Re: Dr. Walford's caution about severe restriction

[Guest guest]

Suz, Micky and all: I have found some passages in which Dr. W does caution

against extremism. In fact he seems, if anything, much more conservative

than even I would expect:

1) in BT120YD, on page 43, Dr Walford mentions that the Biospherans were on

a " severly reduced-calorie diet " ...... This however, is nowhere near what

we would expect " severly restricted " to be. From Anti-Aging Plan pg 19 -

the Biospherans diet (and Dr W's notion of severly restricted) was : " 1800

calories per person for the first five or six months, gradually increasing

to 2200 by the end of the two year period " .

2) On page 19 of " Anti-Aging Plan " Dr W states clearly in italics:

" ........Any greater restriction (than 20%) may have dangerous adverse

effects on your health and is not recommended and 20% is only safe if you

are very careful about quality food. "

on 9/4/2002 11:53 AM, Suzanne Cart at massuz@... wrote:

> CORRECTION:

>

> I wrote, " Walford says a man's bodyfat should not drop below 5%, and a woman

> should go below 10 to 15%. That's actually a broad range for women. "

>

> It's been been pointed out that I meant to say, " ...a woman should NOT go

> below 10 to 15%. "

>

> Duh

> Suz

[Guest guest]

And then to add some: the later in life CR

is initiated, the *MORE* harm is

caused the more severe CR is. That’s one of the reasons why the initial

adult-onset CR experiments failed miserably; in older age CR must be introduced

very slowly, and maintained at moderate levels. I would not extrapolate from

rat experiments to tell at which age which level of restriction… I would

use the very vague term… moderation.

Micky.

P.S. I find the Biospherans data most dubious:

none of them has lived any longer than others (they are still alive, but mostly

*NOT* currently on CR), and one of

them suffers from some weird nerve disease…

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

From: Francesca Skelton

[mailto:fskelton@...]

Sent: Wednesday,

September 04, 2002 9:45 AM

Subject: Re: [ ]Dr.

Walford's caution about severe restriction

Suz, Micky and all: I have found some passages

in which Dr. W does caution

against

extremism. In fact he seems, if anything, much more conservative

than even I

would expect:

1) in

BT120YD, on page 43, Dr Walford mentions that the Biospherans were on

a

" severly reduced-calorie diet " ...... This however, is nowhere

near what

we would

expect " severly restricted " to be. From Anti-Aging Plan pg 19

-

the

Biospherans diet (and Dr W's notion of severly restricted) was :

" 1800

calories per

person for the first five or six months, gradually increasing

to 2200 by

the end of the two year period " .

2) On page

19 of " Anti-Aging Plan " Dr W states clearly in italics:

" ........Any

greater restriction (than 20%) may have dangerous adverse

effects on

your health and is not recommended and 20% is only safe if you

are very

careful about quality food. "

on 9/4/2002 11:53 AM, Suzanne

Cart at massuz@... wrote:

>

CORRECTION:

>

> I

wrote, " Walford says a man's bodyfat should not drop below 5%, and a woman

> should

go below 10 to 15%. That's actually a broad range for women. "

>

> It's

been been pointed out that I meant to say, " ...a woman should NOT go

> below

10 to 15%. "

>

> Duh

> Suz

[Guest guest]

A few points,

1) The Biospherians were on CRON diet which effected several

biomarkers in a positiove way. By positive way I mean lowering

colesterol, BP, insulin levels etc... which has been shown to

decrease risks of getting diseases such as diabetes, cardiovascular

disease, and certain cancers. The positive effect of these

biomarkers for the biospherians are consistent with the positive

changes in the biomarkers of the rodent and Rhesus monkey studies.

Yes no human has survived the test yet, but based on biomarker data

on the biosperians as well as our society I think the conclusions

that a lower calorie and highly nutritional diet will produce CRON

effects.I think the Biosperians are great initial data points for

human on CRON studies.

2) I beleieve low percent body fat decreases health risk factors,

again the line " prevent what is going to kill you " .

3) I agree that there should not be an agressive or excessive

approach to CRONing. I dislike the term Moderate more and more, we

all eat healthy with a big emphasis on the ON part. We are all doing

CR, whether 5%, 10% or 30%. There are excessive people who in my

opinion are no longer doing CRON but are becoming malnutritioned.

Finally, I personally find it very hard to evereat while sticking to

a CRON diet. I probably used to eat about 2500-3000 calories and

find it a stretch to get 2000 (unless I splurge on som ice cream that

day).

Joe

>

> > CORRECTION:

> >

> > I wrote, " Walford says a man's bodyfat should not drop below 5%,

and a

> woman

> > should go below 10 to 15%. That's actually a broad range for

women. "

> >

> > It's been been pointed out that I meant to say, " ...a woman

should NOT

> go

> > below 10 to 15%. "

> >

> > Duh

> > Suz

[Guest guest]

But any calorie restriction and physical

activity will get you the Biospherans biomarker changes!

It’s the long term test that is the

issue, not the short term bennies which are know for decades. The Biospherans’

data thus is a pure anecdote in the life-extension context. It shows practically

nothing new in the general health perspective.

Micky.

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

From: joesmad2001

[mailto:fernaj@...]

Sent: Wednesday,

September 04, 2002 12:06 PM

Subject: Re: [ ]Dr.

