Re: Calorie restriction and body size

[Guest guest]

Is there any known table of BMR adjustment to correspond to a lower body

temperature?

Or should one just consider a lower temperature to be a result of caloric

restriction and not a factor in determining the underlying basis (BMR X

Activity Factor) against which the restriction is measured?

Thanks, knowledgeable ones.

Maco

At 12:52 PM 6/16/2008, you wrote:

For some time, I have been

reading posts in the Calorie Restriction

Society about people who start losing bone mass with severe CR. As

practitioners of Calorie Restriction, we need to be able to

determine

how much CR is good, and how much can be harmful.

Yesterday, I made an entry in my blog with a graphic showing the

relative sizes of humans if they were raised on calorie restricted

diets like the mice. My blog entry has a link to a paper by Mattson.

I highly recommend looking at Figure 1 of the Mattson paper in

detail. It shows how 40% CR prevents the restricted mice from

gaining

weight so that at maturity they weigh only half as much as the

controls. In human terms, a 150 pound adult control, would be

matched

with a 75 pound individual raised on 40%CR.

http://www.scientificpsychic.com/blog/

I am becoming more convinced that exceeding 15% CR started in

adulthood may be more harmful than beneficial. PMID 15345727, below,

seems to confirm this view.

It is important to be able to determine %CR accurately. The new book

" The CR Way " by P. McGlothin, uses a way of estimating %CR

by

referencing the average consumption levels determined by the

Institute

of Medicine. This is a similar, but less customized approach, than

used by my CR calculator:

http://www.scientificpsychic.com/health/cron1.html

Tony

Willcox BJ, Yano K, Chen R, Willcox DC, BL, Masaki KH,

Donlon T, Tanaka B, Curb JD., How much should we eat? The

association

between energy intake and mortality in a 36-year follow-up study of

Japanese-American men, J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci., 2004

Aug;59(8):789-95.

Energy restriction extends life span and lowers mortality from

age-related diseases in many species, but the effects in humans are

unknown. We prospectively examined this relationship in a large

epidemiological study of Japanese-American men. We followed 1915

healthy nonsmokers, aged 45-68 years at study onset, for 36 years.

Twenty-four-hour recall of diet was recorded at baseline, and

follow-up was for all-cause mortality. After adjustment for age and

other confounders, there was a trend toward lower mortality in the

second quintile of energy intake, suggesting that men who consumed

15%

below the group mean were at the lowest risk for all-cause

mortality.

Increased mortality was seen with intakes below 50% of group mean.

Thus, we observed trends between low energy intake and reduced risk

for all-cause mortality in humans until energy intake fell to less

than half the group mean, consistent with previous findings in other

species.

PMID: 15345727

Maco

acting Chief of Staff, Office of the Chief Information Officer

Los Alamos National Laboratory

505-665-5175

505-664-8410 pager

[Guest guest]

Tony: you are preaching to the already converted. Here at the CR Support Group, I am happy to say, that we have been advocating moderation since day one.

In fact one of the several differences between us and CR Society is that very point. See our file on “Moderate vs Severe CR” under the folder “CRON Science”.

From: citpeks <citpeks@...>

Reply-< >

Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2008 18:52:53 -0000

< >

Subject: [ ] Calorie restriction and body size

For some time, I have been reading posts in the Calorie Restriction

Society about people who start losing bone mass with severe CR. As

practitioners of Calorie Restriction, we need to be able to determine

how much CR is good, and how much can be harmful.

Yesterday, I made an entry in my blog with a graphic showing the

relative sizes of humans if they were raised on calorie restricted

diets like the mice. My blog entry has a link to a paper by Mattson.

I highly recommend looking at Figure 1 of the Mattson paper in

detail. It shows how 40% CR prevents the restricted mice from gaining

weight so that at maturity they weigh only half as much as the

controls. In human terms, a 150 pound adult control, would be matched

with a 75 pound individual raised on 40%CR.

http://www.scientificpsychic.com/blog/

I am becoming more convinced that exceeding 15% CR started in

adulthood may be more harmful than beneficial. PMID 15345727, below,

seems to confirm this view.

