Re: calories X 3

[Guest guest]

Newbies often ask about set point, what they should weigh, BMI and other

weight reduction questions. I've responded to throw out all except a

reduction of calories (HEALTHY calories of course). Below is an exerpt from

a recent post by Dean Pomerleau, a much respected member of the main list

(and last I heard, a member of this one too)

>

>> If anything, these recent discussions on ob/ob mice suggest, as has been

>> said many times before, that weight loss should NOT be the goal of a CR

>> program. The goal, and seemingly the metric by which success is determined

>> (if the ob/ob mice data means what A and I interpret it to mean), is

>> the ABSOLUTE LEVEL (and apparently not the relative degree) to which one can

>> reduce CALORIE INTAKE.

>>

>> The weight loss resulting from cutting calories seems to be an unfortunate

>> side effect, perhaps limiting in the end the benefits that can be obtained

>> from CR - as the weight loss eventually starts to eat into important

>> metabolic tissue (i.e. organs as you point out Alan).

>>

>> But having said this, for people who are starting on the hefty side, the

>> health benefits of shedding those INITIAL pounds (to get you into the

>> " normal " weight range or perhaps a bit below) will undoubtedly be

>> significant.

>>

>> Sorry Alan, I don't remember your vital statistics off the top of my head,

>> but perhaps you fall into this " initially heavy " category?

>>

>> --Dean

In other words: You can throw out your scale!

Stop worrying about setpoint! What counts

are Calories, Calories, Calories.

[Guest guest]

I believe the caveat "normal weight range" is enough to make me agree

with Francesca's comments. It is very clear that it is calorie

reduction per se that provides the maximum life extension we're all looking

for. This is clearly the trigger that puts the whole thing in place.

It is also clear that some of us have either many pounds, or

at least many percentage points of bodyfat to shed before we reach a "normal"

weight range. And it is not obvious what one's caloric intake should

be under these circumstances. My own decision, after

practicing cr for some 5 years and having re-read RLW many many times as

well as anything else I can get my hands on that is scientifically credible,

is to choose a caloric intake that reflects my height and bone structure.

I'm 68 inches tall, with wrists that measure 7 1/2 inches, which

puts me in the medium large bone structure class. I gain muscle with

relative ease even at age 70.

So I've chosen a daily calorie goal, 1800, that would be

a significant reduction for a non ob ob person of this size. This

is a very difficult goal for me, and I do not meet it every day,

but am consistently about 100 calories more than that. I am walking

(average) over 22 miles per week. I lift weights, do some conditioning

exercise. I am not losing fat very fast at this intake. During

a two week period when I averaged closer to 2300 calories (gasp),

I actually gained a little fat, at least according to my Tanita.

There is no question that I am in calorie restriction. But,

because I am still carrying about 57 pounds of fat around,

my bp is still high, although it is dropping. My cholesterol,

now that I've had to drop lipitor, is 235.

I'm working on that by keeping sat fat below 6 grams consistently.

Keeping glycemic index low with no large meals at all. A couple of

fruits, about 10 servings of vegetables daily. Perhaps the

tc will be down at the end of May, my next blood test. I know,

from experience, that my bp is completely normal without medication,

when my bodyfat is around 44 pounds or less. It seems to me

quite clear that loss of fat is important to me, as to any others

like me who may be doing the cr thing right, but are still above

a bmi of 25, or bodyfat above 20%. By gaining a few more

pounds of muscle I could be quite lean (about 10% bf) at around 170 pounds

bw, which is well above a bmi of 25, the top of the "normal" range.

Since 10% bf is very lean for an old ob ob like me, I would be

very happy with that. 15% would be pretty good, too. That could

be accomplished by gaining about 6 pounds of muscle plus enough to replace

the structural muscle lost concurrent with bodyfat loss (about 25% of weight

loss) and losing 23 1/2 pounds net fat. 19% might be ok,

and is within the "normal" range ... of course "normal" would make

me dead in a few years.. but that would be possible with a total weight

of 190 pounds, and 151 pounds lean body mass. (currently I'm at 146

pounds lbm, down from about 152 a year ago. It was hard to

maintain fitness while the lipitor was making me progressively more ill).

What is most likely? The last choice, and that is my current

goal. My hope is that by continuing exercise I can increase lbm -

I know I can do that - and drop a little over ten pounds, perhaps

as much as 15 pounds which would put me at about what I weighed about 3

years ago before I decided to see what I could get away with. I can't

get away with much.

