Guest guest Posted March 24, 2002 Report Share Posted March 24, 2002 Iris, I agree with your take on setpoint. It is a complicated mess to try to sort it out. A combination of sedentary lifestye, emotions, junk food, early experience and gentic heritage all play into it. Your take on BMI is also a good point, but there is still a range there and I think the fatter among us should shoot for the higher range and the thinner the lower, but stay in that area, do not stray to far either way. But there is still that relativity thing and I honestly don't think it's as simple as calories, calories and calories. The human body and human experience are just to complex for this IMO, but yes we probably tend to overestimate our setpoints because that makes things easier. Thanks for the post, I enjoyed it. Regards, Mike Colella ----- Original Message ----- From: oc9 <ibap@...> < > Sent: Friday, March 22, 2002 7:53 PM Subject: [ ] Calories vs. weight > I think I agree with . Most people simply do not believe > their setpoint is as low as it should be. > > In b120yd, there are a number of statements with regard to BMI and > setpoint, such as that a BMI less than 20 is desirable - this is a > fairly low weight for most people. But remember that BMI is simply > an easy, fast method of figuring an analogue to body fat percentage, > without an immersion test, and is not accurate for those with an > unusual physique - although I'm afraid the 'big bones' argument is > usually an excuse. Body fat percentage is (in b120yd) supposed to be > about half the level it is at the setpoint. > > See http://abcnews.go.com/sections/living/DailyNews/bmi000828.html > for a correlation of body fat and BMI - it is not a direct > correlation. > > The problem is determining setpoint, as I see it, and most of us > think that our setpoint is higher than it is - a consequence of the > general overfeeding in our society. > > Don't forget too, that there is an entire chapter titled 'Prevent > what is going to kill you' (may not be precisely this) and that the > incidence level of many of these things decreases with decreased BMI - > see the CSPI graphs I posted in the files area. Also ref 's > post that was transferred to the files area - 'Read this and be > inspired'. > > If it were only calorie intake, then the longest lived individual > would be one in a flotation tank with IV lines feeding him all > necessary nutrients- if you could call that living. > > CR produces weight loss, and while the reduction of oxidative damage > contributes to longevity, the CR also reduces body fat and the health > risks associated with it. The right target weight is supposed to be > based on setpoint, but few know what that is. Without knowing each > person's true setpoint, we need another weight target, else how do we > know if the calorie level is restricted enough? BMI or body fat > percentage seems to be the easiest one to target. > > The book " The Okinawa Program " seems to describe the results of CR > actually applied to people, rather than lab animals, and says that > most Okinawans have a BMI of 18 - 22. Surprise! that correlates > with no increased risk of the usual suite of 'aging' diseases. > > Iris > > > > 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 > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.