thin or healthy?

[Guest guest]

The object is to be healthy. Although most people lose weight on CRON,

losing weight is not the goal. The goal is to eat fewer and healthier

calories which enhances your health and extends your life. In fact the

obese mice who were still rather obese after being put on CRON lived longer

than the mice who dropped lots of weight on the same diet.

This is confusing to many people who think that CRON is just another diet

plan. It is not a diet. It is a healthier lifestyle.

on 5/28/2004 12:43 PM, Don White at white69@... wrote:

> I have been a lurker only up to this point. The latest discussion

> about muscle has me a bit perplexed. Is the eventual goal of CRON

> to be as thin as possible, or as healthy as possible? Why does

> muscle have to be given up?

>

> I used to work with a guy that was living Pritikin. He was pretty

> darned thin. My daughter in high school could beat his ass if

> it came down to it. I am in Law Enforcement, and if I get as thin

> as possible, giving up muscle, I would fare poorly on the job.

>

> Just some comments.

>

> Don White

> Seguin, Tx

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

For folks replying to Don, please note the change in subject heading.

There are undesirable side effects if going to extremes. Some of these

include: loss of libido (esp for men), feeling cold all the time, painful

sitting (due to loss of fat), osteoporosis, and possible anorexia and other

eating disorders. Something important to be considered when evaluating how

low you want to go.

IMHO, some good reasons to be moderate in your CRON program.

on 5/28/2004 3:39 PM, Dowling at dowlic@... wrote:

> This topic has been discussed quite extensively on the CR Society email

> discussion list also. The basic outcome is the following:

>

> 1. If the point of CR is life extension (extending one's potential lifespan

> beyond that normally acheived by the population), then caloric intake is

> key- the lowest one can " stand. " It appears there is a linear inverse

> correlation between calories ingested and lifespan extension.

>

> 2. Lower caloric intake, beyond a certain point, may (and probably will)

> result in decreased body mass, including muscle mass.

>

> 3. One must make one's own determination of what is acceptable in terms of

> quality of life (which may be affected by low body and muscle mass) vs.

> lowest " possible " caloric intake.

>

> 4. Many people decide upon a compromise: some reduction in caloric intake

> with optimal nutrition for optimal health, and, hopefully, lifespan

> extension. Others choose a more radical diet with more severe

> consequences.....

>

>

>

>

>> From: Don White <white69@...>

>> Reply-

>>

>> Subject: Re: [ ] Digest Number 1292

>> Date: Fri, 28 May 2004 11:43:28 -0500

>>

>> I have been a lurker only up to this point. The latest discussion

>> about muscle has me a bit perplexed. Is the eventual goal of CRON

>> to be as thin as possible, or as healthy as possible? Why does

>> muscle have to be given up?

>>

>> I used to work with a guy that was living Pritikin. He was pretty

>> darned thin. My daughter in high school could beat his ass if

>> it came down to it. I am in Law Enforcement, and if I get as thin

>> as possible, giving up muscle, I would fare poorly on the job.

>>

>> Just some comments.

>>

>> Don White

>> Seguin, Tx

>

[Guest guest]

Hi :

So far CR is the ONLY thing that has been shown scientifically to

extend maximum lifespan in lots of species. (It hasn't yet been

proven to do that in humans, although there is evidence that suggests

it almost certainly does).

No one knows for sure why it works. But there are lots of theories.

Some people are hoping (expecting?) that when it is determined what

the mechanism is, it will be possible to immitate that mechanism by

means that do not require limiting calories. No one has yet done

this, as far as I am aware.

So, yes, as of today the CR bit is absolutely necessary. Who knows

what may get discovered/published tomorrow.

But I think I will be a little disappointed if it turns out that one

can just take some dumb pill and live for ever. I think I would get

more satisfaction from having to make some serious effort for it.

But I would take it either way!

Rodney.

Is the CR component absolutely necessary?

>

> What is the mechanism that CR works on and is there an alternative?

[Guest guest]

Thin or healthy is a good question. I am aiming for BOTH. However, I

am finding it a challenge to be both thin AND healthy. At 5'3 and 120

lbs. I hardly consider myself to be " thin " . Slender, yes. " Healthy "

looking? ok. Thin? Noo. Not at my height. Ideally- my " thin "

weight

is somewhere between 110-115. (You would be AMAZED at how much of a

difference 5lbs. Makes on a small frame!) When I was around 111 lbs.

