Re: Re: Evidence - CRON vs Atkins

[Guest guest]

What about genetically obese mice (ob/ob) that are reduced to a normal level

of body fat (via caloric restriction)? This is the longest lived breed in a

CR situation, so clearly it's not related to body fat if the more body fat

the mice retain while on CR, the longer they live...

Nonetheless, reduced insulin levels are associated with both CR and the

Atkins diet.

Cheers,

> -----Original Message-----

> From: paultheo2000 [mailto:paultheo2000@...]

> Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2003 6:51 AM

>

> Subject: [ ] Re: Evidence - CRON vs Atkins

>

>

> Since you bring it up, there is a lot of literature out there which

> discusses the impact of insulin on longevity. And clearly, the Atkins

> diet is one where little insulin is produced. There are also studies

> out there showing that body fat may be the actual life span

> determinant (as indicated by GM mice studies).

>

> -

>

>

> > One additional point that perhaps may be made about the evidence

> > regarding CRON and Atkins is that, as far as I know, no study on any

> > type of organism has ever shown that the Atkins diet can extend the

> > maximum lifespan of the species. An important point in reviewing the

> > benefits of each in my opinion. Gone for today.

> >

> > Rodney.

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Not so. CRON implies calorie restriction and an abundance of vegetables and

to a lesser degree fruit. Atkins is an " all you can eat " protein diet and

vegetables and fruit play a much lesser part in his diet. They are NOT

similar and CRONIES who do Atkins are not true CRONIES.

on 10/16/2003 11:34 AM, Anton at bwp@... wrote:

> one thing i don't understand about this thread is why anybody would

> even attempt to compare CRON and Atkins in the first place, since

> they overlap. it's like comparing " diets with only organic or wild

> food " and " diets with no pork " . obviously they overlap and neither

> is a subset of the other, so a comparison is meaningless.

[Guest guest]

Francesca, Is Beyond the 120 Year Diet enough? I have ordered it and the

Okinaw Program. Do I need any of the other Walford books? Thanks. Peg

[Guest guest]

you point to various peoples and their diets to make your point.

The ONLY group that is known to have improved health/longevity through diet

are the Okinawans. To a lesser extent, the Mediterranean diet leads to less

heart disease but has not been shown it prolong life. The Okinawan diet is

similar to the Walford/CRON diet and is NOT at all similar to the diet you

suggest is healthy.

Yes Atkins is also high fat. Walford cautions to limit your " good " fat

(which is the only kind recommended) such as nuts, avacadoes or olive oil -

but nevertheless to add it to your diet for nutritious reasons.

We already know you like to pattern your diet after what primitive peoples

have eaten. As discussed many times before, these foods may be " natural " ,

but that doesn't necessarily make them the best for health and longevity.

I suggest you read Walford and if you've read him, to read him again. Your

ally in this discussion, , has of yet, NOT read Walford and it's

difficult to see how anyone can discuss this without doing so. These

findings are now being backed up daily by other scientists: i.e. limit

fatty foods such as red meats, eat more fruits and veggies, etc. This is

the kind of diet that will cut down on disease and prolong life.

As I've mentioned previously, this board is about Walford's method of CRON.

I don't want to cut anyone off who wants their say, but you and have

said the same thing over and over again.

on 10/16/2003 12:40 PM, Anton at bwp@... wrote:

> CRON does NOT imply an abundance of vegetables and to a lesser degree

> fruit. there could easily be CRON diets with very little vegetables

> or fruit, like a diet based on fresh sea foods and organ meats.

an Atkins

diet, which could be moderate-protein, high-fat, and this version is

probably more natural and healthy anyway.

[Guest guest]

I think Walford would be first to advise being skeptical of all

pronouncements even his, and especially mine.

I believe part of the heat associated with this thread is that we humans

like neat answers and CRON is not very neat.

" CR " , understood to be caloric restriction suffers from a lack of precision

in predicting concise conversion of intake to energy. Further this energy

intake needs to be restricted relative to " set-point " a rather difficult

threshold to determine empirically (without clinical observation).

Estimation of individual set points can't be very accurate.

" ON " Optimal Nutrition is probably impossible to define, " Adequate

nutrition " a worthy goal is difficult to define with too many mitigations to

catalog here. We do have enough data to make educated guesses, subject to

regular updates as we learn more.

IMO CRON or CRAN is clearly a more healthful approach that eating ad-lib as

practiced by the general population. We can and many have already benefited

hugely from eating less calories of more nutrient dense foods.

We are all in agreement of the general direction to pursue, the precise

" best " practice may not be knowable at this time. In the meanwhile, we

should do what we believe to be good but monitor real metrics like bathroom

scales, and blood tests for feedback.