It is important to be able to determine %CR accurately. The new book

" The CR Way " by P. McGlothin, uses a way of estimating %CR by

referencing the average consumption levels determined by the Institute

of Medicine. This is a similar, but less customized approach, than

used by my CR calculator:

http://www.scientificpsychic.com/health/cron1.html

Tony

Willcox BJ, Yano K, Chen R, Willcox DC, BL, Masaki KH,

Donlon T, Tanaka B, Curb JD., How much should we eat? The association

between energy intake and mortality in a 36-year follow-up study of

Japanese-American men, J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci., 2004

Aug;59(8):789-95.

Energy restriction extends life span and lowers mortality from

age-related diseases in many species, but the effects in humans are

unknown. We prospectively examined this relationship in a large

epidemiological study of Japanese-American men. We followed 1915

healthy nonsmokers, aged 45-68 years at study onset, for 36 years.

Twenty-four-hour recall of diet was recorded at baseline, and

follow-up was for all-cause mortality. After adjustment for age and

other confounders, there was a trend toward lower mortality in the

second quintile of energy intake, suggesting that men who consumed 15%

below the group mean were at the lowest risk for all-cause mortality.

Increased mortality was seen with intakes below 50% of group mean.

Thus, we observed trends between low energy intake and reduced risk

for all-cause mortality in humans until energy intake fell to less

than half the group mean, consistent with previous findings in other

species.

PMID: 15345727

[Guest guest]

Hi folks:

Maybe we need to put together some suggested 'indicators' for guidance regarding where we suspect the threshold may lie between what is considered appropriate CR and excessive CR?

Perhaps including BMI, waist/hip, waist/height, body fat percentage, perhaps even sensitive measures of adherence to CRON like fasting insulin and C-reactive protein? And others no doubt too. Possibly caloric intake per inch of height, or something like it, might be another?

Then a member will be able to review his data compared with the suggested thresholds and come to a view about where he stands based on an overall assessment of many indicators.

Clearly there would have to be separate criteria for males and females.

Thoughts?

Rodney.>> Tony: you are preaching to the already converted. Here at the CR Support> Group, I am happy to say, that we have been advocating moderation since day> one.> > In fact one of the several differences between us and CR Society is that> very point. See our file on ³Moderate vs Severe CR² under the folder ³CRON> Science².> > > > > From: citpeks citpeks@...> Reply- > Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2008 18:52:53 -0000> > Subject: [ ] Calorie restriction and body size> > > > > For some time, I have been reading posts in the Calorie Restriction> Society about people who start losing bone mass with severe CR. As> practitioners of Calorie Restriction, we need to be able to determine> how much CR is good, and how much can be harmful.> > Yesterday, I made an entry in my blog with a graphic showing the> relative sizes of humans if they were raised on calorie restricted> diets like the mice. My blog entry has a link to a paper by Mattson.> I highly recommend looking at Figure 1 of the Mattson paper in> detail. It shows how 40% CR prevents the restricted mice from gaining> weight so that at maturity they weigh only half as much as the> controls. In human terms, a 150 pound adult control, would be matched> with a 75 pound individual raised on 40%CR.> > http://www.scientificpsychic.com/blog/> > I am becoming more convinced that exceeding 15% CR started in> adulthood may be more harmful than beneficial. PMID 15345727, below,> seems to confirm this view.> > It is important to be able to determine %CR accurately. The new book> "The CR Way" by P. McGlothin, uses a way of estimating %CR by> referencing the average consumption levels determined by the Institute> of Medicine. This is a similar, but less customized approach, than> used by my CR calculator:> http://www.scientificpsychic.com/health/cron1.html> > Tony> > Willcox BJ, Yano K, Chen R, Willcox DC, BL, Masaki KH,> Donlon T, Tanaka B, Curb JD., How much should we eat? The association> between energy intake and mortality in a 36-year follow-up study of> Japanese-American men, J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci., 2004> Aug;59(8):789-95. > Energy restriction extends life span and lowers mortality from> age-related diseases in many species, but the effects in humans are> unknown. We prospectively examined this relationship in a large> epidemiological study of Japanese-American men. We followed 1915> healthy nonsmokers, aged 45-68 years at study onset, for 36 years.> Twenty-four-hour recall of diet was recorded at baseline, and> follow-up was for all-cause mortality. After adjustment for age and> other confounders, there was a trend toward lower mortality in the> second quintile of energy intake, suggesting that men who consumed 15%> below the group mean were at the lowest risk for all-cause mortality.> Increased mortality was seen with intakes below 50% of group mean.> Thus, we observed trends between low energy intake and reduced risk> for all-cause mortality in humans until energy intake fell to less> than half the group mean, consistent with previous findings in other> species. > > PMID: 15345727>