I thought- oh yes- now I am thin and lean. And I felt good. However,

I found it difficult to maintain that weight. Here is a bit of my

story...

When does one know when one is officially in a CRONstate? Is it

measured by weight? BMI? Body fat %? Cal intake? Cholesterol or

blood pressure levels? Tape measure? Is one placing too much of a

numeric label on this aspiration? Perhaps knowing when you are

" CRON "

is more than just being able to measure your gains and losses by a

numbers game.

I am 5'3 and currently weigh 120 lbs. I am down to 120 from my

highest weight of 142. (that was about 2 years ago- thankfully I have

an hourglass figure so all you ever saw on me was curvy curv curvvvvv

and not a big blob figure)

The lowest weight I was at was 107 in July 2003. (wooo!) However, I

do feel that I reached that weight through extreme measures (*with an

unhealthy and unreasobable restriction to less than 600 cals a day

for roughly 8 weeks- I was able to drop my weight from 122 to 107. I

was also doing about 90 minutes of cardio a and not eating carbs...

where I got that energy from - I have no idea!) My severe and

unhealthy cal restriction WITHOUT the optimum nutrition- surely took

its toll. Grrr. THIS IS HARDLY WHAT ANYONE WOULD HAVE CONSIDERED

CRON-LIVING… in fact I would dare say it bordered on disordered

eating…

At this point, I was dehydrated and emaciated. I was putting myself

through graduate school and dealt with the stress of it all in a very

unhealthy and psuedo perfectionistic manner. This was my own fault as

I basically sustained myself on nothing more than plain lettuce

leaves, celery sticks dipped in yellow mustard, egg whites and plain

tuna fish with flax seeds and olive oil. (oh and my fabulous daily

glass of heart-healthy chianti) My daily cal intake fluctuated from

300-600 a day and the added glass of red wine or two was another 200-

300 cals.

My lifestyle at that point was hardly what we would call CRON as

there was a definite LACK of optimum nutrition- while I maintained

the intense calorie restriction. I was more or less just CR and not

ON… and I am pretty certain that CR without ON = anorexia. Or

something eating disordered not otherwise specified along those

lines….

I think that is where the HEALTHY part was thrown out the window...

I had no one to blame but my own lifesized_self.

Is it possible to be both thin AND healthy? I hope so! It is

certainly what I strive to be! Although I have yet to get there. Here

I am at 120. Surely, by most American standards- I might be

considered somewhat " thin " .). If you compare me to the average 5'4

140lbs. American woman who is indeed a bit on the " healthy " side

(I'm

certainly not skinny-by any stretch of the imagination and thankfully

not- I do appreciate the femininity of my body.) I have remained this

weight consistently despite my fluctuating cal intakes (from periodic

indulgences that lead me to about 1800 cals a day to strong

intermittent (every other week or so) restrictions which equal to

about 800-1000/day)

To me- holding at 120 holds no rewards. Why? I do not feel lean. I

do not feel light. I feel heavy and bloated most of the time. This

may be due to my nutrition (or lack of?) level. I am not physically

reaping the reward of holding this weight at the present time.

I know I can be better. I know I can eat better. I know I can

optimize my calorie intake with better nutrition. It is something I

am working on and struggle for on a daily basis.

I am not indulgent when it comes to most foods. I do not eat bread or

pasta or pizza or meat on a regular basis. My diet mostly consists of

egg whites, fishes, veggies and occasional low sugar fruits. I do not

hold back when it comes to flax seeds or wheat germ or fiber one

cereal and soymilk. I do not eat dairy or poultry. I make sure to get

my omega 3.6.9 and also my b6. Etc. through supplements. I wonder

what key link I am missing? At what point will I feel totally

energized and lean?

I know my size and stature. I have a very small build and am quite

busty for my small frame and height. ::rolls eyes:: Some call it a

blessing, some call it a curse. I wonder if estrogen levels have

anything to do with weight gain or loss or if cal restriction on a

cron lifestyle- affectsyour hormone levels? I do not take any

prescription medications and have not for several months. (the only

one I have ever taken was ortho-tri-cyclen – a contraceptive

which

is know to cause carbohydrate intolerance) I would prefer to be a bit

on the leaner side- near the 111 mark. This is where I find

my " fighting " weight as they say. The weight where I feel at 100%

strong, lean and thin. At that weight, I carried the leaness of

myself in a confident and loving manner, without feeling emaciated or

spaced out.

Currently, I have 14% body fat (with near exactness as consistently

listed on the tanita, on calipers and through hydrostatic measurments

I consistently fall between 14-16%).