So what does all this obsessing come to? For me, continue refining

diet to a consistent 1800 kc per day. Hope that that

action, plus moderate exercise results in loss of 10 or 15

pounds. Include enough progressive weight training to increase lbm

to 151 or 152 and keep it there.

Don't strain at any of this. Stop obsessing.

At this weight, even with relatively low bodyfat, my bmi

will be below, but close to 30.

At that point I will say, " see, Francesca is completely

right. It's only calories in, excellent nutrition, and

calories out without running the calorie output up too high (certainly

less than, say, 2500 per week) that extends maximum life span.

For far and away the majority it is as simple as cron. Calorie

restriction ranging from 10 to 30% below average for your height and activity

level, optimal nutrition whatever that is. Lots of veggies.

Low glycemic index. Enough protein, mostly vegetable which would

be the case if you're getting lots of veggies. Once you get the hang

of it, it's pretty simple on a day to day basis. Even for me

after the agonizing over "why me?" and the rest of my whining approach

to winning a longer, more vital life.

Note that my references to bodyfat percentages refer to men, not

women, who are healthier when a little fatter and much more

attractive than men. To me, anyway. Even at 70.

Note also that I am agreeing with Dean, as I usually did while

participating in the other list.

1800 calories per day would be a significant calorie reduction for

any person of my height, regardless of weight.

ED S.

"T. Francesca Skelton" wrote:

Newbies often ask about set point, what

they should weigh, BMI and other

weight reduction questions. I've responded to throw out all

except a

reduction of calories (HEALTHY calories of course). Below

is an exerpt from

a recent post by Dean Pomerleau, a much respected member of the

main list

(and last I heard, a member of this one too)

>

>> If anything, these recent discussions on ob/ob mice suggest,

as has been

>> said many times before, that weight loss should NOT be the goal

of a CR

>> program. The goal, and seemingly the metric by which success

is determined

>> (if the ob/ob mice data means what A and I interpret

it to mean), is

>> the ABSOLUTE LEVEL (and apparently not the relative degree)

to which one can

>> reduce CALORIE INTAKE.

>>

>> The weight loss resulting from cutting calories seems to be

an unfortunate

>> side effect, perhaps limiting in the end the benefits that can

be obtained

>> from CR - as the weight loss eventually starts to eat into important

>> metabolic tissue (i.e. organs as you point out Alan).

>>

>> But having said this, for people who are starting on the hefty

side, the

>> health benefits of shedding those INITIAL pounds (to get you

into the

>> "normal" weight range or perhaps a bit below) will undoubtedly

be

>> significant.

>>

>> Sorry Alan, I don't remember your vital statistics off the top

of my head,

>> but perhaps you fall into this "initially heavy" category?

>>

>> --Dean

In other words: You can throw out your scale!

Stop worrying about setpoint! What counts

are Calories, Calories, Calories.

[Guest guest]

Francesca, in all due respect i do not think the issue has been settled. Clearly there are people who have more fat cells and are physiologically geared to a higher weight than others. Dr. Walford is, by far, more qualified than Dean, no disrespect to Dean of course, However Walford makes it clear that set point is very relevant and says ythis repeatedly in his book. Walford explicitly states that it is RELATIVE. See my post that was totally ignored on the main list where I quote him directly.

regards,

Mike Colella

----- Original Message -----

From: sully@...