[Guest guest]

As they say about pornography: “I can’t define it but I know it when I see it”. Or: If it walks like a duck.......

When I was a member of the CR Society (I resigned shortly after starting this group in 2000), there was an almost “anorexic” air of “the thinner the better”. This in spite of osteoporosis, concentration camp bodies, several members always catching the flu, anemia, loss of libidio etc. etc etc. being posted on and off. There was also a lot of “mental” unhealthy stuff like many weeks of talking about taking bites of fattening foods, swishing it around in their mouths and spitting it out (pre- bulimia anyone?).

I would say let it pass the “smell” test. Is your BMI in the healthy range (18.5 –22ish)? Do you have a nice low WBC? How’s your BP, cholesterol, and the other tests mentioned in “Beyond?” Are you getting sick often or has your health improved?

Pre-cron I used to get sick several times a year: colds, stomach flu, the usual. Since CR (knock wood) a rarity. When I do get sick, it’s mild and over fast.

Isn’t that the best test of all? :-)

From: Rodney <perspect1111@...>

Reply-< >

Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2008 21:00:13 -0000

< >

Subject: [ ] Re: Calorie restriction and body size

Hi folks:

Maybe we need to put together some suggested 'indicators' for guidance regarding where we suspect the threshold may lie between what is considered appropriate CR and excessive CR?

Perhaps including BMI, waist/hip, waist/height, body fat percentage, perhaps even sensitive measures of adherence to CRON like fasting insulin and C-reactive protein? And others no doubt too. Possibly caloric intake per inch of height, or something like it, might be another?

Then a member will be able to review his data compared with the suggested thresholds and come to a view about where he stands based on an overall assessment of many indicators.

Clearly there would have to be separate criteria for males and females.

Thoughts?

Rodney.

>

> Tony: you are preaching to the already converted. Here at the CR Support

> Group, I am happy to say, that we have been advocating moderation since day

> one.

>

> In fact one of the several differences between us and CR Society is that

> very point. See our file on “Moderate vs Severe CR” under the folder “CRON

> Science”.

>

>

>

>

> From: citpeks citpeks@...

> Reply-

> Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2008 18:52:53 -0000

>

> Subject: [ ] Calorie restriction and body size

>

>

>

>

> For some time, I have been reading posts in the Calorie Restriction

> Society about people who start losing bone mass with severe CR. As

> practitioners of Calorie Restriction, we need to be able to determine

> how much CR is good, and how much can be harmful.

>

> Yesterday, I made an entry in my blog with a graphic showing the

> relative sizes of humans if they were raised on calorie restricted

> diets like the mice. My blog entry has a link to a paper by Mattson.

> I highly recommend looking at Figure 1 of the Mattson paper in

> detail. It shows how 40% CR prevents the restricted mice from gaining

> weight so that at maturity they weigh only half as much as the

> controls. In human terms, a 150 pound adult control, would be matched

> with a 75 pound individual raised on 40%CR.

