Re: The problem with being skinny

[Guest guest]

Sounds like too much weight loss to me! Remember this is not about how

much weight you lose. Weight loss is a CRON side effect, not the goal. The

goal is to be healthier. The mice in the lab that lost THE LEAST weight

lived the longest. Also if you're too thin, and have absolutely no

reserves, it's hard to recover if you do get sick. Moderation, moderation,

moderation.

on 4/10/2003 1:49 PM, nutrinaut at neologisticscald@... wrote:

> At the age of 30 I was a very skinny man (6feet 5inches, 75kg). I

> felt myself so ugly that I was too shy even to talk to women. After

> 7 years of hard training and 5000 calories-diets I reached 100kg. At

> present I am a rock. No more complexes about my body. With CR that

> is about to change. Many women who know about my intention of

> dieting warn me that I will be just a shadow of the man I am now. My

> cheeks will fall in and my face will look older. But I want to reach

> 120 and there's no in between. Can you understand that I see this as

> a problem.

> Jef

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Hello All!

For some of us, being a little more skinny is not

a problem, but a nice benefit. Some of us have

different goals when we choose to eat fewer calories.

Hopes differ from person to person. Some of us would

actually like to lose weight. And look better too.

Some of us also wish (according to countless laboratory

experiments) to live longer by restricting calories.

This means we must lose some of our muscle mass

(metabolically active tissue -- the only tissue that

burns calories).

Suppose we are strong and muscular already, as some

of us might be (or used to be!). When we start CR,

we may be at a near ideal (athletic) weight,

and pumped up with the natural neuro-endocrine

hormones stimulated by the " healthy " eating and

activity of an athlete. Then after we begin CR,

we will definitely feel worse -- lousier --

when we lose our prized muscle, and weigh less!

Noteworthy in formal laboratory experiments, is the

very exciting fact that those cohorts who weighed

the very least, who safely reduced calories, lived

the very longest. Ie, big pain, big gain.

CR Researcher B. J. Merry's excellent plots and

regression curves derived from formal CR research

papers, demonstrate that the more weight lost

(the lightest animals) lived the longest, up to

about 50 or 60 percent longer. The amount of the

lifespan increase was almost linear,

with lifespan gain directly corresponding to the

percent calories reduced.

How much weight might we want to lose? That is

a matter of individual choice. What is extreme

for one may be moderate for another. Ie, it is a

matter of opinion! One person's moderation is

another person's extremism. Each person is

entitled to choose for himself, according to his

wants and needs. Who can judge another?

Especially for someone whom we may not know or

we may not understand.

This is a fun post. Please pardon me for trying to

be both friendly and truthful!

PS: If you want to see some of B. J. Merry's charts,

then let me know. When you see the results plotted

on a graph, you will be impressed. And probably

more motivated to reduce calorie intake too!

-- Warren

> On 10 Apr 2003, Francesca Skelton wrote:

>

> Sounds like too much weight loss to me!

> Remember this is not about how much weight

> you lose. Weight loss is a CRON side effect,

> not the goal. The goal is to be healthier.

> The mice in the lab that lost THE LEAST weight

> lived the longest. Also if you're too thin,

> and have absolutely no reserves, it's hard

> to recover if you do get sick. Moderation,

> moderation, moderation.

[Guest guest]

Yeah, I understand your problem; I have a similar one. I did went down

from 200lb(90Kg) (not muscular though) to 170lb(77Kg) (muscular), and I

feel like I have reached my current limit, in the sense of " how low am I

willing to go " . Any lower than my current weight and I start to become

weaker and extremely lean and I don't like the feeling. But I believe

that in time I will restrict more, and lose more weight, because the

" living longer " part of me will become a bit stronger than the " being

buff " part.

As for women: I have only one in my life, and we have 4 kids, so no big

problem there. My wife says I looked better when I was bigger, but she

says it's fine as long as I'm a nice person.

As for you: make your own priorities with this in mind: every calorie

counts for you life span. Think of all the chicks you'll be able to

chase when you're 100!

Micky.

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

From: nutrinaut [mailto:neologisticscald@...]

Sent: Thursday, April 10, 2003 10:50 AM

Subject: [ ] The problem with being skinny

At the age of 30 I was a very skinny man (6feet 5inches, 75kg). I

felt myself so ugly that I was too shy even to talk to women. After

7 years of hard training and 5000 calories-diets I reached 100kg. At

present I am a rock. No more complexes about my body. With CR that

is about to change. Many women who know about my intention of

dieting warn me that I will be just a shadow of the man I am now. My

cheeks will fall in and my face will look older. But I want to reach

120 and there's no in between. Can you understand that I see this as

a problem.