Sent: Saturday, March 16, 2002 9:32 AM

Subject: Re: [ ] Re: Calories X 3

I believe the caveat "normal weight range" is enough to make me agree with Francesca's comments. It is very clear that it is calorie reduction per se that provides the maximum life extension we're all looking for. This is clearly the trigger that puts the whole thing in place. It is also clear that some of us have either many pounds, or at least many percentage points of bodyfat to shed before we reach a "normal" weight range. And it is not obvious what one's caloric intake should be under these circumstances. My own decision, after practicing cr for some 5 years and having re-read RLW many many times as well as anything else I can get my hands on that is scientifically credible, is to choose a caloric intake that reflects my height and bone structure. I'm 68 inches tall, with wrists that measure 7 1/2 inches, which puts me in the medium large bone structure class. I gain muscle with relative ease even at age 70. So I've chosen a daily calorie goal, 1800, that would be a significant reduction for a non ob ob person of this size. This is a very difficult goal for me, and I do not meet it every day, but am consistently about 100 calories more than that. I am walking (average) over 22 miles per week. I lift weights, do some conditioning exercise. I am not losing fat very fast at this intake. During a two week period when I averaged closer to 2300 calories (gasp), I actually gained a little fat, at least according to my Tanita. There is no question that I am in calorie restriction. But, because I am still carrying about 57 pounds of fat around, my bp is still high, although it is dropping. My cholesterol, now that I've had to drop lipitor, is 235. I'm working on that by keeping sat fat below 6 grams consistently. Keeping glycemic index low with no large meals at all. A couple of fruits, about 10 servings of vegetables daily. Perhaps the tc will be down at the end of May, my next blood test. I know, from experience, that my bp is completely normal without medication, when my bodyfat is around 44 pounds or less. It seems to me quite clear that loss of fat is important to me, as to any others like me who may be doing the cr thing right, but are still above a bmi of 25, or bodyfat above 20%. By gaining a few more pounds of muscle I could be quite lean (about 10% bf) at around 170 pounds bw, which is well above a bmi of 25, the top of the "normal" range. Since 10% bf is very lean for an old ob ob like me, I would be very happy with that. 15% would be pretty good, too. That could be accomplished by gaining about 6 pounds of muscle plus enough to replace the structural muscle lost concurrent with bodyfat loss (about 25% of weight loss) and losing 23 1/2 pounds net fat. 19% might be ok, and is within the "normal" range ... of course "normal" would make me dead in a few years.. but that would be possible with a total weight of 190 pounds, and 151 pounds lean body mass. (currently I'm at 146 pounds lbm, down from about 152 a year ago. It was hard to maintain fitness while the lipitor was making me progressively more ill). What is most likely? The last choice, and that is my current goal. My hope is that by continuing exercise I can increase lbm - I know I can do that - and drop a little over ten pounds, perhaps as much as 15 pounds which would put me at about what I weighed about 3 years ago before I decided to see what I could get away with. I can't get away with much. So what does all this obsessing come to? For me, continue refining diet to a consistent 1800 kc per day. Hope that that action, plus moderate exercise results in loss of 10 or 15 pounds. Include enough progressive weight training to increase lbm to 151 or 152 and keep it there. Don't strain at any of this. Stop obsessing. At this weight, even with relatively low bodyfat, my bmi will be below, but close to 30. At that point I will say, " see, Francesca is completely right. It's only calories in, excellent nutrition, and calories out without running the calorie output up too high (certainly less than, say, 2500 per week) that extends maximum life span. For far and away the majority it is as simple as cron. Calorie restriction ranging from 10 to 30% below average for your height and activity level, optimal nutrition whatever that is. Lots of veggies. Low glycemic index. Enough protein, mostly vegetable which would be the case if you're getting lots of veggies. Once you get the hang of it, it's pretty simple on a day to day basis. Even for me after the agonizing over "why me?" and the rest of my whining approach to winning a longer, more vital life. Note that my references to bodyfat percentages refer to men, not women, who are healthier when a little fatter and much more attractive than men. To me, anyway. Even at 70. Note also that I am agreeing with Dean, as I usually did while participating in the other list. 1800 calories per day would be a significant calorie reduction for any person of my height, regardless of weight. ED S. "T. Francesca Skelton" wrote: Newbies often ask about set point, what they should weigh, BMI and other weight reduction questions. I've responded to throw out all except a reduction of calories (HEALTHY calories of course). Below is an exerpt from a recent post by Dean Pomerleau, a much respected member of the main list (and last I heard, a member of this one too) > >> If anything, these recent discussions on ob/ob mice suggest, as has been >> said many times before, that weight loss should NOT be the goal of a CR >> program. The goal, and seemingly the metric by which success is determined >> (if the ob/ob mice data means what A and I interpret it to mean), is >> the ABSOLUTE LEVEL (and apparently not the relative degree) to which one can >> reduce CALORIE INTAKE. >> >> The weight loss resulting from cutting calories seems to be an unfortunate >> side effect, perhaps limiting in the end the benefits that can be obtained >> from CR - as the weight loss eventually starts to eat into important >> metabolic tissue (i.e. organs as you point out Alan). >> >> But having said this, for people who are starting on the hefty side, the >> health benefits of shedding those INITIAL pounds (to get you into the >> "normal" weight range or perhaps a bit below) will undoubtedly be >> significant. >> >> Sorry Alan, I don't remember your vital statistics off the top of my head, >> but perhaps you fall into this "initially heavy" category? >> >> --Dean In other words: You can throw out your scale! Stop worrying about setpoint! What counts are Calories, Calories, Calories.

[Guest guest]

> From: " michael colella " <colm@...>

>

> Francesca, in all due respect i do not think the issue has been settled.