>

> http://www.scientificpsychic.com/blog/

>

> I am becoming more convinced that exceeding 15% CR started in

> adulthood may be more harmful than beneficial. PMID 15345727, below,

> seems to confirm this view.

>

> It is important to be able to determine %CR accurately. The new book

> " The CR Way " by P. McGlothin, uses a way of estimating %CR by

> referencing the average consumption levels determined by the Institute

> of Medicine. This is a similar, but less customized approach, than

> used by my CR calculator:

> http://www.scientificpsychic.com/health/cron1.html

>

> Tony

>

> Willcox BJ, Yano K, Chen R, Willcox DC, BL, Masaki KH,

> Donlon T, Tanaka B, Curb JD., How much should we eat? The association

> between energy intake and mortality in a 36-year follow-up study of

> Japanese-American men, J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci., 2004

> Aug;59(8):789-95.

> Energy restriction extends life span and lowers mortality from

> age-related diseases in many species, but the effects in humans are

> unknown. We prospectively examined this relationship in a large

> epidemiological study of Japanese-American men. We followed 1915

> healthy nonsmokers, aged 45-68 years at study onset, for 36 years.

> Twenty-four-hour recall of diet was recorded at baseline, and

> follow-up was for all-cause mortality. After adjustment for age and

> other confounders, there was a trend toward lower mortality in the

> second quintile of energy intake, suggesting that men who consumed 15%

> below the group mean were at the lowest risk for all-cause mortality.

> Increased mortality was seen with intakes below 50% of group mean.

> Thus, we observed trends between low energy intake and reduced risk

> for all-cause mortality in humans until energy intake fell to less

> than half the group mean, consistent with previous findings in other

> species.

>

> PMID: 15345727

>

[Guest guest]

Hi Francesca:

I think you should put this post of yours in the 'Moderate and Extreme CRON' section of the files.

Rodney.

> >> > Tony: you are preaching to the already converted. Here at the CR Support> > Group, I am happy to say, that we have been advocating moderation since day> > one.> > > > In fact one of the several differences between us and CR Society is that> > very point. See our file on ³Moderate vs Severe CR² under the folder ³CRON> > Science².> > > > > > > > > > From: citpeks citpeks@> > Reply- > > Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2008 18:52:53 -0000> > > > Subject: [ ] Calorie restriction and body size> > > > > > > > > > For some time, I have been reading posts in the Calorie Restriction> > Society about people who start losing bone mass with severe CR. As> > practitioners of Calorie Restriction, we need to be able to determine> > how much CR is good, and how much can be harmful.> > > > Yesterday, I made an entry in my blog with a graphic showing the> > relative sizes of humans if they were raised on calorie restricted> > diets like the mice. My blog entry has a link to a paper by Mattson.> > I highly recommend looking at Figure 1 of the Mattson paper in> > detail. It shows how 40% CR prevents the restricted mice from gaining> > weight so that at maturity they weigh only half as much as the> > controls. In human terms, a 150 pound adult control, would be matched> > with a 75 pound individual raised on 40%CR.> > > > http://www.scientificpsychic.com/blog/> > > > I am becoming more convinced that exceeding 15% CR started in> > adulthood may be more harmful than beneficial. PMID 15345727, below,> > seems to confirm this view.> > > > It is important to be able to determine %CR accurately. The new book> > "The CR Way" by P. McGlothin, uses a way of estimating %CR by> > referencing the average consumption levels determined by the Institute> > of Medicine. This is a similar, but less customized approach, than> > used by my CR calculator:> > http://www.scientificpsychic.com/health/cron1.html> > > > Tony> > > > Willcox BJ, Yano K, Chen R, Willcox DC, BL, Masaki KH,> > Donlon T, Tanaka B, Curb JD., How much should we eat? The association> > between energy intake and mortality in a 36-year follow-up study of> > Japanese-American men, J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci., 2004> > Aug;59(8):789-95.> > Energy restriction extends life span and lowers mortality from> > age-related diseases in many species, but the effects in humans are> > unknown. We prospectively examined this relationship in a large> > epidemiological study of Japanese-American men. We followed 1915> > healthy nonsmokers, aged 45-68 years at study onset, for 36 years.> > Twenty-four-hour recall of diet was recorded at baseline, and> > follow-up was for all-cause mortality. After adjustment for age and> > other confounders, there was a trend toward lower mortality in the> > second quintile of energy intake, suggesting that men who consumed 15%> > below the group mean were at the lowest risk for all-cause mortality.> > Increased mortality was seen with intakes below 50% of group mean.> > Thus, we observed trends between low energy intake and reduced risk> > for all-cause mortality in humans until energy intake fell to less> > than half the group mean, consistent with previous findings in other> > species. > > > > PMID: 15345727> >>