I also run 5 miles every morning without fail at a rate of 6.7 miles

per hour on the treadmill. I have conditioned myself to do this,

despite the oh-so-commom-mitral valve prolapse. (heart murmur). So, I

know my heart is strong after many years of conditioning. My blood

pressure is excellent. And according to the health insurance charts-

my weight is " normal " .

My problem is that I have yet to see my weight fluctuate past this

120 mark in many months- when I KNOW I can do much better. Any

advice? Is this my " set " weight? I don't see what else I can do or

what I am missing that my weight just will not budge. SHould I try a

raw foods diet? Is that considered Cron " ish " ? My goal is not to ONLY

attain a lower weight- but to maintain the lowest weight possible- in

order to minimize health risks and to gain an inner strength and

peace. I instinctively know that 120 is not this weight that I aspire

to.

Any help is surely appreciated.

Hugs and love,

LSB

[Guest guest]

The first thing to do is read " Beyond the 120 year Diet " by Dr. Walford if

you haven't read it.

As CRONIES our goal is NOT concentrating on our weight. We should

concentrate on CALORIES and healthy calories. The loss in weight may (or in

isolated cases may not) follow (but it usually does). It sounds like you're

obsessive about weight. This (as you hint in your post) could lead to an

eating disorder, so, as one well respected CRONIE often says: throw away

the damn scale if you have to. Also, we veterans as a rule no longer worry

about set point because from experience, it is elusive and seems to

fluctuate throughout adulthood.

CRON is not a diet. It is a way of getting healthy and living longer.

Lastly we know we're on CRON from physical tests such as outlined in

Walford's book. These are for example: bp, wbc, lipid profile, fasting

glucose. There are also markers that are obvious to the naked eye w/o

getting tested: improved skin and hair for example and as I recently

posted: better all around health and less or no illness.

I know I'm on CRON just from looking in the mirror. My hair is full and

lush (in spite of the fact that I'm at an age when many women have thinning

hair) compared to times in my life when I wasn't feeling well (hair limp and

lifeless).

on 5/28/2004 6:47 PM, lifesized_barbie at auburndiva@... wrote:

>

> When does one know when one is officially in a CRONstate? Is it

> measured by weight? BMI? Body fat %? Cal intake? Cholesterol or

> blood pressure levels? Tape measure? Is one placing too much of a

> numeric label on this aspiration? Perhaps knowing when you are

> " CRON "

> is more than just being able to measure your gains and losses by a

> numbers game.

>

> My problem is that I have yet to see my weight fluctuate past this

> 120 mark in many months- when I KNOW I can do much better. Any

> advice? Is this my " set " weight? I don't see what else I can do or

> what I am missing that my weight just will not budge. SHould I try a

> raw foods diet? Is that considered Cron " ish " ? My goal is not to ONLY

> attain a lower weight- but to maintain the lowest weight possible- in

> order to minimize health risks and to gain an inner strength and

> peace. I instinctively know that 120 is not this weight that I aspire

> to.

>

> Any help is surely appreciated.

> Hugs and love,

> LSB

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

For me, the appeal of Walford's plan is that it coaches people how to

combine different foods for optimum nutrition. But, for those of us

who are overweight, it also offers a plan to lose weight without

adding altered or fake foods/chemicals.

The problem I've found with most weight loss diets is that they focus

on weight loss and not nutrients. Weight Watchers, for example, is

good in that to get the fewest points, you have to choose low fat/high

fiber foods. Weight Watchers is also a lifestyle/lifelong eating plan.

In other words, like the anti-aging plan, it promotes itself as a

lifestyle program not just a " diet " . Unfortunately, WW emphasizes

substitute sugar. Their menu suggestions promote fake sugar

substitutes on a daily basis. Studies have found these fake sugar

chemicals promote a dependance on sugar. And they can cause cancer. As

a cancer survivor who downed gallons of TAB in the late 60's and 70's,

I want to avoid any questionable chemicals, particularly sugar

substitutes, im my food.

Walford's plan is one of the few I've seen that raises this issue. Dr.

Weil also emphasizes REAL food, and his eating plan is also

appealing, but only if you're a vegetarian.

The appeal of Walford's plan for me is his specific menu plans that

cover CRON for the entire day. This is the first time in a long time

I have high energy and haven't craved sugar. My hat is off to Dr.

Walford for coming up with menus that are nutritious AND satisfying!

