Re: new to list---and comment not CRON?

June 16, 2002

I wanted to comment on this reponse. This is just my opinion. I

think " CRON - hood, " if you will, is a matter of progress rather than

perfection. I also choose to consume small quantities of butter and

salt. No, this isn't the best CRON choice. However, considering

degrees, am I more CRON than someone who has coffee and a donut for

breakfast? You betcha! I am less CRON than you? quite possibly. Even

Dr. Walford " goes off " the plan every so often (regularly, in fact,

as I recall). I'm looking forward to longer life. I also want to

enjoy it and make food choices accordingly. It's an individual thing.

I wouldn't know who would determine the purity of my (or

anyone's) " CRON - ness. " I would hope such a practice never exists.

Everything is relative.

jmo,

peace,

trustinit

> AS,

> I really do not think you are necessarily a CRONie by default.

CRON

> stands for " Calorie Restriction Optimum Nutrition " . Some comments

> 1) Read Dr. Walfords book " Beyond the 120 year diet " .

> 2) If you are adding salt, sugar, and butter to you dinner plate

you are probably not a CRONie. Every calorie taken in should be

calorie dense. Salt is bad for the blood pressure. Sugar is an

empty calorie food. Butter is all bad fat which will lead to

> arterioscalrosis regardless of weight.

> 3) To be a CRONie you have to eat vegetables, no way arround it.

> Without a high vegetable diet,

June 18, 2002

Hello Trustinit. I will admit also to using butter and salt also; however

I consider them in the same manner as I would a spice.

When I first read your first email I also shared the opinion that you were

missing a vital point in CRONism - that of optimizing nutrition as a

central tenet of the program. Cutting back on calories is not enough, the

optimization of nutrition at the same time as cutting back, is what

differentiates us from other " programs. " Many of us use (for me the first

time) nutrition tracking software to track what we are eating against a

nominal calorie target. This provided insight into what I was actually

eating Vs what I though I was eating. I was short on many essential

nutrients, and long on calories. Over the course of two months, through

daily tracking, I learned how to optimize calories I chose to consume. I

also learned the value of lot of fruits and vegetables (finally I would

make my Mother proud :-))> Lunch now is a cup of no-fat yogurt, a cup or

so of blueberries, and two oranges. No more s, nor fries with mayo

<sigh>

As to degrees, alas I think it is an American tendency to want to compete;

a tendency which I, for one, try and eschew. If someone desires to make

eating the central pillar of their daily life I wish them well. I believe

that we are all on an interesting journey, each finding their own way

through the deluge of sometimes conflicting information. It is rare when

we can agree (as a group) what the precise course of action is, as such a

course is driven not by absolute knowledge but rather through opinions

biased with (hopefully) good and valid information.

Dr. Walford did introduce the term " set point " into our vocabulary but the

term is, in my opinion, almost meaningless. As an engineer I like clear

goals and latched on " set point " as a way of establishing a goal. However

I decided to attach " set point " to weight (as that is easily measured) and

consequently missed a key point. It is the " degree " of calorie restriction

which confers benefit. Weight follows calories as a secondary attribute.

So " set point " should be based on the ad Librium calorie consumption, not

weight. (The light came one when I carefully read the Labrador Dog studies

when they mentioned " pairing " the dogs. One dog at AL, and the other ate

30% less. Ah! the light came one because the second dog was " 30%

restricted in calories. " (In retrospect - Well Duh! :-))>

One could measure " degree of calorie restriction " against national norms.

For example " Food eaten can also be counted as food consumed at home and

away from home as calories. The government periodically surveys Americans

to find out what they are eating and the latest results (1994) are 2,095

calories per day with 50% carbohydrates, 34% fat (12% saturated fats), 15%

protein and 2% alcohol. " [1] Based on my target of 1800 calories per day I

am 15% restricted. But I see little value in such a number as it is an

average and so not applicable for measurement of a single individual except

in the most general of senses. Better I would have measured my diet for

several weeks to determine what I was actually consuming - but by the time

I gained this insight I was already down the road :-))>

(On a side note I will maintain 1800 calories as a target until my weight

stabilizes - down 20 pounds so far - then I'll probably lower the target

again so that I'm taking off weight gradually. I see each step as a

" training period " on how to adjust to a healthy life style. How

" restricted " am I? Don't care as such benefits will come as will come.)

Welcome to an interesting way of living!

[1] http://www.dietitian.com/calories.html

p.s A CRON life style is rumored to have a bad side of making people highly

opinionated and intolerant. Marcus Aurelius said in Book Seven:

" When a man has done thee any wrong, immediately consider with what opinion

about good or evil he has done wrong. For when thou hast seen this, thou

wilt pity him, and wilt neither wonder nor be angry. For either thou

thyself thinkest the same thing to be good that he does or another thing of

the same kind. It is thy duty then to pardon him. But if thou dost not

think such things to be good or evil, thou wilt more readily be well

disposed to him who is in error. "

regards,

" trustinit " <trustinit@...> on 06/16/2002 04:58:27 PM

Please respond to

cc:

Subject: [ ] Re: new to list---and comment " not

CRON? "