Re: Need Advice on Stabilizing Weight

[Guest guest]

Hi Jeffp:

Realize that raising (or dropping) your caloric intake, from a weight-

stable equilibrium level, by 100 calories per day, will eventually

result in a new equilibrium weight that is - very approximately -

fifteen pounds higher (lower) than the previous weight.

In other words, a shift of 100 calories a day is quite a substantial

amount.

Rodney.

--- In , " jeffp54252 " <jeffp54252@...>

wrote:

>

> I would appreciate any advice on the best way to gain a few pounds

> when you feel you have gone too far with your weight loss and want

to

> get back to a slightly higher BMI. I know. The obvious answer is eat

> more, right? But how much more? I am a moderately active (lift

weights

> three days a week and walk the other days) 6'1 " 44 year-old male

> whose BMI dropped to 18.1 when I was eating 1900-2000 calories a

day.

> I realized that I had gone too low for me and decided I wanted to

get

> back to a BMI around 19 (about 144 lbs.)and stay there.

>

> I started eating 2200 calories a day and after a month of doing

this I

> actually look like I have gained some weight. Specifically, I look

> like I have added some muscle. However, the scale at my

> gym seems to fluxuate a lot and has had me anywhere from 142 lbs. to

> back down to 137 just within the past few days. I know that weight

> naturally fluxuate throughout the day but still seeing some weights

> that I find too low is making me feel like I don't really have a

> handle on things yet. So now I am wondering if I may need to add

more

> calories, and if so how many? I went up to 2,300 today (12.7% CR

> according to Tony's calculator) and may need to keep my daily

calorie

> there for a while. Or do I need to just give up CR for now and focus

> on getting to what I believe is my optimal CR weight and maintaining

> that at whatever calorie level it takes? My other option, of course,

> is to cut back to a lighter level of exercise. However, I really

don't

> want to do that if I can avoid it. At the same time, I recognize

that

> the exercise is increasing my daily calorie needs and balancing all

> this seems pretty darn tricky.

>

> I have had great success with the health benefits of CR to date but

I

> sometimes worry that I won't be able to keep to a low enough calorie

> level long-term to continue getting the CR benefits without having

to

> always worry about being too thin. Then again, I will probably find

> out soon enough that my metabolism will slow down with age! Any and

> all advice is appreciated. Thanks!

>

> Jeff

>

[Guest guest]

Hi Rodney,

Thanks for your reply. My thinking was that I would cut back some

again after getting to my target weight around 144 pounds. However, I

am now thinking that maybe it would be better just to get there using

the number of calories that will maintain the weight I want once I

reach it. The 15 calories/pound formula seems to work pretty well for

me so I estimate that would be about 2160 calorie per day- a little

below the 2200 calories I was eating for the past month, which seems

to have resulted in a 2 lb. gain. or so. In reality, I am probably

about 3 - 5 pounds below the 19.0 BMI I want to reach so maybe I

should just stay at 2200, chill, and let nature take its course.

Moral of the story: it is better to err on the side of caution and

not go too low to begin with rather than to have to try and gain back

a few pounds later.

On another note: I really would have expected that my metabolism

would slow down some after a gradual weight loss of more than 45

pounds and doing CR (not to mention the fact that I am almost 45

years-old). This does not seem to be the case. I am puzzled whenever

I read about men in my height and age group (or even younger) who

stay around a 19 BMI on 1800-2000 calores. Without being almost

completely sedentary, I don't think I could manage that. I am

starting to think I would have to do extreme CR to see any noticeable

effect on my metabolism at all but extreme CR is definitely not my

goal. Do others doing moderate CR find it has slowed their metabolism

much? Since the maximum CR benefits seem related to a slower

metabolism, I am wondering if I am predestined by genetics or

whatever

to miss out on them. I sure hope that is not the case. Thoughts,

anyone?

Jeff

> >

> > I would appreciate any advice on the best way to gain a few pounds

> > when you feel you have gone too far with your weight loss and

want

> to

> > get back to a slightly higher BMI. I know. The obvious answer is

eat

> > more, right? But how much more? I am a moderately active (lift

> weights

> > three days a week and walk the other days) 6'1 " 44 year-old male

> > whose BMI dropped to 18.1 when I was eating 1900-2000 calories a

> day.

> > I realized that I had gone too low for me and decided I wanted to

> get

> > back to a BMI around 19 (about 144 lbs.)and stay there.