I do not have an opinion whether " CR " or " AN " is the more important factor

in benefiting from this lifestyle. Open discussion leading to better

understanding of nutrition can only help us meet both targets and avoid

making such a lose-lose decision.

Macronutrient ratios are probably not that important if you have covered

nutritional bases, while avoiding excess energy intake. In excess, different

macronutrients will express in different negative ways... determining which

is worse can depend upon personal genetics but may be academic. Too much of

anything isn't good and should be avoided.

JR

PS: Sorry about the rant but I may have started this thread with my post

about discrepancies in Carbohydrate energy contribution. I apologize if I

add to any uncertainty but I feel suggestion of a single " right " way to

practice CRON is dubious. My $.02

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

From: Anton [mailto:bwp@...]

Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2003 10:34 AM

Subject: [ ] Re: Evidence - CRON vs Atkins

one thing i don't understand about this thread is why anybody would

even attempt to compare CRON and Atkins in the first place, since

they overlap. it's like comparing " diets with only organic or wild

food " and " diets with no pork " . obviously they overlap and neither

is a subset of the other, so a comparison is meaningless. i think

has pointed this out, that the two are potentially

complementary. in fact, doubtless there are actual CRONies who

follow an Atkins diet. the phrase " CRON vs Atkins " is simply

incoherent. CRON is CR + ON, and the two are completely

independent. CR is how much you eat, not what you eat (i.e. how many

carbs, etc). ON can be achieved by hundreds of wildly diverse diets

in theory, and in practice our lack of conclusive knowledge about ON

further widens the field of possibilities, especially given people's

tendency to conflate nutritional considerations with ideological,

aesthetic, and circumstantial considerations.

a common error on this list (sadly and inexcusably) and in other

discourse domains like popular media (more understandably, but also

more detrimentally) is to identify CRON with the specific candidate

version of CRON articulated by Walford. like many on this list, i

take great influence from Walford's nutritional ideas, but he is

certainly not the be all and end all of ON, nor even a leading

authority on nutrition per se. the profound omissions and errors of

his formulation of ON have been addressed numerous times on this

list, and honest inquiry will always consider multiple sources.

mike parker

[Guest guest]

Members who sharply disagree with the CRON philosphy should probably unsubscribe. It serves no purpose to argue back and forth concerning Atkins. Peg

[Guest guest]

Peg: if you read " Beyond " , the Okinawa Program, and our " links " (we have

links to Okinawa studies) and our files, you should do fine. Of course, I

am, as you should be, open to any new findings/evidence and Dean's (crON

Lite) recent posting is very interesting.

on 10/16/2003 4:42 PM, hsanborn2@... at hsanborn2@... wrote:

> Francesca, Is Beyond the 120 Year Diet enough? I have ordered it and the

> Okinaw Program. Do I need any of the other Walford books? Thanks. Peg

[Guest guest]

You and and others such as are welcome on this list and I would never

suggest " unsubscribing " (I'm sure many others on the list are not

" cronies " ), that does not mean that your statement below is correct. If you

read Walford he DOES recommend a " particular diet " such as: heavy on the

veggies and lighter on the protein. If you can find a passage in Walford's

book that says he " includes Atkins " or that says anything that sounds like

the Atkins diet in what he recommends to eat, by all means, please post it

and correct me.

on 10/17/2003 12:56 AM, Anton at bwp@... wrote:

> but i would like to suggest that you

> might benefit from reading some of the recent posts explaining that

> the CRON philosophy is broad and inclusive, certainly not a

> particular diet, and that an Atkins diet potentially falls within its

> umbrella, quite easily in fact. the issues that revolve around the

> Atkins diet are crucially relevant to both CR and ON, so i see no

> dearth of profit in their exploration by other list members who are

> so inclined.

[Guest guest]

Hello all,

While Walford's position regarding macronutrient profiles is pretty clear,

and he makes very specific comments on the ludicrous nature of some of Barry

Sears' Zone arguments (even if Sears has some things right, I still think

he's a wingnut...), he's also pretty clear in stating that he's not a

nutritionist.

My impression of Walford along with the animal studies is that CR comes

first (the animals are just on nutritionally adequate lab chow) with ON or

AN second as a way of ensuring good health. Just what kind of macronutrient

profile constitutes the best diet, once ON/AN is factored in doesn't really

matter much from my perspective. If the diet is calorically restricted and

has excellent nutrition in terms of micronutrient profiles, I don't think

the macronutrient make-up is going to matter (within a reasonable framework)

beyond satiety.

