Re: Two More Questions: CALORIES

[Guest guest]

Rodney: I don't think there's an answer to your question simply because

there's such a wide variability in individuality in what works for us humans

(in our present human experiment - us!!) . Some of us have found a program

taking in 2500 cal and yet are extremely thin and others are eating 1100 cal

(skirting on the edge of good nutrition) and yet are finding it difficult to

lose weight on that low amount of calories. Also the mice experiments do

not extrapolate 100% to humans - i.e. we have run into all kinds of problems

with extreme CR in humans such as: osteoporosis, anemia, anorexia, loss of

libido, feeling cold all the time - need I go on?

To complicate matters, the older you are when you begin, the milder the CR

part should be or it is health depleting and you die younger, not older. So

all you middle agers and beyond (and that includes me) - go easy!!

The present ongoing CR primate experiments at NIH may answer some of your

questions - so check out PUBMED on the latest findings on these and what

their calorie reduction is and if they're finding out anything on this

subject

In the meantime our best guidance is Walford and the Okinawans. It's a very

young science which is why the best way to proceed is:

MODERATELY.

on 1/22/2004 8:39 PM, Rodney at perspect1111@... wrote:

> Hi folks:

>

> The successful CR experiments usually seem to entail 30% to 40%

> calorie restriction. So we can probably be fairly sure that the

> optimum restriction is somewhere between 25% and 45%.

>

> First, am I right in believing no one has yet done the experiments

> with mice on a variety of different degrees of restriction (say 25%

> 30% 35% 40% 45%) to find out what degree of restriction results in

> the greatest life extension? (I think I know the answer to

> this .... the work hasn't been done yet. Just checking.)

>

> Second, whatever the optimal degree of restriction turns out to be,

> is there a good way to determine the base calorie intake from which

> the 40% reduction should be calculated? Are we talking about the

> calorie level that is currently consistent with maintaining our set-

> point weight? And if so, does that mean that everyone needs to spend

> a few months determining how many calories that is before starting

> out on CR? If so then I didn't do that, and so I don't know what

> that base set-point calorie level is.

>

> It would be nice to be able to determine what one's ideal CR calorie

> intake should be. Especially if the curve is steep each side of the

> optimal level, as previously noted it may be. The easiest answer may

> be to experiment to see what level of calorie input is consistent

> with one's chosen best guess criterion for optimal CR (Perhaps BMI

> of 19, or BF% of 10% or 8% or whatever). But that would be just a

> guess.

>

> I suspect lots of us newer participants here must be wondering about

> the answer to this question.

>

> Rodney.

[Guest guest]

Rodney,

As I understand Walford, he suggests that you determine your " setpoint

weight " which he defines as the weight that you were most of your 20s

when you were neither dieting nor overeating. (I'm sure someone will

correct me if I remember this wrong.

If you are like me, depending on your age, you probably gained weight

beyond this weight as you got older. Walford then suggests you shoot

for a weight from 10-25% below this weight, but preferably a BMI less

than 20, and cautions to not let your percent bodyfat fall below 6% if

you are a man, and something higher (15% sticks in my mind) if you are

a woman. I think he also suggests you can set a calorie intake of

some percentage below your metabolic rate at this weight.

Why does he make his recommendations in this manner?

My guess is that he is trying to extrapolate to humans from the mouse

experiments. The feeding rate of the mice is determined from their ad

lib calorie consumption. Also, mice are started at an earlier age

than humans (if we practice CR on our kids, it is called child abuse,

and for good reason). The best estimate of what your " true ad lib

rate " is what you ate to maintain your " setpoint " weight in your 20s.

From this, ideally, you determine your level of restriction, whether

by a level of caloric restriction, or your final weight or BMI.

For myself, at 6'-0 " , my setpoint weight for most of my 20s was around

174 lbs. By the time I was 50, I weighed 215. Last September, I

decided to start the CRON diet. Following Walford's suggestions, I

have not wanted to lose weight too quickly due to toxin release and

studies that show that starting too rapidly at an older age can

actually REDUCE your life expectancy.