> >

> > I started eating 2200 calories a day and after a month of doing

> this I

> > actually look like I have gained some weight. Specifically, I look

> > like I have added some muscle. However, the scale at my

> > gym seems to fluxuate a lot and has had me anywhere from 142 lbs.

to

> > back down to 137 just within the past few days. I know that weight

> > naturally fluxuate throughout the day but still seeing some

weights

> > that I find too low is making me feel like I don't really have a

> > handle on things yet. So now I am wondering if I may need to add

> more

> > calories, and if so how many? I went up to 2,300 today (12.7% CR

> > according to Tony's calculator) and may need to keep my daily

> calorie

> > there for a while. Or do I need to just give up CR for now and

focus

> > on getting to what I believe is my optimal CR weight and

maintaining

> > that at whatever calorie level it takes? My other option, of

course,

> > is to cut back to a lighter level of exercise. However, I really

> don't

> > want to do that if I can avoid it. At the same time, I recognize

> that

> > the exercise is increasing my daily calorie needs and balancing

all

> > this seems pretty darn tricky.

> >

> > I have had great success with the health benefits of CR to date

but

> I

> > sometimes worry that I won't be able to keep to a low enough

calorie

> > level long-term to continue getting the CR benefits without

having

> to

> > always worry about being too thin. Then again, I will probably

find

> > out soon enough that my metabolism will slow down with age! Any

and

> > all advice is appreciated. Thanks!

> >

> > Jeff

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Hi Jeff,I have a similar problem. At age 60 with a BMI of around 19.4, I find that I have to keep my caloric intake at around 2230 (per day) to keep from losing more weight. I have cut my cycling by 2/3 as well as cut my weight training to a bare minimum but apparently I'm still doing too much activity to reduce my caloric expenditure to lower levels. Like you, I'd have to be almost sedentary to get to the 1800 cal/day levels.Best regards,TomDo others doing moderate CR find it has slowed their metabolism much? Since the maximum CR benefits seem related to a slower metabolism, I am wondering if I am predestined by genetics or whatever to miss out on them. I sure hope that is not the case. Thoughts, anyone?

[Guest guest]

Hi folks:

Remember Warren 's post here several years ago to the effect

that: " Among the life-extended CR mice, the ones that lived the

absolute longest were those with the highest body fat. " They were

all fed identically of course.

The question is: " What can we do to effectively implement what the

mice were up to in our own lives? "

Any ideas?

Rodney.

--- In , <tomrscott@...>

wrote:

>

> Hi Jeff,

>

> I have a similar problem. At age 60 with a BMI of around 19.4, I

find

> that I have to keep my caloric intake at around 2230 (per day) to

> keep from losing more weight. I have cut my cycling by 2/3 as well

as

> cut my weight training to a bare minimum but apparently I'm still

> doing too much activity to reduce my caloric expenditure to lower

> levels. Like you, I'd have to be almost sedentary to get to the

1800

> cal/day levels.

>

> Best regards,

> Tom

>

>

>

> > Do others doing moderate CR find it has slowed their metabolism

> > much? Since the maximum CR benefits seem related to a slower

> > metabolism, I am wondering if I am predestined by genetics or

> > whatever

> > to miss out on them. I sure hope that is not the case. Thoughts,

> > anyone?

>

[Guest guest]

so the question is how do we LOSE lean muscle while retaining fat?

that's where i want to be

> >

> > Hi Jeff,

> >

> > I have a similar problem. At age 60 with a BMI of around 19.4, I

> find

> > that I have to keep my caloric intake at around 2230 (per day) to

> > keep from losing more weight. I have cut my cycling by 2/3 as well

> as

> > cut my weight training to a bare minimum but apparently I'm still

> > doing too much activity to reduce my caloric expenditure to lower

> > levels. Like you, I'd have to be almost sedentary to get to the

> 1800

> > cal/day levels.

> >

> > Best regards,

> > Tom

> >

> >

> >

> > > Do others doing moderate CR find it has slowed their metabolism

> > > much? Since the maximum CR benefits seem related to a slower

> > > metabolism, I am wondering if I am predestined by genetics or

> > > whatever

> > > to miss out on them. I sure hope that is not the case. Thoughts,

> > > anyone?

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Hi Bill:

I don't know what the implication is. But what you suggest is only

one possibility.

