Re: Francesca's post - moderation again

[Guest guest]

> I caught the post from Francesca explaining that what she had said

about

> moderate CRON being the way to go was possibly unfortunately

mistaken by

> some of us.

Well glad to have you back.

>There has been much discussed of late on the other list since

> than as well. To me it overall says that CRON needs to be extreme

to be

> become viable niche among the many other weight-loss and healthy

eating

> organizations. I agree with this.

MODERATE ABOUT MODERATION:

But truly extreme CR probably never will become a *viable* niche

among many. If anything is to become viable it may be the middle

ground between the moderation preached everywhere " eat healthy, eat

more fruits and vegetables, don't become overweight and lose weight

*IF* you are overweight " and the very extreme CR we know is practiced

by some. If such a middle ground exists. And I could be wrong but I

think it does.

ANOREXIA VS CR:

Ok, to use an emotionally loaded word - what is the difference

between CR and anorexia? I would say and note my 4th point:

1) different motives. CRONies want longer healthier lives while

anorexics want mostly to look continuously thinner.

2) CRONies are more careful about nutrition and getting adequate

nutrition. However, I'm sure there are some anorexics who get fairly

good nutrition as well.

3) It is possible to die from anorexia and one doesn't die from

CRON. However this point is probably a minor one since most

anorexics don't die from it either.

4) This was my conviction prior to reading the CR lists anyway: CR is

less *EXTREME* than anorexia. I interpret that to be what is meant

by Walford's discussion in his books of minimum body fat (however

reliable his exact figures) plus his mention - again the exact

figures may be wrong - that any greater reduction of food than 20%

will have " dangerous adverse effects on your health and is not

recommended " (Anti-Aging Plan p19) plus see his " danger signals and

dont's " section in the same book (p10)

However, this forth point is likely the one on which the proponents

of extreme CR would disagree. I'm a bit skitish about the word

anorexia because it's a term loaded with emotion and value judgements

but I find no other way to state it. Their position would be

something like " the physical state of anorexia (above the state of

outright starvation) in the name of longevity is no vice " . Agree or

disagree with their position but realize the level of caloric

restriction *some* propose is no different from what would commonly

be called anorexia. And if you agree with the extreme position you

can then argue that a state of physical anorexia pursued for the

right reasons is not a true mental illness (go ahead many

DSMV 'disorders' are *somewhat* squishy and subjective anyway ...).

However the state of full blown physical anorexia (and not just

dancing on the edge of it as some somewhat more moderate CRONies do)

even though it is sustainable with ON *does* have side effects - oh

boy does it . Although those in the extreme camp would pooh pooh

such symptoms. While it is for certainly true that when we are dead

our life with have no qualities whatsoever - while we are alive it

seems to me that quality of life has to count for something ...

> I was alerted by:

>

> /message/4475

> From: " crdude35768 " <crdude35768@y...>

> Date: Sat Sep 7, 2002 12:07 am

> Subject: bone health.

>

> To the, I think important, PDF-available paper below:

>

> Int J Eat Disord 2002 Nov;32(3):301-8

> Fractures in patients with anorexia nervosa, bulimia nervosa, and

other

> eating disorders-A nationwide register study.

> Vestergaard P, Emborg C, Stoving RK, Hagen C, Mosekilde L, Brixen K.

>

> " OBJECTIVE: To study fracture risk in patients with anorexia

nervosa (AN),

> bulimia nervosa (BN), or eating disorders not otherwise specified

(EDNOS).

>

> METHOD: Cohort study including all Danes diagnosed with AN (n =

2,149), BN

> (n = 1,294), or EDNOS (n = 942) between 1977 and 1998. Each patient

was

> compared with three randomly drawn age- and gender-matched control

subjects.

>

> RESULTS: Fracture risk was increased in AN after diagnosis compared

to

> controls (incidence rate ratio: 1.98, 95% CI: 1.60-2.44), but not

before

> [1.22]. The increased fracture risk persisted more than 10 years

after

> diagnosis. A significant increase in fracture risk was found before

> diagnosis in BN (1.31, 95% CI: 1.04-1.64), with a trend towards an

increase

> after diagnosis (1.44, 95% CI: 0.93-2.22). EDNOS patients had a

significant

> increase in fracture risk before (1.39, 95% CI: 1.06-1.81) and after

> diagnosis (1.77, 95% CI: 1.25-2.51).

>

> DISCUSSION: The increased fracture risk many years after diagnosis

indicates

> permanent skeletal damage. "

>

> PMID: 12210644 [PubMed - in process]

>

> Crdude said: " This study from Denmark suggests that eating

disorders can

> induce fairly permanent detrimental effects on skeletal structure.