Just my two bits -- I don't think this debate really matters in the greater

scheme of things...

Cheers,

> -----Original Message-----

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

> Sent: Friday, October 17, 2003 7:01 AM

>

> Subject: Re: [ ] Re: Evidence - CRON vs Atkins

>

>

> You and and others such as are welcome on this list and I would never

> suggest " unsubscribing " (I'm sure many others on the list are not

> " cronies " ), that does not mean that your statement below is

> correct. If you

> read Walford he DOES recommend a " particular diet " such as: heavy on the

> veggies and lighter on the protein. If you can find a passage in

> Walford's

> book that says he " includes Atkins " or that says anything that sounds like

> the Atkins diet in what he recommends to eat, by all means, please post it

> and correct me.

>

>

>

> on 10/17/2003 12:56 AM, Anton at bwp@... wrote:

>

> > but i would like to suggest that you

> > might benefit from reading some of the recent posts explaining that

> > the CRON philosophy is broad and inclusive, certainly not a

> > particular diet, and that an Atkins diet potentially falls within its

> > umbrella, quite easily in fact. the issues that revolve around the

> > Atkins diet are crucially relevant to both CR and ON, so i see no

> > dearth of profit in their exploration by other list members who are

> > so inclined.

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Interesting that we all read different things into what Roy says. Although he definitely says: calories count - he also stresses highly nutritious foods such as vegetables.

1. On page 231 of " Beyond " : " I remain suspicious of diets too high in protein as far as aging is concerned.......... " Pg 232: " this would correspond to deriving 11 to 22 % of your calories from protein. .....no more than 20 to 25% of your calories should come from fat.....the rest of your calories should come from carbohydrates..... "

2. Page 233: " Fish foremost and chicken and turkey .....are preferable to red meats......because of the lower fat content. " There is also an entire section on that page entitled: Food Types to favor.

3. Again and again Walford stresses that certain foods help prevent disease (such as cruciferous vegetables). His emphasis on WHAT to eat extends to " entire cookbooks " at the back of each of his books.

4. Finally Walford says that even if one does not practise CR and only practises ON, they will be much healthier than before. Sorry can't find the particular passage at the moment; perhaps someone can help me out here.

on 10/17/2003 9:41 AM, Gifford at gifford@... wrote:

> Just what kind of macronutrient

> profile constitutes the best diet, once ON/AN is factored in doesn't really

> matter much from my perspective. If the diet is calorically restricted and

> has excellent nutrition in terms of micronutrient profiles, I don't think

> the macronutrient make-up is going to matter (within a reasonable framework)

> beyond satiety.

[Guest guest]

>

>

>4. Finally Walford says that even if one does not practise CR and only

>practises ON, they will be much healthier than before. Sorry can't find

>the particular passage at the moment; perhaps someone can help me out here.

Actually he says that throughout the book but particularly the beginning of

section two but equally states without CR, in disucssing Okinawa

and Mediterreanean diets, it's fruitless. Yes Ray makes a point that they

go hand in hand.

[Guest guest]

And where is this stated exactly????

on 10/17/2003 11:06 AM, J E Dog at jackedog@... wrote:

> states without CR, in disucssing Okinawa

> and Mediterreanean diets, it's fruitless.

[Guest guest]

Friday, October 17, 2003 9:00 AM, Francesca Skelton wrote:

You and and others ...are welcome on this list...

Francesca, does that " others " include dogs? I have been lurking for many

months now and I guess it's about time I popped in to say hi. I didn't

actually join the list for me...I joined for my dog. He has allergies and I

had to go to a home cooked diet for him and one thing lead to

another...well, here we are. Is Gillie the first CRONing dog on the list?

Because of the discussions on this list, I have already made several changes

to his diet. So keep discussing...even if we " others " don't put our two

cents in, we still benefit, greatly. I and my dog thank you.

As sort of a Hello I offer a recipe...It's low cal but I don't know if it's

ON or not. It might fit into Adkins. Anyway I guarantee it's easy and yummy.

Cloud Cookies

2 egg whites (room temperature)

1 1/2 tsps. cider vinegar

dash of salt

1 tsp. cocoa powder

1 Tbs. Sugar (or molasses but doesn't whip as well)

Splenda to taste (I use 2 packets)

Preheat oven to 400 degrees

Put vinegar, salt and egg whites into a stainless steel bowl and beat until

frothy. Sprinkle in cocoa powder then slowly add sugar and splenda and whip

until egg whites form peaks. Spoon onto cookie sheets (I lightly butter the

cookie sheets because I hate to scrub off the protein residue) and place in

400 degree oven and TURN OVEN OFF. Leave in oven for several hours or over

night.