> Clearly there are people who have more fat cells and are physiologically

> geared to a higher weight than others. Dr. Walford is, by far, more qualified

> than Dean, no disrespect to Dean of course, However Walford makes it clear

> that set point is very relevant and says ythis repeatedly in his book. Walford

> explicitly states that it is RELATIVE. See my post that was totally ignored on

> the main list where I quote him directly.

>

> regards,

Mike: I truly believe that set point is undefinable. It changes throughout

life from my experience, and that of many others. If you cut calories, you

don't have to worry because sooner or later you WILL go below setpoint

(wherever or whenever that is). So it's a moot point. From all

definitions, and blood tests, I'm croning at about 115 pounds (down from my

highest adult weight in the high 130's). Yet in my teens I probably

weighted 112 or so. So I weigh more NOW, even though I ate ad lib then, and

am calorie concious now. Weight in itself is not a good guide. OTOH, I

realize that you (and my husband for one) need to get the actual number on

the scale down for the health benefits to kick in; however they will if you

continue cutting calories.

[Guest guest]

Francesca,

Then fact that set point is hard to define is true but doesn't make it a

moot point in my opinion. after all every study that I am aware of on

animals determines caloric intake based solely on ad lib eating which

strongly implies inherent, instinctual and physiological circumstances that

are unique to each individual. Imagine if you will a person who is very

heavy from childhood and loses weight down to the level of another who had

always maintained a svelte weight effortlessly. the former fatty is hungry

as hell and 95% of the time will fail to maintain the lower weight while the

naturally svelte person is quite satisfied eating the same number of

calories as the former fatty is currently eating. further imagine that not

only are they eating the same number of calories but their current BMI's

match along with exercise levels. The former fatty feels much different is

is craving food constantly while the svelte person experiences none of this.

I gotta beleive it isn't simply a case of a wek fat slob who just isn't

disciplined enough to maintain this lower weight. Something very real is

going on here that distinguishes the fatty from the naturally thin person.

In any case I worry about extremism on these lists and is why I am making

the point as I think is the same reason Dr. Walford also stressed it so much

in his book.

Regards,

Mike Colella

----- Original Message -----

From: T. Francesca Skelton <fskelton@...>

< >

Sent: Saturday, March 23, 2002 8:39 AM

Subject: [ ] Re: calories X 3

>

> > From: " michael colella " <colm@...>

>

> >

> > Francesca, in all due respect i do not think the issue has been settled.

> > Clearly there are people who have more fat cells and are physiologically

> > geared to a higher weight than others. Dr. Walford is, by far, more

qualified

> > than Dean, no disrespect to Dean of course, However Walford makes it

clear

> > that set point is very relevant and says ythis repeatedly in his book.

Walford

> > explicitly states that it is RELATIVE. See my post that was totally

ignored on

> > the main list where I quote him directly.

> >

> > regards,

>

> Mike: I truly believe that set point is undefinable. It changes

throughout

> life from my experience, and that of many others. If you cut calories,

you

> don't have to worry because sooner or later you WILL go below setpoint

> (wherever or whenever that is). So it's a moot point. From all

> definitions, and blood tests, I'm croning at about 115 pounds (down from

my

> highest adult weight in the high 130's). Yet in my teens I probably

> weighted 112 or so. So I weigh more NOW, even though I ate ad lib then,

and

> am calorie concious now. Weight in itself is not a good guide. OTOH, I

> realize that you (and my husband for one) need to get the actual number

on

> the scale down for the health benefits to kick in; however they will if

you

> continue cutting calories.

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

michael colella wrote:

> Something very real is going on here that distinguishes

> the fatty from the naturally thin person.

Hi all,

I'm not a frequent poster, nor reader of the sister list, but I

happened to see this thread and thought I would put my two cents

worth in...

, as far as I understand it, you are right, there are

metabolic differences between naturally plump and skinny people,

resulting in different set points. My current hypothesis (as

documented on the main list) is that the difference may in part have

to do with catecholamines released from the adrenal glands (i.e.

noradrenaline).

But what is far from clear to me is the idea that there is any direct

relationship between weight relative to set point and CR longevity

benefits. In fact, the ob/ob mice data suggests that on an

isocaloric, calorie-restricted diet, obesity-prone and obesity-

resistant mice live to virtually identical (ripe old) ages. The only

difference is that the obesity-prone mice weight a lot more and

maintain a lot more fat than the obesity-resistant mice.

It is based on this apparent lack of association between body weight

on a certain calorie level and CR benefits, as well as the

overwhelming rodent evidence that CR benefits are inversely

proportional to calorie intake, that makes me believe it is (mostly)

calories that count.