I presently weigh 184. When I get to 174 (I've been trying to lose

about 1 lb. per week, but focusing more on eating healthy), I plan to

level out for a month or two so I know what caloric level corresponds

to this weight for me. Then I will cut my calories back to some

percentage below this and monitor my weight. I don't know where I

will end up, but I don't think it would be wise for someone my age

(nearly 51) to allow my BMI to get much below 19 or 20. Maybe I won't

get down that far--regardless of weight, I can't see myself going much

below 1600 kcal per day. So for example, if I find it takes 2400 kcal

for me to maintain 174 lbs, and I put myself on 1600, that would be a

33% restriction.

Exercise is another confounding variable in all of this, as is

individual body type etc.

Although it is about calories, not weight, I think Walford discusses

weight as much as he does because it is an easier number for people to

deal with in historical terms (most of us can remember what we weighed

when younger, but not how many calories we consumed). I plan to use

weight as a way to get at calories.

On the other hand, someone (may have been Al Pater) once made a post

which estimated one's decline in caloric needs per kilogram of weight

they lose. If that formula was accurate (I forgot it), I would end up

weighing too little on 1600 kcal per day. I suspect, however, that

metabolic rates are more complex than that, and I will play it by ear.

The bottom line is that I plan to do what seems the healthiest, based

on the best info I have available.

Ok, I confess, I am an engineer. However, at this point, that is my

overall gameplan for following Walford's suggestions. At least until

somebody makes a post that makes more sense to me.

Rob in Alaska

> Hi folks:

>

> The successful CR experiments usually seem to entail 30% to 40%

> calorie restriction. So we can probably be fairly sure that the

> optimum restriction is somewhere between 25% and 45%.

>

> First, am I right in believing no one has yet done the experiments

> with mice on a variety of different degrees of restriction (say 25%

> 30% 35% 40% 45%) to find out what degree of restriction results in

> the greatest life extension? (I think I know the answer to

> this .... the work hasn't been done yet. Just checking.)

>

> Second, whatever the optimal degree of restriction turns out to be,

> is there a good way to determine the base calorie intake from which

> the 40% reduction should be calculated? Are we talking about the

> calorie level that is currently consistent with maintaining our set-

> point weight? And if so, does that mean that everyone needs to spend

> a few months determining how many calories that is before starting

> out on CR? If so then I didn't do that, and so I don't know what

> that base set-point calorie level is.

>

> It would be nice to be able to determine what one's ideal CR calorie

> intake should be. Especially if the curve is steep each side of the

> optimal level, as previously noted it may be. The easiest answer may

> be to experiment to see what level of calorie input is consistent

> with one's chosen best guess criterion for optimal CR (Perhaps BMI

> of 19, or BF% of 10% or 8% or whatever). But that would be just a

> guess.

>

> I suspect lots of us newer participants here must be wondering about

> the answer to this question.

>

> Rodney.

[Guest guest]

Hi Rob:

Many thanks for that very well thought out reply. Perhaps it should

be in the files somewhere so that it is readily to hand for other

newbies who have a similar question?

The issue about what should be the most appropriate target measure,

and what value of that measure to choose I am finding to be quite a

conundrum. Right now I am pretty much at my 21 year old 'quite fit'

set point. For the last couple of weeks, for the very first time

rigorously counting my calories, I have been averaging 1750 a day

without feeling any hunger, and I seem to be dropping a little weight

(so far as it is possible to tell over a short time period.)

So if I were eventually to drop my calorie consumption by 35% from my

recent 'ad-lib-consumption-near-my-set-point', I would be looking at

numbers around 1140 calories per day down the road. Which looks a

bit extreme to me. Similarly, as noted earlier, if I dropped my BMI

to 20 my BF% would be 3.3% - which also seems excessively low. On

the other hand FITDAY.COM says I should be consuming 2100 calories a

day to maintain my weight currently (or 2200 on days I jog one

mile).

It would be nice if all these numbers matched up neatly, with each

method coming to roughly similar, or at least internally consistent,

conclusions. But they don't.

More another time about what I plan to do in the face of all this

confusion.

Thanks again Rob,

Rodney.

--- In , " mrbosco78 " <mrbosco78@y...>

wrote:

>

> Rodney,

>

> As I understand Walford, he suggests that you determine

your " setpoint

> weight " which he defines as the weight that you were most of your

20s

> when you were neither dieting nor overeating. (I'm sure someone

will

> correct me if I remember this wrong.