However,

> the researchers were unable to rule out the possibility that

abnormal

> nutritional patterns that persisted due to incomplete treatment of

the

> eating disorders were generating the extra fractures " .

>

> However, I think that " abnormal nutritional patterns " simply means

continued

> anorexia. Continued low weight is our patterns, I think.

>

> The paper's Table 2 is much more informative than the abstract would

> suggest. Significant increased risk was seen before diagnosis in

the femur

> (incidence rate ratio 2.33) and femoral neck (3.49). After

diagnosis, it

> was significant in these (3.31, 7.17) as well as spine (3.49),

upper arm

> (2.86) and forearm (1.97).

>

> Table 3 was important because if patients were </= 15 years old at

> diagnosis, they had no significantly higher risk. If they were 16-

25 years

> old, risk was significant after diagnosis. If they were 26 years

old, risks

> were even higher (3.3 after diagnosis).

>

> The PDF could not be copied and pasted from, unfortunately. It

describes in

> the discussion why younger patients may not be at so much risk –

they

> recover. In addition, older patients could have been low weight

longer

> before diagnosis. We are in CR for the long-term too, I think.

Older first

> recognized patients, maybe like older CRONies, cannot it is said do

so. In

> addition the normal aging-associated decline added to a low level

bone

> density ups the risk a lot.

>

> Another to me very important point to note, was that they observed

that the

> bone density numbers determined by DEXA quite reliably predicted

fractures.

> Dean plays down the correlation among those who are light, I seem

to recall.

>

> They also said the loss of fat in the hips could predispose

fractures. I

> think the lack of muscle could be important too.

>

> We are older, I think, also.

>

> To me it spells out where low weight risks are distributed.

>

> Looking back at my bone density scan data, my L2-L4 spine has

increase from

> the low in 1999 shortly before taking bisphosphonate in November to

the one

> last week, corrected for age and sex, by 19%. For the hip, it has

increased

> 43%. It had gone down steadily before that. I feel that Saul

> underestimates my response. My endocrinologist said at the time,

as I said

> earlier, that I made the greatest response to any of her other

patients. My

> latest 6% increase in the high-risk hip (femoral neck, as in the

above

> abstract) is above the level Saul says is typical of bisphosphonate-

taking

> patients.

>

> When Warren ran into such problems, he boosted weight. Me, I

remain like

> many of the anorexia nervosa patients described above still at low

weight.

>

> is into CRON longer term also and has had no symptoms of bone

loss

> pathology to my recollection. His testosterone seems higher than

mine and

> Deans's. Khurram's testosterone at his young age is high too.

is

> older, though – almost my age of 55 versus his 54 years. Then

there is

> genetics, of course. My oldest aunt or uncle has my namesake and

showed no

> evidence of a problem in the bones at about 78 years as I recall it

was from

> eight years ago. There is nobody else in the family I am aware of

with the

> problem. They are or were mostly heavier than normal. But my

frame was

> always lower than most. I never had a problem putting my fingers

around my

> wrists. Now I easily do so for the narrow in my lower leg.

>

> We are not CR rodents with their shorter life spans and walk

erect. I am

> unaware of monkey CR bone data.

>

> Cheers, Al.

>

> Alan Pater, Ph.D.; Faculty of Medicine; Memorial University; St.

's, NF

> A1B 3V6 Canada; Tel. No.: (709) 777-6488; Fax No.: (709) 777-7010;

email:

> apater@m...

[Guest guest]

Hi All,

Well glad to have you back.

Thank you.

MODERATE ABOUT MODERATION:

But truly extreme CR probably never will become a *viable*

niche

among many. If anything is to become viable it may be the

middle

ground between the moderation preached everywhere " eat

healthy, eat

more fruits and vegetables, don't become overweight and lose

weight

*IF* you are overweight " and the very extreme CR we know is

practiced

by some. If such a middle ground exists. And I could be

wrong but I

think it does.

It sure does exist, but it is pretty crowded in there. I see no available

niche there.

ANOREXIA VS CR:……….

I feel that what you call anorexia nervosa in reference to extreme CR is

actually an animal CR experiment in which diets are poor. Take and ad

libitum SAD dieter to an CR on SAD diet is a recipe for reduced benefit from

CR.

I stopped all unhealthy fats and carbohydrates upon implementing CR. So

have all those you call CR extremists.

Cheers, Al.

Alan Pater, Ph.D.; Faculty of Medicine; Memorial University; St. 's, NF

A1B 3V6 Canada; Tel. No.: (709) 777-6488; Fax No.: (709) 777-7010; email:

apater@...