However the MSET theory I hypothesized recently does leave open the

possibility that it is calorie intake AT A GIVEN " NORMALIZED WEIGHT "

(accounting for differences in lean and fat mass) that is what really

determines CR benefits. So for example, a tall person eating

1800kcal per day would be relatively more calorie restricted than a

short person eating the same 1800kcal per day, and therefore would

accrue more CR benefits.

Hope this helps clarify the issue a little, or at least my

understanding of it.

--Dean

[Guest guest]

michael colella wrote:

> On that note wouldn't it be interesting to do a poll and find out

the ratio

> of calories to lean mass of as many members as would offer the

information

> and then we would have some very interesting data.

Yes, that would be very interesting.

> For

> example I have about 140 ;bs of lean mass as determined by a tanita

scale

> and i eat 2400 calories to maintain it thus my effeciency ratio

would be

> 2400/140 which would give me the calories per lb of lean mass. we

could

> then compare our effeciencies and gain further insight into the cr

state.

I'm afraid I'd come out significantly worse than you on the

efficiency scale. I eat 2400kcal / day, but at the moment weight

only about ~125lbs. According to my Tanita, my body fat is somewhere

between less than 1% (I get an error when it is set to athletic mode)

and 6% (non-athletic mode). So my lean mass is between 117 and

124lbs. So my efficiency (or more appropriately, inefficiency) ratio

would be somewhere around 2400/120. But I like you, show all the

signs of being significantly calorie restricted.

Go figure. I'm still trying to line up a way to get my norepinephine

level tested, as I suspect elevated norepiniphrine (or other adrenal

hormones) may be the reason for my (and perhaps others) unusually

high caloric requirement.

--Dean

[Guest guest]

----- Original Message -----

From: dpomerleau15090 <deanp@...>

< >

Sent: Friday, March 29, 2002 1:25 PM

Subject: [ ] Re: calories X 3

> michael colella wrote:

> > Something very real is going on here that distinguishes

> > the fatty from the naturally thin person.

>

>Dean wrote,

>

> I'm not a frequent poster, nor reader of the sister list, but I

> happened to see this thread and thought I would put my two cents

> worth in...

>

> , as far as I understand it, you are right, there are

> metabolic differences between naturally plump and skinny people,

> resulting in different set points. My current hypothesis (as

> documented on the main list) is that the difference may in part have

> to do with catecholamines released from the adrenal glands (i.e.

> noradrenaline).

>

> But what is far from clear to me is the idea that there is any direct

> relationship between weight relative to set point and CR longevity

> benefits. In fact, the ob/ob mice data suggests that on an

> isocaloric, calorie-restricted diet, obesity-prone and obesity-

> resistant mice live to virtually identical (ripe old) ages. The only

> difference is that the obesity-prone mice weight a lot more and

> maintain a lot more fat than the obesity-resistant mice.

>

> It is based on this apparent lack of association between body weight

> on a certain calorie level and CR benefits, as well as the

> overwhelming rodent evidence that CR benefits are inversely

> proportional to calorie intake, that makes me believe it is (mostly)

> calories that count.

>

> However the MSET theory I hypothesized recently does leave open the

> possibility that it is calorie intake AT A GIVEN " NORMALIZED WEIGHT "

> (accounting for differences in lean and fat mass) that is what really

> determines CR benefits. So for example, a tall person eating

> 1800kcal per day would be relatively more calorie restricted than a

> short person eating the same 1800kcal per day, and therefore would

> accrue more CR benefits.

>

> Hope this helps clarify the issue a little, or at least my

> understanding of it.

>

> --Dean

Hi Dean and all,

I have said in a post to this list that I like your MSET theory because for

calories to be all that counts doesn't work in practice. Larger animals

live longer and eat more than smaller animals and a dwarf eats a lot less

then a very tall person but we would not see any great extension in life for

the dwarf. So, as your theory suggests it could be that lean mass is the

critical factor and their is a ratio here between total lean mass and

calories. That I like because it takes into account the obvious flaw in

just computing calories, but i still feel in my own case I am experiencing

caloric restriction even though i eat 2400 calories a day. My temp, blood

pressure, lipids, feeling of cold, loss of libido etc all point to it and

yet i would assume 2400 calories a day is not a very caloric restricted

state and that many other 165 or so lb people eat less or the same and do

not show any caloric restriction parameters whatsoever.