>

> If you are like me, depending on your age, you probably gained

weight

> beyond this weight as you got older. Walford then suggests you

shoot

> for a weight from 10-25% below this weight, but preferably a BMI

less

> than 20, and cautions to not let your percent bodyfat fall below 6%

if

> you are a man, and something higher (15% sticks in my mind) if you

are

> a woman. I think he also suggests you can set a calorie intake of

> some percentage below your metabolic rate at this weight.

>

> Why does he make his recommendations in this manner?

>

> My guess is that he is trying to extrapolate to humans from the

mouse

> experiments. The feeding rate of the mice is determined from their

ad

> lib calorie consumption. Also, mice are started at an earlier age

> than humans (if we practice CR on our kids, it is called child

abuse,

> and for good reason). The best estimate of what your " true ad lib

> rate " is what you ate to maintain your " setpoint " weight in your

20s.

> From this, ideally, you determine your level of restriction,

whether

> by a level of caloric restriction, or your final weight or BMI.

>

> For myself, at 6'-0 " , my setpoint weight for most of my 20s was

around

> 174 lbs. By the time I was 50, I weighed 215. Last September, I

> decided to start the CRON diet. Following Walford's suggestions, I

> have not wanted to lose weight too quickly due to toxin release and

> studies that show that starting too rapidly at an older age can

> actually REDUCE your life expectancy.

>

> I presently weigh 184. When I get to 174 (I've been trying to lose

> about 1 lb. per week, but focusing more on eating healthy), I plan

to

> level out for a month or two so I know what caloric level

corresponds

> to this weight for me. Then I will cut my calories back to some

> percentage below this and monitor my weight. I don't know where I

> will end up, but I don't think it would be wise for someone my age

> (nearly 51) to allow my BMI to get much below 19 or 20. Maybe I

won't

> get down that far--regardless of weight, I can't see myself going

much

> below 1600 kcal per day. So for example, if I find it takes 2400

kcal

> for me to maintain 174 lbs, and I put myself on 1600, that would be

a

> 33% restriction.

>

> Exercise is another confounding variable in all of this, as is

> individual body type etc.

>

> Although it is about calories, not weight, I think Walford discusses

> weight as much as he does because it is an easier number for people

to

> deal with in historical terms (most of us can remember what we

weighed

> when younger, but not how many calories we consumed). I plan to use

> weight as a way to get at calories.

>

> On the other hand, someone (may have been Al Pater) once made a post

> which estimated one's decline in caloric needs per kilogram of

weight

> they lose. If that formula was accurate (I forgot it), I would end

up

> weighing too little on 1600 kcal per day. I suspect, however, that

> metabolic rates are more complex than that, and I will play it by

ear.

> The bottom line is that I plan to do what seems the healthiest,

based

> on the best info I have available.

>

> Ok, I confess, I am an engineer. However, at this point, that is my

> overall gameplan for following Walford's suggestions. At least

until

> somebody makes a post that makes more sense to me.

>

> Rob in Alaska

>

> --- In , " Rodney " <perspect1111@y...>

wrote:

> > Hi folks:

> >

> > The successful CR experiments usually seem to entail 30% to 40%

> > calorie restriction. So we can probably be fairly sure that the

> > optimum restriction is somewhere between 25% and 45%.

> >

> > First, am I right in believing no one has yet done the

experiments

> > with mice on a variety of different degrees of restriction (say

25%

> > 30% 35% 40% 45%) to find out what degree of restriction results

in

> > the greatest life extension? (I think I know the answer to

> > this .... the work hasn't been done yet. Just checking.)

> >

> > Second, whatever the optimal degree of restriction turns out to

be,

> > is there a good way to determine the base calorie intake from

which

> > the 40% reduction should be calculated? Are we talking about

the

> > calorie level that is currently consistent with maintaining our

set-

> > point weight? And if so, does that mean that everyone needs to

spend

> > a few months determining how many calories that is before

starting

> > out on CR? If so then I didn't do that, and so I don't know what

> > that base set-point calorie level is.

> >

> > It would be nice to be able to determine what one's ideal CR

calorie

> > intake should be. Especially if the curve is steep each side of

the

> > optimal level, as previously noted it may be. The easiest answer

may

> > be to experiment to see what level of calorie input is consistent

> > with one's chosen best guess criterion for optimal CR (Perhaps

BMI

> > of 19, or BF% of 10% or 8% or whatever). But that would be just

a

> > guess.

> >

> > I suspect lots of us newer participants here must be wondering

about

> > the answer to this question.

> >

> > Rodney.