calories X 3 and extremism

[Guest guest]

Mike: if you've read any of my posts, you should know that I'm the

moderation gal, if there ever was one. I'm constantly preaching this to the

heavy hitters on the main list.

In your example of the skinny and the fatty; it sounds to me like the fatty

is cutting cals and the skinny is not. Granted, the skinny doesn't have to

cut very much or even lose more (if any) weight in some instances to achieve

CR while the fatty can probably achieve CR weighing much more than the

skinny. Remember the ob/ob mice, for example? I can only point to myself

as I said in my last post; I weigh about 3 pds more now than I did in my

teens (which is set point as defined by Walford); yet by every definition

(including my blood work - such as low WBC for example) I'm on CR.

[Guest guest]

Francesca,

My question is this: is the skinny the same physiologically as the fatty?

They are the same size and eat the same calories yet one feels very

different. Dean and A's point about the OB OB is that they were

eating the same calories as the restricted much thinner rats so it is the

calories that count. The Ob OB were not able to in fact eat more and gain

the benefits of cr, they simply had greater metabolic effeciency. What I'm

wondering with the skinny fatty example is,based on the ob data, the fatty

is NOT cr'ed at all he only gains the benefits of thinness not cr. That is

the critical point, I beleive this is incorrect, but I may be wrong. But I

think Walford supports my position or should I say I support his.

And yes I stand corrected you have been the most vocal proponent of

moderation by far on the cr list as well as the support list.

Regards,

Mike Colella

P.S. Anyone having trouble posting to the other list. I'm having a real

hard time 3/4 of my posts have not gone through.

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

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

support group < >

Sent: Saturday, March 23, 2002 2:25 PM

Subject: [ ] calories X 3 and extremism

> Mike: if you've read any of my posts, you should know that I'm the

> moderation gal, if there ever was one. I'm constantly preaching this to

the

> heavy hitters on the main list.

>

> In your example of the skinny and the fatty; it sounds to me like the

fatty

> is cutting cals and the skinny is not. Granted, the skinny doesn't have

to

> cut very much or even lose more (if any) weight in some instances to

achieve

> CR while the fatty can probably achieve CR weighing much more than the

> skinny. Remember the ob/ob mice, for example? I can only point to myself

> as I said in my last post; I weigh about 3 pds more now than I did in my

> teens (which is set point as defined by Walford); yet by every definition

> (including my blood work - such as low WBC for example) I'm on CR.

>

>

>

>