[Guest guest]

I agree. In addition, do we have a list of the bio-markers mentioned by

Walford in the B120YD posted there?

Jeff

Rodney wrote:

>

> Hi Francesca:

>

> I think you should put this post of yours in the 'Moderate and Extreme

> CRON' section of the files.

>

> Rodney.

>

>

> > >

> > > Tony: you are preaching to the already converted. Here at the CR

> Support

> > > Group, I am happy to say, that we have been advocating moderation

> since day

> > > one.

> > >

> > > In fact one of the several differences between us and CR Society

> is that

> > > very point. See our file on ³Moderate vs Severe CR² under the

> folder ³CRON

> > > Science².

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > From: citpeks citpeks@

> > > Reply-

> > > Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2008 18:52:53 -0000

> > >

> > > Subject: [ ] Calorie restriction and body size

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > For some time, I have been reading posts in the Calorie Restriction

> > > Society about people who start losing bone mass with severe CR. As

> > > practitioners of Calorie Restriction, we need to be able to determine

> > > how much CR is good, and how much can be harmful.

> > >

> > > Yesterday, I made an entry in my blog with a graphic showing the

> > > relative sizes of humans if they were raised on calorie restricted

> > > diets like the mice. My blog entry has a link to a paper by Mattson.

> > > I highly recommend looking at Figure 1 of the Mattson paper in

> > > detail. It shows how 40% CR prevents the restricted mice from gaining

> > > weight so that at maturity they weigh only half as much as the

> > > controls. In human terms, a 150 pound adult control, would be matched

> > > with a 75 pound individual raised on 40%CR.

> > >

> > > http://www.scientificpsychic.com/blog/

> > >

> > > I am becoming more convinced that exceeding 15% CR started in

> > > adulthood may be more harmful than beneficial. PMID 15345727, below,

> > > seems to confirm this view.

> > >

> > > It is important to be able to determine %CR accurately. The new book

> > > " The CR Way " by P. McGlothin, uses a way of estimating %CR by

> > > referencing the average consumption levels determined by the Institute

> > > of Medicine. This is a similar, but less customized approach, than

> > > used by my CR calculator:

> > > http://www.scientificpsychic.com/health/cron1.html

> > >

> > > Tony

> > >

> > > Willcox BJ, Yano K, Chen R, Willcox DC, BL, Masaki KH,

> > > Donlon T, Tanaka B, Curb JD., How much should we eat? The association

> > > between energy intake and mortality in a 36-year follow-up study of

> > > Japanese-American men, J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci., 2004

> > > Aug;59(8):789-95.

> > > Energy restriction extends life span and lowers mortality from

> > > age-related diseases in many species, but the effects in humans are

> > > unknown. We prospectively examined this relationship in a large

> > > epidemiological study of Japanese-American men. We followed 1915

> > > healthy nonsmokers, aged 45-68 years at study onset, for 36 years.

