I suspect

> a lot of people go more extreme than that.

> A 1,500 calorie diet for a guy that would

> normally be doing 3,000 is a 50% reduction,

> and would be pretty extreme! But I can

> live just fine on 1,500 calories, and 1,800

> is about normal.

>

> -- Heidi

[Guest guest]

I just want to note that it IS possible to gain muscle mass (and

definitely strength) while being calorically restricted as exemplified

by someone like Mel Siff.

-

> In a message dated 10/1/03 4:09:47 PM Eastern Daylight Time, bwp@u...

> writes:

>

> > furthermore, i've found that

> > CR has INCREASED my enjoyment of life in two ways.

>

> Well, it is clearly a lifestyle choice, which I believe would be less

> enjoyable for me, but not necessarily for someone else.

>

> I am lighter and sharper during the day now that I do the WD, so I

certainly

> agree that CR could lead to this, as I believe it's from being on an

empty

> stomach.

>

> On the other hand, I've greatly increased my enjoyment of life from

weight

> lifting, and it would be impossible to gain muscle mass while doing

CR, so I'd

> rather have the best of both worlds.

>

> I use tea bags for green tea, and do not understand why it would be

> sweetened. I do, however, like a half teaspoon of raw honey in my

black tea.

>

> Chris

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Yeah, I have the impression I'm semi calorie restricted which is

causing me to go very hungry at times...

-

> In a message dated 10/1/03 5:30:25 PM Eastern Daylight Time,

> paultheo2000@y... writes:

>

> > Maybe I must be way below my set point (I'm not extremely lean or

> > anything about 13% bf) then because anything good pretty much makes me

> > hungry. Liver included, coconuts, anything.

>

> After eating for how long? Maybe you just need to eat more?

>

> Chris

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Sure grains have nutritive value but their insulinogenic effect may be

far important than whatever benefit they procur. All the talk on

insulin would seem to validate this.

BTW, I really can't go along with your 'we have taste for sweetness

because it's healthy'. That seems like a purely ad hoc supposition.

Face it: we evolved to like sugary tastes because they were usually

non -toxic and provided energy for immediate survival. Evolution does

not care whether the animal in question is healthy past its time of

reproduction.

-

> In a message dated 10/1/03 5:56:40 PM Eastern Daylight Time,

> paultheo2000@y... writes:

>

> > Part of the problem is that I don't consider any form of grains or

> > sugar to be of nutritive value. When I said white bread...I could have

> > gulped down whole wheat bread as well.

>

> Well, that's simply wrong. Grains do have nutritive value, though

most whole

> wheat bread probably has little of it. But we've been down this path

> before-- if you don't consider it worth your time to go to the

health food store and

> buy some sprouted whole grain bread, so be it.

>

> All kinds of sugars have nutritive value, which is why we have taste

buds for

> sweetness! Berries are primarily sugar in terms of macronutrients,

and are

> some of the most nutritious foods.

>

> So if you want to restrict yourself of a whole category of foods and

deprive

> a whole subset of your taste buds of any stimulation, without regard

to the

> quality of foods in that category, then it is no wonder you find

dietary choices

> frustrating.

>

> Chris

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

I get about between 1500-2200 cals a day (varies widly) depending on

the day. I only weigh about 135lbs so 3000 cals would probably lead to

certain obesity.

-

> In a message dated 10/1/03 7:11:31 PM Eastern Daylight Time,

> heidis@t... writes:

>

> > It could also be your age. Like I said, my brother ate LOTS of food at

> > that age and remained skinny. He was always starving. I've heard

> > that from moms of many young men. I don't know why that

> > should be the case, or where the food GOES, but it seems

> > to be endemic. Maybe the Dinka young men drink tons

> > of milk ...

>

> A 17 year old male should probably be eating at least 3000 calories

a day,

> more if he's lifting weights. From what I've seen, CR diets run

1200 -1500,

> though I guess it's not strictly defined.

>

> Chris

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Unless your warm-up consists of intensive sprinting I don't see how

that's possible.

Actually, I've found most the average layman to overestimate the

impact of exercise. They'll toil away for an hour on a treadmill and

burn 400 calories and then eat a 600 calorie whooper.

-

> In a message dated 10/2/03 3:07:58 AM Eastern Daylight Time, bwp@u...

> writes:

>

> > of course the range of calorie intakes, CR or otherwise, depends on

> >

> > voluntary activity, muscle mass, and size. there's a huge range of

> > CR intakes, and there are plenty of people well beyond 2000 calories,

> > people who exercise a lot and such. at 5'9 " , 132 lbs, i take in

> > about 1700/day.

>

> I don't think people realize how much energy exercise burns. Anyone

who is

> even moderately athletic needs an extra probably 1000 calories a

day. I work

> out for about an hour and a half, and while I don't know what I'm

burning while

> I'm lifting weights, my 20 minute cardio warmup exceeds 1000

calories per

> hour. And I'm sure the >15 pounds of muscle I've gained are using

up calories

> while I watch tv too.

>

> Chris

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

paultheo2000 wrote :

<<Evolution does not care whether the animal in question is healthy past its

time of reproduction. >>

the evolution of the human species benefited from having adult females who were

not reproductive [grandmothers] but able to share/help child rearing with

younger females which in turn facilitated agriculture and social advances...

same with older males

Dedy