It could be - and it would certainly not be illogical - that the

absolutely longest surviving CR mice were those which had the lowest

energy expenditure (through some, or perhaps many, of the possible

mechanisms by which that might come about). So they may have had

both greater body fat AND greater lean mass also.

If anyone can locate the reference to that - Warren, are you there

hiding behind the curtain? ;; ^ ))) - it would be very helpful.

This is a stone under which there may be lurking some important

information. Or, of course, may not be.

Rodney.

> > >

> > > Hi Jeff,

> > >

> > > I have a similar problem. At age 60 with a BMI of around 19.4,

I

> > find

> > > that I have to keep my caloric intake at around 2230 (per day)

to

> > > keep from losing more weight. I have cut my cycling by 2/3 as

well

> > as

> > > cut my weight training to a bare minimum but apparently I'm

still

> > > doing too much activity to reduce my caloric expenditure to

lower

> > > levels. Like you, I'd have to be almost sedentary to get to the

> > 1800

> > > cal/day levels.

> > >

> > > Best regards,

> > > Tom

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > > Do others doing moderate CR find it has slowed their

metabolism

> > > > much? Since the maximum CR benefits seem related to a slower

> > > > metabolism, I am wondering if I am predestined by genetics or

> > > > whatever

> > > > to miss out on them. I sure hope that is not the case.

Thoughts,

> > > > anyone?

> > >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Hi folks:

Here is Warren's post - #12884 - about body fat levels in CR. Is

there reason to believe this information is incorrect? If you think

so please post. (Although it is acknowledged that it does now seem

likely that there are certain specific types of calories that it may

be more important to restrict than others.)

Here is the post:

" RE: [ ] Re: Popular Misconceptions about CR Lifestyle

The study mentioned below was performed on genetically modified

mice.

The increased longevity was created by the genetic modification,

and not by any other means. This study has been extensively

discussed in other forums, with the conclusion that the statement

quoted below must be modified by the words, " an effect observed

in genetic knockout mice " .

In true CR experiments on normal mice, it is *increased fat mass*

at isocaloric levels that correlates with increased lifespan.

You want to be as fat as possible on as few calories as possible

for maximum lifespan.

Since exercise (especially lots of exercise) causes you to lose fat,

and also causes you to increase your calorie intake, getting lots

of exercise is a poor CR investment.

This is a counter-intuitive surprise proven in the lab -- and a

frequent source of consternation to CR followers. It seems to be

a never-ending source of discussion, where people rub their eyes

in disbelief until they read the research results which all state

the same inevitable conclusion over and over again:

It is calories, calories, calories ...

-- Warren "

Rodney.

> > >

> > > Hi folks:

> > >

> > > Remember Warren 's post here several years ago to the

> effect

> > > that: " Among the life-extended CR mice, the ones that lived

the

> > > absolute longest were those with the highest body fat. " They

> were

> > > all fed identically of course.

> > >

> > > The question is: " What can we do to effectively implement what

> the

> > > mice were up to in our own lives? "

> > >

> > > Any ideas?

> > >

> > > Rodney.

[Guest guest]

I could be wrong but isn't it the mice who are genetically obese who benefit most from CR? IIRC it was the obese/obese mice who lived the longest . I searched in BY120YD and couldn't find the passage but I could swear it's in there somewhere.

> From: Rodney <perspect1111@...>

> Reply-< >

> Date: Sat, 02 Jun 2007 13:13:12 -0000

> < >

> Subject: [ ] Re: Need Advice on Stabilizing Weight

>

> Hi folks:

>

> Here is Warren's post - #12884 - about body fat levels in CR. Is

> there reason to believe this information is incorrect? If you think

> so please post. (Although it is acknowledged that it does now seem

> likely that there are certain specific types of calories that it may

> be more important to restrict than others.)

>

[Guest guest]

that was followed by 's post containing

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve & db=pubmed & dopt=Abstract & list_uids=12543978:

those were modified mice.

I don't think Warren agrees with that philosophy applied to CR.

But it has nothing to do with a person keeping the fat he can't get off, eg.

And it has nothing to do with losing weight where fat is the biggest component down to a "nominal" level.

It might mean those that can maintain a 30% fat mass in spite of lowered intake are healthier/live longer.

If we can quit thinking that obese people are all necessarily unhealthy it would go a long way to understand why there are really big people alive at 96yo.

Recall the CVD risk of a 70yo at BMI 27 is not that bad ~13%.

The healthiest old person in my wife's family is 90 and he's obese and healthier than the 80 yos.

