Guest guest Posted June 12, 2003 Report Share Posted June 12, 2003 : this is not an exact science. CR is CR if you're eating less cal than you would ad lib. Do you know what approx your ad lib # is? Start with a small reduction and work backwards from there. AFA exercise, if you'd eat 500 more cal ad lib because of your workout, then yes, you factor that in your CR. Walford discusses this in " Beyond: - one such passage is on pg 50. on 6/12/2003 5:10 PM, paultheo2000 at paultheo2000@... wrote: > Two questions occured to me regarding cardio: > > 1.) Suppose you're doing CR at 1500 calories a day. If you add 500 > calories worth of exercise do you then eat 2000 calories a day? Does > the mechanism change or is their absolutely no difference between each > scenario? Are marathon runners inadvertantly doing CR, then? > > 2.) How is caloric expenditure calculated? Is it due to (percieved) > exertion, actual work done, or work done by your muscles? Ie: If > person A and B have different levels of fitness (let us assume same BW > to avoid different amounts of work done) do they burn the same amount > of calories over the same distance and tempo even though one person is > necessarily exerting more effort? How do various inclines affect > caloric expenditure? > > If anyone knows the answers to these questions, I'd be curious in > having a look. > > Cheers, > > - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 12, 2003 Report Share Posted June 12, 2003 Okay, but if you eat 500 calories above what you should be eating to maintain your BW at a healthy level (ad libitum) and you reduce this to 250 calories still above what you should be eating, are you realy calorie ~restricted~? In effect my question is: instead of cutting calories, would maintaining the same amount of calories but increasing caloric expenditure yield the results as simply reducing calories? It seems to me that increasing caloric expenditure has three advantages: 1.) Allows you to maintain caloric intake-thus less deprivation. If exercise results in increased hunger this point is nullified, naturally--I'm uncertain on this point. 2.) The health benefits associated with cardiovascular exertion. 3.) Allows for more optimal nutrition then on a calorically restricted diet. Ie; more fruits and vegetables can be eaten and thus more antioxidants, etc. can be acquired. Thoughts? I'm sorry if these questions have been addressed by Walford or others or if they're common knowledge. Unfortunately I don't have access to an unlimited amount of books or novels at my disposal. - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 12, 2003 Report Share Posted June 12, 2003 Does this mean the CR is defined as being in a state of hunger? I looked for Walford at the local university and found this book: " The retardation of aging and disease by dietary restriction " from 1988. My guess is that it's quite scientific and without much practical advice. If any of you have read it...would your recommend it? - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 13, 2003 Report Share Posted June 13, 2003 I read through the files before posting on the board. I couldn't find the book at the University library which has over a million books. It seems they don't have many modern books; I couldn't find anything by Weil, Mercola either. - 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.