Re: Re: Calorie Restriction Or Calorie Retention?

[Guest guest]

Hi All,

I would say that it is simply a matter of CR. At

colder temperatures, ad libitum, we eat more. At the

same calorie levels we would need a greater degree of

CR to maintain the same weight. It is not gaining or

losing weight that matters, it is the degree of CR in

different temperature conditions that matter.

Cheers, Al.

--- <truepatriot@...> wrote:

> Might this also be seen as another study favoring

> maintenance of a low body temperature? CRONies

> often experience cold intolerance. Should we just

> learn to deal instead of cranking the heat?

>

> -

>

>

>

> >

> > " ...suggesting that excess calorie retention,

> rather than

> consumption, confers cancer risk. "

> Huffman DM, MS, Watts A, Elgavish A, Eltoum

IA, Nagy TR.

Cancer progression in the transgenic adenocarcinoma

of mouse prostate mouse is related to energy balance,

body mass, and body composition, but not food intake.

Cancer Res. 2007 Jan 1;67(1):417-24. Epub 2006 Dec 21.

PMID: 17185379 http://tinyurl.com/ypvqto

________________________________________________________________________________\

____

Sucker-punch spam with award-winning protection.

Try the free Beta.

http://advision.webevents./mailbeta/features_spam.html

[Guest guest]

The way I read it is that the mice in each group were fed the same

( " similar " ?) amounts but low-temperature mice were healthier than the

high-temperature mice. If it's " calories, calories, calories " , you wouldn't

expect this result - you'd expect nearly identical outcomes. So, to my mind,

this experiment suggests that excess body mass itself (calorie retention)

contributes to risk. It suggests, for example, that exercising to leaness is

as effective as dieting to leaness (regarding prostate cancer risk) - that

isn't what traditional CR is about; Lance Armstrong isn't usually considered

to be on CR (at, say, 9000 cal/d).

Al

> Hi All,

>

> I would say that it is simply a matter of CR. At

> colder temperatures, ad libitum, we eat more. At the

> same calorie levels we would need a greater degree of

> CR to maintain the same weight. It is not gaining or

> losing weight that matters, it is the degree of CR in

> different temperature conditions that matter.

>

> Cheers, Al.

>

> --- <truepatriot@...> wrote:

>

>> Might this also be seen as another study favoring

>> maintenance of a low body temperature? CRONies

>> often experience cold intolerance. Should we just

>> learn to deal instead of cranking the heat?

>>

>> -

>>

>>

>>

>> >

>> > " ...suggesting that excess calorie retention,

>> rather than

>> consumption, confers cancer risk. "

>

>> Huffman DM, MS, Watts A, Elgavish A, Eltoum

> IA, Nagy TR.

> Cancer progression in the transgenic adenocarcinoma

> of mouse prostate mouse is related to energy balance,

> body mass, and body composition, but not food intake.

> Cancer Res. 2007 Jan 1;67(1):417-24. Epub 2006 Dec 21.

>

> PMID: 17185379 http://tinyurl.com/ypvqto

>

>

>

>

>

________________________________________________________________________________\

____

> Sucker-punch spam with award-winning protection.

> Try the free Beta.

> http://advision.webevents./mailbeta/features_spam.html

>

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No virus found in this incoming message.

Checked by AVG Free Edition.

Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.6/709 - Release Date: 3/3/2007

8:12 AM

[Guest guest]

Hi Arturo,

Yeah, I agree, we don't usually think that better health can be achieved at

a higher calorie input vs lower calorie input - that's what makes this

experiment noteworthy.

Al

> Hi Al

> Your comment about Lance Armstrong made me search a little

> about his nutrition. He appears to burn 9000 calories per day

> when training and consumes tons of Power Bars and sports

> drinks, many of which are high in HFCS. A part of me makes

> me wonder that despite that his exercise makes him lean,

> the amount of fuel passing through his body, and the type

> of fuel could contribute to cancer, which he has battled.

>

>

http://www.athleteinme.com/tabid/37/id/1c81b4e2-603c-4c18-ab74-cbf05a57304f/Defa\

ult.aspx

>

> Cheers

> Arturo

>

> Re: Calorie Restriction Or Calorie " Retention " ?

> Posted by: " Al Young " acyoung@... al_young88

> Sat Mar 3, 2007 11:31 am (PST)

>

> <snip> So, to my mind, this experiment suggests that excess body mass

> itself (calorie retention) contributes to risk. It suggests, for example,

> that

> exercising to leaness is as effective as dieting to leaness (regarding

> prostate cancer risk) - that isn't what traditional CR is about;

> Lance Armstrong isn't usually considered to be on CR (at, say, 9000

> cal/d).

>

>

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No virus found in this incoming message.

Checked by AVG Free Edition.

Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.6/709 - Release Date: 3/3/2007

8:12 AM

[Guest guest]

I think you would have to consider Lance Armstrong a heavy outlier data

point as well. There are not too many humans who approach that level of

training, fitness, caloric consumption and expenditure.

I think we've discussed before on the group about the general lower life

expectancies of athletes. Walford discusses and I believe there is a point

at which too much exercise is too much, eg, the stress of it on the body

outweighs its benefits. To paraphrase the ancient Greeks and Ben lin,

" Moderation, in all things moderation! "

> Lance Armstrong is certainly not alone in terms of elite athletes=20

> consuming and burning such a huge number of calories, so are you=20

> proposing that they are all at elevated risk of cancer? Lance=20

> Armstrong is just one data point, after all. Is there any evidence=20

> that cancer incidence is higher among such athletes in general?

>

> -Dave

>

>

> >

> > Hi Al

> > Your comment about Lance Armstrong made me search a little=20

> > about his nutrition. He appears to burn 9000 calories per day=20

> > when training and consumes tons of Power Bars and sports=20

> > drinks, many of which are high in HFCS. A part of me makes=20

> > me wonder that despite that his exercise makes him lean,=20

> > the amount of fuel passing through his body, and the type=20

> > of fuel could contribute to cancer, which he has battled.=20

> >=20

> > http://www.athleteinme.com/tabid/37/id/1c81b4e2-603c-4c18-ab74-

> cbf05a57304f/Default.aspx

> >=20

> > Cheers

> > Arturo

> >=20

> > Re: Calorie Restriction Or Calorie " Retention " ?=20

> > Posted by: " Al Young " acyoung@... al_young88=20

> > Sat Mar 3, 2007 11:31 am (PST)=20

> >=20

> > <snip> So, to my mind, this experiment suggests that excess body=20

> mass

> > itself (calorie retention) contributes to risk. It suggests, for=20

> example, that

> > exercising to leaness is as effective as dieting to leaness=20

> (regarding=20

> > prostate cancer risk) - that isn't what traditional CR is about;=20

> > Lance Armstrong isn't usually considered to be on CR (at, say, 9000=20

> cal/d).

> >

>

>

>

Jewell, Ph.D.

Campus Mass Spectrometry Facilities

UC

cmsf.ucdavis.edu

[Guest guest]

Sunday, March 04, 2007, 3:49:33 PM, you wrote:

[snipped throughout]

c> Consider this: 1) Intermittent Fasting (IF) [snipped througho was

c> shown by Mattson to have the benefits of CR, and

c> The body mass of mice on IF is almost twice that of mice on CR, but

c> the body composition stays at the lean level.

Hi. The problem I'd reflexively anticipate with IF is a change in body

composition: storing fat on big-eating days, and sacrificing protein

to be used as fuel on fasting days. (The same would presumably hold

true for eating one big meal per day.) So you'd presumably exchange

fat for muscle over time.

If my concern is wrong, then can you suggest what mechanism(s) would

be responsible? How can IF get the same result as sparse grazing? Are

you practicing this yourself and found you have enhanced or maintained

your own leanness? Would a couch potato on IF get dramatically

different results than an exerciser on IF?

c> IMO, whatever happens in our body during periods of starvation is

c> probably as important for longevity as body composition.

....especially since periods of starvation were very natural

occurrences during the time when our biochemical systems were being

formed in past ages.

[Guest guest]

At 03:36 PM 3/6/2007, you wrote:

>Sunday, March 04, 2007, 3:49:33 PM, you wrote:

>

>[snipped throughout]

>

>c> Consider this: 1) Intermittent Fasting (IF) [snipped througho was

>c> shown by Mattson to have the benefits of CR, and

>

>c> The body mass of mice on IF is almost twice that of mice on CR, but

>c> the body composition stays at the lean level.

>

>Hi. The problem I'd reflexively anticipate with IF is a change in body

>composition: storing fat on big-eating days, and sacrificing protein

>to be used as fuel on fasting days. (The same would presumably hold

>true for eating one big meal per day.) So you'd presumably exchange

>fat for muscle over time.

In fact, perhaps counterintuitively, the opposite is the case: IF produces

a greater retention of lean body mass (and bone integrity) than CR alone at

the same level. Go figure.

>If my concern is wrong, then can you suggest what mechanism(s) would

>be responsible? How can IF get the same result as sparse grazing?

How can it get a superior result, yes.

>Are

>you practicing this yourself and found you have enhanced or maintained

>your own leanness? Would a couch potato on IF get dramatically

>different results than an exerciser on IF?

Dunno.

>c> IMO, whatever happens in our body during periods of starvation is

>c> probably as important for longevity as body composition.

>

>...especially since periods of starvation were very natural

>occurrences during the time when our biochemical systems were being

>formed in past ages.

Yes.

Maco