Comparing him to my bro, eg, he'll live to 106.

Some people don't get CVD, until late in life.

The studies mix healthy people with the unhealthy.

Regards.

[ ] Re: Need Advice on Stabilizing Weight

Hi folks:Here is Warren's post - #12884 - about body fat levels in CR. Is there reason to believe this information is incorrect? If you think so please post. (Although it is acknowledged that it does now seem likely that there are certain specific types of calories that it may be more important to restrict than others.)Here is the post:"RE: [ ] Re: Popular Misconceptions about CR Lifestyle The study mentioned below was performed on genetically modifiedmice.The increased longevity was created by the genetic modification,and not by any other means. This study has been extensivelydiscussed in other forums, with the conclusion that the statementquoted below must be modified by the words, "an effect observedin genetic knockout mice".In true CR experiments on normal mice, it is *increased fat mass*at isocaloric levels that correlates with increased lifespan.You want to be as fat as possible on as few calories as possiblefor maximum lifespan.Since exercise (especially lots of exercise) causes you to lose fat,and also causes you to increase your calorie intake, getting lotsof exercise is a poor CR investment.This is a counter-intuitive surprise proven in the lab -- and afrequent source of consternation to CR followers. It seems to bea never-ending source of discussion, where people rub their eyesin disbelief until they read the research results which all statethe same inevitable conclusion over and over again:It is calories, calories, calories ...-- Warren"Rodney.> > >> > > Hi folks:> > > > > > Remember Warren 's post here several years ago to the > effect > > > that: "Among the life-extended CR mice, the ones that lived the > > > absolute longest were those with the highest body fat." They > were > > > all fed identically of course.> > > > > > The question is: "What can we do to effectively implement what > the > > > mice were up to in our own lives?"> > > > > > Any ideas? > > > > > > Rodney.

[Guest guest]

Hi folks:

Well it seems to me the key passage in that post of Warren's, about

which we need to know the accuracy, was the following:

" In true CR experiments on normal mice, it is *increased fat mass*

at isocaloric levels that correlates with increased lifespan. You

want to be as fat as possible on as few calories as possible for

maximum lifespan. "

So he is saying that in CR experiments with **normal** mice, they

need to be **as fat as possible** while consuming **as few calories

as possible**. This certainly is not ambiguous. But what is the

evidence supporting it?

And what is going on that enables these very long lived mice to build

greater fat reserves? Are they:

1. Sitting around their cages all day watching mouse soaps, and

storing the calories their pals are expending on exercise?

2. Running at a lower metabolic rate than the other CR rats,

presumably demonstrated by much lower body temperature?

3. Imbued with a superior intestine that enables them to absorb more

from the food they eat? ....... both calories, explaining their

higher body fat; and important nutrients, perhaps explaining their

superior longevity.

4. Doing photosynthesis when they sit out in the sun, or in front of

a light bulb? ;; ^ )))

5. Violating the laws of thermodynamics and creating energy out of

nowhere to store as extra fat?

So there are three issues, it seems to me:

A. Is it correct that the longest-living, normal, isocaloric, CR

rats have greater fat reserves?

B. If it is correct, what is the mechanism by which they achieve

this?

C. Could/should humans on CR try to do the same?

Rodney.

> > > >

> > > > Hi folks:

> > > >

> > > > Remember Warren 's post here several years ago to the

> > effect

> > > > that: " Among the life-extended CR mice, the ones that lived

> the

> > > > absolute longest were those with the highest body fat. "

They

> > were

> > > > all fed identically of course.

> > > >

> > > > The question is: " What can we do to effectively implement

what

> > the

> > > > mice were up to in our own lives? "

> > > >

> > > > Any ideas?

> > > >

> > > > Rodney.

>

[Guest guest]

I'm trying to decide if the findings below contradict the *human*

study posted about a week ago concerning exercise producing

rejuvenation at the *cellular* level (i.e. 'younger' cells)?

> > > >

> > > > Hi folks:

> > > >

> > > > Remember Warren 's post here several years ago to the

> > effect

> > > > that: " Among the life-extended CR mice, the ones that lived

> the

> > > > absolute longest were those with the highest body fat. " They

> > were

> > > > all fed identically of course.

> > > >

> > > > The question is: " What can we do to effectively implement

what

> > the

> > > > mice were up to in our own lives? "

> > > >

> > > > Any ideas?

> > > >

> > > > Rodney.

>