On that note wouldn't it be interesting to do a poll and find out the ratio

of calories to lean mass of as many members as would offer the information

and then we would have some very interesting data. Because we would be able

to determine an idea of the curve of effeciency of those on the lists. For

example I have about 140 ;bs of lean mass as determined by a tanita scale

and i eat 2400 calories to maintain it thus my effeciency ratio would be

2400/140 which would give me the calories per lb of lean mass. we could

then compare our effeciencies and gain further insight into the cr state.

Regards,

Mike Colella

>

>

[Guest guest]

Hi Guys.

My lbm is about 148, per Tanita, and I eat about 1900 calories a day.

Sometimes less, rarely, about 2200. But I weigh right at 200 pounds.

So my efficiency is pretty good, but it's sure hard to get down to say,

19% bodyfat under these conditions.

Ed S.

dpomerleau15090 wrote:

> michael colella wrote:

>

> > On that note wouldn't it be interesting to do a poll and find out

> the ratio

> > of calories to lean mass of as many members as would offer the

> information

> > and then we would have some very interesting data.

>

> Yes, that would be very interesting.

>

> > For

> > example I have about 140 ;bs of lean mass as determined by a tanita

> scale

> > and i eat 2400 calories to maintain it thus my effeciency ratio

> would be

> > 2400/140 which would give me the calories per lb of lean mass. we

> could

> > then compare our effeciencies and gain further insight into the cr

> state.

>

> I'm afraid I'd come out significantly worse than you on the

> efficiency scale. I eat 2400kcal / day, but at the moment weight

> only about ~125lbs. According to my Tanita, my body fat is somewhere

> between less than 1% (I get an error when it is set to athletic mode)

> and 6% (non-athletic mode). So my lean mass is between 117 and

> 124lbs. So my efficiency (or more appropriately, inefficiency) ratio

> would be somewhere around 2400/120. But I like you, show all the

> signs of being significantly calorie restricted.

>

> Go figure. I'm still trying to line up a way to get my norepinephine

> level tested, as I suspect elevated norepiniphrine (or other adrenal

> hormones) may be the reason for my (and perhaps others) unusually

> high caloric requirement.

>

> --Dean

>

>

[Guest guest]

michael colella " wrote:

> Dean in light of your iron problem have you checked out absorption

> insuffeciency?

Yes, I've certainly thought (at length) about the possibility that

reduced absorption of calories and certain nutrients may be the cause

of my seeing inefficiency.

That is one thing I'm checking out now wrt iron. I'm supplementing

25mg/day, taken with vitamin C on an empty stomach. If that doesn't

start to boost my iron level within a month, we (my doctor and I) are

going to investigate other potential causes, including absorption

issues.

> Also, do you think i ought to propose to the main list the

> effeciency idea?

> I would be willing to tabulate the results.

Yes, that is a reasonable idea. In fact, it may be time for another

large poll like the one Khurram (I think) did a year or so ago. You

could even set it up through the " Poll " facilities of

(which Francesca has disabled for this list, but which is available

for the main list's archives).

--Dean

[Guest guest]

Mike,

you're right. I run my calories up on DWIDP almost daily.

Perhaps I'll go three weeks on and a week off. My sense

is that I eat rather less when I'm not measuring...but that sense has been

known to lie to me to serve it's own purpose.

I often eat 1800 kc, and in fact, that's where I have the optimal

daily allowance set. I measure most foods by volume or weight,

as is appropriate, even though I can eyeball pretty well at this

point. I have proven to myself that my eyeballs can only be

trusted for a short time.

Sometimes, like last evening, I'll be at 1800 kc,

and add a slice of home made bread (100 kc at 2 ounces, home ground

whole wheat flour, buttermilk, added milk powder) and three (sometimes

1) slices of feaux cheese (read that tofu cheese). It boosts the

whole day to a little over 2000 kc. Usually, however,

I'm starting at about 1700 kc for the day and that last snack just brings

me up to 1900.

I think it would be very difficult for someone who works full time

to keep track as I do, and I believe that a more useful method would

be to develop daily menus and stay with them 26 or 27 days a month,

measuring quantities where possible to be sure that the meal pattern has

not become bloated by increasing small variations....

The discipline of the job provides a time structuring and an attention

focus that can be helpful, especially if the cronie packs a lunch

and snacks and doesn't ad lib it through the day.

Ed

michael colella wrote:

Ed,

Thanks for the info. It does look like your pretty effecient. It

brings to

my mind something problematic for this effeciency thing to work.

We would

have to rely on people to be very precise in measuring their calories

and I

don't think many on the lists are. I myself have only very

recently begun

doing this. My old policy was always to simply watch the

scale.

Regards,

mike Colella

----- Original Message -----

From: <sully@...>

< >

Sent: Thursday, April 04, 2002 11:22 PM

Subject: Re: [ ] Re: calories X 3

> Hi Guys.