Jef

[Guest guest]

I think that the mice in the lab that ate the least lived longer. Those

that lost the least weight were genetically different (Ob-Ob?) than

those that did not, so you cannot deduce that losing less means leaving

longer. You can only deduce that having the Ob-Ob genetics helps (but we

have no idea what the applicability to humans is), and that eating less

means living longer.

Micky.

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

From: Francesca Skelton [mailto:fskelton@...]

Sent: Thursday, April 10, 2003 10:55 AM

Subject: Re: [ ] The problem with being skinny

Sounds like too much weight loss to me! Remember this is not about how

much weight you lose. Weight loss is a CRON side effect, not the goal.

The

goal is to be healthier. The mice in the lab that lost THE LEAST weight

lived the longest. Also if you're too thin, and have absolutely no

reserves, it's hard to recover if you do get sick. Moderation,

moderation,

moderation.

on 4/10/2003 1:49 PM, nutrinaut at neologisticscald@... wrote:

> At the age of 30 I was a very skinny man (6feet 5inches, 75kg). I

> felt myself so ugly that I was too shy even to talk to women. After

> 7 years of hard training and 5000 calories-diets I reached 100kg. At

> present I am a rock. No more complexes about my body. With CR that

> is about to change. Many women who know about my intention of

> dieting warn me that I will be just a shadow of the man I am now. My

> cheeks will fall in and my face will look older. But I want to reach

> 120 and there's no in between. Can you understand that I see this as

> a problem.

> Jef

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Yes, The emphasis should be on calories, not weight loss. For example,

restrict from 30% ad lib your # of calories and forget about weight!! The

objective is not weight loss.

on 4/10/2003 6:38 PM, Micky Snir at mickys@... wrote:

> I think that the mice in the lab that ate the least lived longer. Those

> that lost the least weight were genetically different (Ob-Ob?) than

> those that did not, so you cannot deduce that losing less means leaving

> longer. You can only deduce that having the Ob-Ob genetics helps (but we

> have no idea what the applicability to humans is), and that eating less

> means living longer.

>

> Micky.

[Guest guest]

Agreed; but for maximum life extension, we should restrict as much as

possible. The more you restrict though, the more you lose weight; thus

practically this means that you restrict as much as you are willing to

" suffer " the hunger, and as much as you are willing to accept your

physical properties (body weight being the major, I guess). When you

reach your " limit " of accepted physical properties (unless hunger

" stopped " the weight loss already), you simply eat more to maintain this

state (read: weight).

So while I totally agree that the goal is to reduce calorie-intake, the

caloric-intake is derived mostly from your body weight(1). It's almost

playing with words, but it's not.

Micky.

(1) unless maximum life extension is not your goal, which is fine with

me. Less overpopulation when I'm 96 :-)

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

From: Francesca Skelton [mailto:fskelton@...]

Sent: Thursday, April 10, 2003 3:47 PM

Subject: Re: [ ] The problem with being skinny

Yes, The emphasis should be on calories, not weight loss. For example,

restrict from 30% ad lib your # of calories and forget about weight!!

The

objective is not weight loss.

on 4/10/2003 6:38 PM, Micky Snir at mickys@... wrote:

> I think that the mice in the lab that ate the least lived longer.

Those

> that lost the least weight were genetically different (Ob-Ob?) than

> those that did not, so you cannot deduce that losing less means

leaving

> longer. You can only deduce that having the Ob-Ob genetics helps (but

we

> have no idea what the applicability to humans is), and that eating

less

> means living longer.

>

> Micky.

[Guest guest]

or at least that's the data from the lab. No human data in yet. Except for

the Okinawans (who are on their diet from birth, not like us). We can't

" prove " that any one of us will live to be 20 yet. We can only say that the

ON part does seem to work and we're healthier.

Also older CRONIES should be moderate in their restriction. So you can't

include everyone. Some CR is better than no CR and severely restricted CR

(even if you believe it's more desirable than moderate CR) is too difficult

for most people.

on 4/10/2003 6:58 PM, Micky Snir at mickys@... wrote:

> Agreed; but for maximum life extension, we should restrict as much as

> possible. The more you restrict though, the more you lose weight; thus

> practically this means that you restrict as much as you are willing to

> " suffer " the hunger, and as much as you are willing to accept your

> physical properties (body weight being the major, I guess). When you

> reach your " limit " of accepted physical properties (unless hunger

> " stopped " the weight loss already), you simply eat more to maintain this

> state (read: weight).

>

> So while I totally agree that the goal is to reduce calorie-intake, the

> caloric-intake is derived mostly from your body weight(1). It's almost

> playing with words, but it's not.

>

> Micky.

> (1) unless maximum life extension is not your goal, which is fine with

> me. Less overpopulation when I'm 96 :-)

>