> > > Twenty-four-hour recall of diet was recorded at baseline, and

> > > follow-up was for all-cause mortality. After adjustment for age and

> > > other confounders, there was a trend toward lower mortality in the

> > > second quintile of energy intake, suggesting that men who consumed 15%

> > > below the group mean were at the lowest risk for all-cause mortality.

> > > Increased mortality was seen with intakes below 50% of group mean.

> > > Thus, we observed trends between low energy intake and reduced risk

> > > for all-cause mortality in humans until energy intake fell to less

> > > than half the group mean, consistent with previous findings in other

> > > species.

> > >

> > > PMID: 15345727

> > >

> >

>

>

[Guest guest]

Hi All,The data from the pdf-availed paper are:-----------------------------------------Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5---------------------------------------Calories (mean) 1407 1882 2214 2581 3212Calories (range) 512–1701 1705–2061 2065–2366 2368–2806 2807–6480Number of participants 383 383 384 382 383(deaths) (243) (229) (221) (233) (210)Age 56.6 55.1 54.6 53.8 53.2 <.0001Alcohol intake (oz/mo) 5.6 6.2 7.4 7.5 12.3 <.0001Weight (kg) 64.0 62.6 63.5 63.6 65.2 .01BMI (kg/m2) 24.6 23.9 24.2 24.0 24.3 .24Physical Activiy Index 31.9 32.3 32.7 33.0 33.9 <.0001% Protein 17.8 17.0 16.5 16.4 16.0 <.0001% Fat 31.1 32.7 33.7 34.0 34.6 <.0001% Carbohydrates 50.0 48.7 47.7 47.7 46.4

<.0001---------------------------------------------------------------------Notes: The percentages of energy from each nutrient do not add up to 100% because alcohol intake was counted toward total energy intake.Age-adjusted: all listed values are age-adjusted by analysis of covariance.BMI = body mass index; Q = quintile.Figure 1. The relationship between mortality and energy intake.Q1 = 1.05; Q2 = 0.93; Q3 = 1; Q4 = 1.08; Q5 = 1.08.Figure 2. The age-adjusted relative risk for mortality by level of energy restriction.Q1 = ; Q2 = 0.94; Q3 = 1; Q4 = 0.88; Q5 = 1.My conclusions are that people misrepresent their caloric intakes and underlying illness dictate appetites. These are my opinions.I would prefer animal studies to bypass these difficulties.Cheers, Al Pater

From: citpeks <citpeks@...>Subject: [ ] Calorie restriction and body size Date: Monday, June 16, 2008, 11:52 AM

For some time, I have been reading posts in the Calorie RestrictionSociety about people who start losing bone mass with severe CR. Aspractitioners of Calorie Restriction, we need to be able to determinehow much CR is good, and how much can be harmful.Yesterday, I made an entry in my blog with a graphic showing therelative sizes of humans if they were raised on calorie restricteddiets like the mice. My blog entry has a link to a paper by Mattson.I highly recommend looking at Figure 1 of the Mattson paper indetail. It shows how 40% CR prevents the restricted mice from gainingweight so that at maturity they weigh only half as much as thecontrols. In human terms, a 150 pound adult control, would be matchedwith a 75 pound individual raised on 40%CR.http://www.scientif icpsychic. com/blog/I am becoming more

convinced that exceeding 15% CR started inadulthood may be more harmful than beneficial. PMID 15345727, below,seems to confirm this view.It is important to be able to determine %CR accurately. The new book"The CR Way" by P. McGlothin, uses a way of estimating %CR byreferencing the average consumption levels determined by the Instituteof Medicine. This is a similar, but less customized approach, thanused by my CR calculator:http://www.scientif icpsychic. com/health/ cron1.htmlTonyWillcox BJ, Yano K, Chen R, Willcox DC, BL, Masaki KH,Donlon T, Tanaka B, Curb JD., How much should we eat? The associationbetween energy intake and mortality in a 36-year follow-up study ofJapanese-American men, J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci., 2004Aug;59(8):789- 95. Energy restriction extends life span and