Makes 14 to 16 cookies. Note. amount of cookies will very depending on how

much air is whipped into egg whites.

Michele & the Fur Kids

[Guest guest]

At 03:35 PM 10/17/2003, you wrote:

>Friday, October 17, 2003 9:00 AM, Francesca Skelton wrote:

>You and and others ...are welcome on this list...

>

>Francesca, does that " others " include dogs? I have been lurking for many

>months now and I guess it's about time I popped in to say hi. I didn't

>actually join the list for me...I joined for my dog. He has allergies and I

>had to go to a home cooked diet for him and one thing lead to

>another...well, here we are. Is Gillie the first CRONing dog on the list?

If you mean that GILLIE is on a reduced caloric or is it a reduced intake

home-cooked diet?

I've done the latter for years for the labs.

[Guest guest]

At 03:35 PM 10/17/2003, you wrote:

>Friday, October 17, 2003 9:00 AM, Francesca Skelton wrote:

>You and and others ...are welcome on this list...

>

>Francesca, does that " others " include dogs? I have been lurking for many

>months now and I guess it's about time I popped in to say hi. I didn't

>actually join the list for me...I joined for my dog. He has allergies and I

>had to go to a home cooked diet for him and one thing lead to

>another...well, here we are. Is Gillie the first CRONing dog on the list?

>Because of the discussions on this list, I have already made several changes

>to his diet. So keep discussing...even if we " others " don't put our two

>cents in, we still benefit, greatly. I and my dog thank you.

>As sort of a Hello I offer a recipe...It's low cal but I don't know if it's

>ON or not. It might fit into Adkins. Anyway I guarantee it's easy and yummy.

Yummy by dog or people standards ;_)

E

[Guest guest]

Hello ( & Fur Kids) and CR ALL:

Purina has done quite a wonderful job helping us

understand CR for dogs. Check this website:

http://www.sciencenews.org/20020511/fob2.asp

See the picture contrasting a calorie restricted

dog (left) with a normally fed dog (right).

And the accompanying story is quite convincing too.

Glad that you are using Splenda as a sweetener.

However, Splenda is caloric (has about 25% of the

calories of sugar), has additives to dilute it,

and costs about 5 times more than pure Sucralose.

Contact me off-list for more info.

You do not need to have a dog to appreciate the

great significance of calorie restriction in higher

mammalian life forms (like dogs -- and people).

The experiment with the Labrador Retrievers at

Purina is one of the more convincing long-term

studies about the benefits of reducing calories.

CR works and is effective for health, be we dogs or people.

Thanks for the recipe!

-- Warren

> -----Original Message-----

> From: Michele Pitonyak [mailto:map1@...]

> Sent: Friday, October 17, 2003 12:36 PM

>

> Subject: Re: [ ] Re: Evidence - CRON vs Atkins

>

>

> Friday, October 17, 2003 9:00 AM, Francesca Skelton wrote:

> You and others ...are welcome on this list...

>

> Francesca, does that " others " include dogs? I have been lurking

> for many months now and I guess it's about time I popped in to

> say Hi. I didn't actually join the list for me... I joined for

> my dog. He has allergies and I had to go to a home-cooked diet

> for him. One thing lead to another... well, here we are.

>

> Is Gillie the first CRONing dog on the list?

> Because of the discussions on this list, I have already made

> several changes to his diet. So keep discussing... even if we

> " others " don't put our two cents in, we still benefit, greatly.

> I and my dog thank you.

>

> As sort of a Hello I offer a recipe...It's low cal but I don't

> know if it's ON or not. It might fit into Atkins. Anyway,

> I guarantee it's easy and yummy.

>

> Cloud Cookies

> 2 egg whites (room temperature)

> 1 1/2 tsps. cider vinegar

> dash of salt

> 1 tsp. cocoa powder

> 1 Tbs. Sugar (or molasses but doesn't whip as well)

> Splenda to taste (I use 2 packets)

>

> Preheat oven to 400 degrees

> Put vinegar, salt and egg whites into a stainless steel bowl

> and beat until frothy. Sprinkle in cocoa powder then slowly

> add sugar and Splenda and whip until egg whites form peaks.

> Spoon onto cookie sheets (I lightly butter the cookie sheets,

> because I hate to scrub off the protein residue), and place in

> 400 degree oven and TURN OVEN OFF.

> Leave in oven for several hours or over night.

> Makes 14 to 16 cookies. Note. amount of cookies will vary,

> depending on how much air is whipped into egg whites.

>

> Michele & the Fur Kids