> My lbm is about 148, per Tanita, and I eat about 1900 calories

a day.

> Sometimes less, rarely, about 2200. But I weigh right

at 200 pounds.

> So my efficiency is pretty good, but it's sure hard to

get down to say,

> 19% bodyfat under these conditions.

>

> Ed S.

>

> dpomerleau15090 wrote:

>

> > michael colella wrote:

> >

> > > On that note wouldn't it be interesting to do a poll and

find out

> > the ratio

> > > of calories to lean mass of as many members as would offer

the

> > information

> > > and then we would have some very interesting data.

> >

> > Yes, that would be very interesting.

> >

> > > For

> > > example I have about 140 ;bs of lean mass as determined by

a tanita

> > scale

> > > and i eat 2400 calories to maintain it thus my effeciency

ratio

> > would be

> > > 2400/140 which would give me the calories per lb of lean

mass. we

> > could

> > > then compare our effeciencies and gain further insight into

the cr

> > state.

> >

> > I'm afraid I'd come out significantly worse than you on the

> > efficiency scale. I eat 2400kcal / day, but at the moment

weight

> > only about ~125lbs. According to my Tanita, my body fat

is somewhere

> > between less than 1% (I get an error when it is set to athletic

mode)

> > and 6% (non-athletic mode). So my lean mass is between

117 and

> > 124lbs. So my efficiency (or more appropriately, inefficiency)

ratio

> > would be somewhere around 2400/120. But I like you, show

all the

> > signs of being significantly calorie restricted.

> >

> > Go figure. I'm still trying to line up a way to get my

norepinephine

> > level tested, as I suspect elevated norepiniphrine (or other

adrenal

> > hormones) may be the reason for my (and perhaps others) unusually

> > high caloric requirement.

> >

> > --Dean

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

----- Original Message -----

From: dpomerleau15090 <deanp@...>

< >

Sent: Thursday, April 04, 2002 5:25 PM

Subject: [ ] Re: calories X 3

> michael colella wrote:

>

> > On that note wouldn't it be interesting to do a poll and find out

> the ratio

> > of calories to lean mass of as many members as would offer the

> information

> > and then we would have some very interesting data.

>

> Yes, that would be very interesting.

>

> > For

> > example I have about 140 ;bs of lean mass as determined by a tanita

> scale

> > and i eat 2400 calories to maintain it thus my effeciency ratio

> would be

> > 2400/140 which would give me the calories per lb of lean mass. we

> could

> > then compare our effeciencies and gain further insight into the cr

> state.

Dean wrote,

> I'm afraid I'd come out significantly worse than you on the

> efficiency scale. I eat 2400kcal / day, but at the moment weight

> only about ~125lbs. According to my Tanita, my body fat is somewhere

> between less than 1% (I get an error when it is set to athletic mode)

> and 6% (non-athletic mode). So my lean mass is between 117 and

> 124lbs. So my efficiency (or more appropriately, inefficiency) ratio

> would be somewhere around 2400/120. But I like you, show all the

> signs of being significantly calorie restricted.

>

> Go figure. I'm still trying to line up a way to get my norepinephine

> level tested, as I suspect elevated norepiniphrine (or other adrenal

> hormones) may be the reason for my (and perhaps others) unusually

> high caloric requirement.

>

> --Dean

Dean in light of your iron problem have you checked out absorption

insuffeciency?

Also, do you think i ought to propose to the main list the effeciency idea?

I would be willing to tabulate the results. Anyone else's thought on this

idea are more than welcome.

Regards,

Mike Colella

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Ed,

Thanks for the info. It does look like your pretty effecient. It brings to

my mind something problematic for this effeciency thing to work. We would

have to rely on people to be very precise in measuring their calories and I

don't think many on the lists are. I myself have only very recently begun

doing this. My old policy was always to simply watch the scale.

Regards,

mike Colella

----- Original Message -----

From: <sully@...>

< >

Sent: Thursday, April 04, 2002 11:22 PM

Subject: Re: [ ] Re: calories X 3

> Hi Guys.

> My lbm is about 148, per Tanita, and I eat about 1900 calories a day.

> Sometimes less, rarely, about 2200. But I weigh right at 200 pounds.

> So my efficiency is pretty good, but it's sure hard to get down to say,

> 19% bodyfat under these conditions.

>

> Ed S.