lowers mortality fromage-related diseases in many species, but the effects in humans areunknown. We prospectively examined this relationship in a largeepidemiological study of Japanese-American men. We followed 1915healthy nonsmokers, aged 45-68 years at study onset, for 36 years.Twenty-four- hour recall of diet was recorded at baseline, andfollow-up was for all-cause mortality. After adjustment for age andother confounders, there was a trend toward lower mortality in thesecond quintile of energy intake, suggesting that men who consumed 15%below the group mean were at the lowest risk for all-cause mortality.Increased mortality was seen with intakes below 50% of group mean.Thus, we observed trends between low energy intake and reduced riskfor all-cause mortality in humans until energy intake fell to lessthan half the group mean, consistent with previous findings in otherspecies. PMID:

15345727

[Guest guest]

Calorie restriction and body size

Posted by: " citpeks " citpeks@...

Mon Jun 16, 2008 11:52 am (PDT)

For some time, I have been reading posts in the Calorie Restriction

Society about people who start losing bone mass with severe CR. As

practitioners of Calorie Restriction, we need to be able to determine

how much CR is good, and how much can be harmful.

Yesterday, I made an entry in my blog with a graphic showing the

relative sizes of humans if they were raised on calorie restricted

diets like the mice. My blog entry has a link to a paper by Mattson.

I highly recommend looking at Figure 1 of the Mattson paper in

detail. It shows how 40% CR prevents the restricted mice from gaining

weight so that at maturity they weigh only half as much as the

controls. In human terms, a 150 pound adult control, would be matched

with a 75 pound individual raised on 40%CR.

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

Hi Tony

Your point is valid. I feel compelled to make a comment on the graphic.

Assuming that one started CR after having grown to one's full height, say

at age 22, wouldn't the height remain the same? Therefore the growth that

CR would stunt would be in the horizontal (x and y) directions, rather than

the vertical (Z) direction in Cartesian coordinates? This would mean that

the figures, if they were of adults, would be the same height, but their

width bigger? I'm not being negative, but I deal with drawings daily.

No one really recommends calorie restriction for people still in their

developmental years prior to being an adult.

Cheers,

Arturo

[Guest guest]

Arturo,

You are right. My illustrations are all of perfectly

proportioned silhouettes which would be produced as a

result of normal development.

The result of trying to decrease a normal body frame

through undernourishment would first be evident in the

reduction of muscle tissue because bones are more

resistant to modification. The first stage (acute

undernutrition) might produce gaunt bodies like those

of the WW II concentration camps. The second stage

(chronic undernutrition) would result in decreased

bone mass with related clinical conditions like

osteoporosis and its consequences such as kyphosis.

The result of severe long-term CR is likely to be a

crooked gaunt body, rather than the well proportioned

bodies like I have illustrated in my blog.

As an architect, think of the body as a building from

which you are trying to reduce some of the mass. It is

much easier to build a lighter, smaller building from

the ground up, than to try to reduce the weight of an

existing building by removing some of its components

without reducing the height. How much mass can you

remove from an existing building to keep it functional

without compromising its structural integrity?

Tony

http://www.scientificpsychic.com/blog/

====

> Hi Tony

> Your point is valid. I feel compelled to make a comment on the

graphic. Assuming that one started CR after having grown to one's full

height, say at age 22, wouldn't the height remain the same? Therefore

the growth that CR would stunt would be in the horizontal (x and y)

directions, rather than the vertical (Z) direction in Cartesian

coordinates? This would mean that the figures, if they were of adults,

would be the same height, but their width bigger? I'm not being

negative, but I deal with drawings daily. No one really recommends

calorie restriction for people still in their developmental years

prior to being an adult.

> Cheers,

> Arturo

>