Walford's caution about severe restriction

A few points,

1) The

Biospherians were on CRON diet which effected several

biomarkers

in a positiove way. By positive way I mean lowering

colesterol,

BP, insulin levels etc... which has been shown to

decrease

risks of getting diseases such as diabetes, cardiovascular

disease, and

certain cancers. The positive effect of these

biomarkers

for the biospherians are consistent with the positive

changes in

the biomarkers of the rodent and Rhesus monkey studies.

Yes no human

has survived the test yet, but based on biomarker data

on the

biosperians as well as our society I think the conclusions

that a lower

calorie and highly nutritional diet will produce CRON

effects.I

think the Biosperians are great initial data points for

human on

CRON studies.

2) I

beleieve low percent body fat decreases health risk factors,

again the

line " prevent what is going to kill you " .

3) I agree

that there should not be an agressive or excessive

approach to

CRONing. I dislike the term Moderate more and more, we

all eat

healthy with a big emphasis on the ON part. We are all doing

CR, whether

5%, 10% or 30%. There are excessive people who in my

opinion are

no longer doing CRON but are becoming malnutritioned.

Finally, I

personally find it very hard to evereat while sticking to

a CRON

diet. I probably used to eat about 2500-3000 calories and

find it a

stretch to get 2000 (unless I splurge on som ice cream that

day).

Joe

>

> >

CORRECTION:

> >

> > I

wrote, " Walford says a man's bodyfat should not drop below 5%,

and a

> woman

> >

should go below 10 to 15%. That's actually a broad range for

women. "

> >

> >

It's been been pointed out that I meant to say, " ...a woman

should NOT

> go

> >

below 10 to 15%. "

> >

> >

Duh

> > Suz

[Guest guest]

Any calories restriction and physical activity gets those markers?,

why yes that is what we are talking about. And yes, these things

have been known for decades. Why doesn't everyone practice it (at

leat the healthy food)? Good question. Let's remember, it's the

calories restriction part that leads to life extension in the animal

tests, physical activity had no effect if I recall. SO I still

believe the Biospherian data is relevent to life extension. Getting

the biomarkers to what they should be.

Joe

> >

> > > CORRECTION:

> > >

> > > I wrote, " Walford says a man's bodyfat should not drop below

5%,

> and a

> > woman

> > > should go below 10 to 15%. That's actually a broad range for

> women. "

> > >

> > > It's been been pointed out that I meant to say, " ...a woman

> should NOT

> > go

> > > below 10 to 15%. "

> > >

> > > Duh

> > > Suz

[Guest guest]

Hi folks:

Thanks for those quotes, Francesca.

It seems to me there are two possible interpretations of the

terms 'extreme' or 'severe' when applied to CRON. And it may be

helpful to have an appreciation of the distinction. One of them

refers to too rapid a rate of weight loss. The other, a too low

final body weight, or BF%, or WC/H, or BMI, or whatever parameter is

chosen.

My impression is (please correct me, anyone, if you believe I am

wrong about this) that when Dr. Walford was using those terms he was

talking most of the time about the danger of a rapid rate of onset of

CR - in other words a sudden large decline in caloric intake,

resulting in a rapid rate of weight loss. See the bottom of page 77,

and page 78 of 'Beyond', where he mentions the experiment where the

restricted mice had shorter lives (second line on P. 78). He is

clearly referring here to a too rapid rate of weight loss. He seems

to be saying that losing the weight one needs to lose over a period

of " up to one or two years " is best (see middle paragraph, P. 78).

As Dr. Walford and many other sources point out, there are obviously

limits also for final body weight - for example, body fat not below

5% for males or 15% for females, as noted in Francesca's attachment

below.

It may be worth noting that most people outside the CRON fraternity

*would* consider such low body fat levels to be extreme. But for

males on CRON a 5% to 10% body fat target appears to be entirely

appropriate, indeed the norm ......... SO LONG AS ONE GETS THERE

SLOWLY, WITH ADEQUATE NUTRITION.

By " getting there slowly " , perhaps, for a number, what is meant is

rates of weight loss of half a pound a week initially, and perhaps

one quarter of a pound a week as body fat begins to approach true

CRON levels. Or, what amounts to the same thing, a daily caloric

deficit of 250 initially, and 125 later.

But for me, quoting a number like " 1800 calories " as being extreme

does not seem to make much sense. I do not lose weight at an intake

of 1800 calories. And I surely have quite a lot more weight to lose,

since my BF% seems to be about 15%.

[None of the methods I have used to calculate my BF% gives me a

number below 14% - a couple were MUCH higher; my BMI is between 22

and 23; no one I know considers me to be extremely thin; most places

I squeeze I still have about half an inch of fat reserves, i.e. two

thicknesses totalling half an inch squeezed between my thumb and

index finger].

So I do need to lose more weight, and a 125 daily caloric deficit for

me must be somewhere between 1600 and 1700 calories which, based on

the dictum of gradualness, cannot, I believe, be described as extreme.

So my conclusion from this is that each of us has to work things out

for ourselves, finding by experiment what intake produces the

desirable rate of weight loss, until we gradually reach 5% to 10%

body fat - or whatever other target is chosen.

As I said earlier, please feel free to disagree with any of this if

you think I am mistaken.

Rodney.

>

> > CORRECTION:

> >

> > I wrote, " Walford says a man's bodyfat should not drop below 5%,

and a woman

> > should go below 10 to 15%. That's actually a broad range for

women. "

> >

> > It's been been pointed out that I meant to say, " ...a woman

should NOT go

> > below 10 to 15%. "

> >

> > Duh

> > Suz