>

> dpomerleau15090 wrote:

>

> > michael colella wrote:

> >

> > > On that note wouldn't it be interesting to do a poll and find out

> > the ratio

> > > of calories to lean mass of as many members as would offer the

> > information

> > > and then we would have some very interesting data.

> >

> > Yes, that would be very interesting.

> >

> > > For

> > > example I have about 140 ;bs of lean mass as determined by a tanita

> > scale

> > > and i eat 2400 calories to maintain it thus my effeciency ratio

> > would be

> > > 2400/140 which would give me the calories per lb of lean mass. we

> > could

> > > then compare our effeciencies and gain further insight into the cr

> > state.

> >

> > I'm afraid I'd come out significantly worse than you on the

> > efficiency scale. I eat 2400kcal / day, but at the moment weight

> > only about ~125lbs. According to my Tanita, my body fat is somewhere

> > between less than 1% (I get an error when it is set to athletic mode)

> > and 6% (non-athletic mode). So my lean mass is between 117 and

> > 124lbs. So my efficiency (or more appropriately, inefficiency) ratio

> > would be somewhere around 2400/120. But I like you, show all the

> > signs of being significantly calorie restricted.

> >

> > Go figure. I'm still trying to line up a way to get my norepinephine

> > level tested, as I suspect elevated norepiniphrine (or other adrenal

> > hormones) may be the reason for my (and perhaps others) unusually

> > high caloric requirement.

> >

> > --Dean

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

Mike, Dean, ALL, I consume 2,500-2,700 kcal/day as measured by the Sohnle computer scale. Using the Tanita scale, I have a body fat percentage of 6 using the normal mode; the athletic mode shows an error readout. At reveille, I weigh around 120 at 5'7". (My workout is fairly vigorous for 3 out of every 4 days). So my efficiency ratio using Dean's math would be around 2,600/115. BTW, you may recall from a CR Forum post that I was diagnosed with iron deficiency anemia in 1998. As soon as the lab results showed low iron, the doc ordered a complete GI Series. Dean, I don't recollect that you mentioned that your doc ordered one. I suppose it is part of the standard protocol. The body is supposed to be very efficient at retaining iron--unless you are menstrating or playing gladiator. Nevertheless, I need about 35g of red meat a day including occasional liver to keep my iron levels up to a low normal level. ----- Original Message ----- From: michael colella Sent: Saturday, April 06, 2002 11:16 AM Subject: Re: [ ] Re: calories X 3 ----- Original Message -----From: dpomerleau15090 <deanp@...>< >Sent: Thursday, April 04, 2002 5:25 PMSubject: [ ] Re: calories X 3> michael colella wrote:>> > On that note wouldn't it be interesting to do a poll and find out> the ratio> > of calories to lean mass of as many members as would offer the> information> > and then we would have some very interesting data.>> Yes, that would be very interesting.>> > For> > example I have about 140 ;bs of lean mass as determined by a tanita> scale> > and i eat 2400 calories to maintain it thus my effeciency ratio> would be> > 2400/140 which would give me the calories per lb of lean mass. we> could> > then compare our effeciencies and gain further insight into the cr> state.Dean wrote,> I'm afraid I'd come out significantly worse than you on the> efficiency scale. I eat 2400kcal / day, but at the moment weight> only about ~125lbs. According to my Tanita, my body fat is somewhere> between less than 1% (I get an error when it is set to athletic mode)> and 6% (non-athletic mode). So my lean mass is between 117 and> 124lbs. So my efficiency (or more appropriately, inefficiency) ratio> would be somewhere around 2400/120. But I like you, show all the> signs of being significantly calorie restricted.>> Go figure. I'm still trying to line up a way to get my norepinephine> level tested, as I suspect elevated norepiniphrine (or other adrenal> hormones) may be the reason for my (and perhaps others) unusually> high caloric requirement.>> --DeanDean in light of your iron problem have you checked out absorptioninsuffeciency?Also, do you think i ought to propose to the main list the effeciency idea?I would be willing to tabulate the results. Anyone else's thought on thisidea are more than welcome.Regards,Mike Colella>>>>

[Guest guest]

> > Also, do you think i ought to propose to the main list the

> > effeciency idea?

> > I would be willing to tabulate the results.

>

> Yes, that is a reasonable idea. In fact, it may be time for another

> large poll like the one Khurram (I think) did a year or so ago. You

> could even set it up through the " Poll " facilities of

> (which Francesca has disabled for this list, but which is available

> for the main list's archives).

just a quick thought on this efficiency idea that's been floating around

for the past few days: wouldn't the conflation of wide variation in

calorie expenditure for voluntary activity render these numbers

meaningless across a population?

Mike