Even if I weren't losing weight on CRON, I would be motivated to stay

with it because of that factor. The weight loss is a bonus.

MH

> The object is to be healthy. Although most people lose weight on CRON,

> losing weight is not the goal. The goal is to eat fewer and healthier

> calories which enhances your health and extends your life.

[Guest guest]

mharriman wrote:

Studies have found these fake sugar

chemicals promote a dependance on sugar. And they can cause cancer.

Maybe but if you give anything to someone at huge quantities it will

have bad effects. For example there was the example I heard of of a

person that drank huge quantities of milk and had bad health problems as

a result.

Most of these studies gave such huge amounts of chemicals that it would

be impossible to imitate as a consumer.

Positive Dennis

[Guest guest]

Drinking too much water can cause death.

I am a fan of sucralose and believe it to be more healthful than using sugar

in recipes.

As with all things, moderation, variety, and just because you read it on the

internet (my musings included) it isn't always true. Triangulate all

important sources of health advice. Dr. Walford's writings have been well

vetted and are a solid source of health/nutrition advice.

JR

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

From: Dennis De Jarnette [mailto:positivedennis@...]

Sent: Saturday, May 29, 2004 11:06 AM

Subject: Re: [ ] Re: thin or healthy?

mharriman wrote:

Studies have found these fake sugar

chemicals promote a dependance on sugar. And they can cause cancer.

Maybe but if you give anything to someone at huge quantities it will

have bad effects. For example there was the example I heard of of a

person that drank huge quantities of milk and had bad health problems as

a result.

Most of these studies gave such huge amounts of chemicals that it would

be impossible to imitate as a consumer.

Positive Dennis

________________________________________________________

This email has been scanned by Internet Pathway's Email

Gateway scanning system for potentially harmful content,

such as viruses or spam. Nothing out of the ordinary was

detected in this email. For more information, call

601-776-3355 or email support@...

________________________________________________________

[Guest guest]

john roberts wrote:

Drinking too much water can cause death.

I am a fan of sucralose and believe it to be more healthful than using

sugar

in recipes.

I tend to agree and use sucralose myself, but there is an element of a

false dilemma here. There is another alternative, not using either. I

doubt that a moderate use of sucralose is harmful, however the original

poster's comment about gallons of Tab does have merit, and I am sure

from the rest of your post that you agree.

Positive Dennis

As with all things, moderation, variety, and just because you read it

on the

internet (my musings included) it isn't always true. Triangulate all

important sources of health advice. Dr. Walford's writings have been

well

vetted and are a solid source of health/nutrition advice.

JR

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

From: Dennis De Jarnette [mailto:positivedennis@...]

Sent: Saturday, May 29, 2004 11:06 AM

Subject: Re: [ ] Re: thin or healthy?

mharriman wrote:

Studies have found these fake sugar

chemicals promote a dependance on sugar. And they can cause cancer.

Maybe but if you give anything to someone at huge quantities it will

have bad effects. For example there was the example I heard of of a

person that drank huge quantities of milk and had bad health problems as

a result.

Most of these studies gave such huge amounts of chemicals that it would

be impossible to imitate as a consumer.

Positive Dennis

________________________________________________________

This email has been scanned by Internet Pathway's Email

Gateway scanning system for potentially harmful content,

such as viruses or spam. Nothing out of the ordinary was

detected in this email. For more information, call

601-776-3355 or email support@...

________________________________________________________

[Guest guest]

I've been off the list for a while since I was out of town... I didn't see the original post.

Moderation in all things, even moderation :-).

JR

-----Original Message-----From: Dennis De Jarnette [mailto:positivedennis@...]Sent: Sunday, May 30, 2004 8:29 AM Subject: Re: [ ] Re: thin or healthy?john roberts wrote:

Drinking too much water can cause death.I am a fan of sucralose and believe it to be more healthful than using sugarin recipes.I tend to agree and use sucralose myself, but there is an element of a false dilemma here. There is another alternative, not using either. I doubt that a moderate use of sucralose is harmful, however the original poster's comment about gallons of Tab does have merit, and I am sure from the rest of your post that you agree. Positive Dennis

As with all things, moderation, variety, and just because you read it on theinternet (my musings included) it isn't always true. Triangulate allimportant sources of health advice. Dr. Walford's writings have been wellvetted and are a solid source of health/nutrition advice.JR-----Original Message-----From: Dennis De Jarnette [mailto:positivedennis@...]Sent: Saturday, May 29, 2004 11:06 AM Subject: Re: [ ] Re: thin or healthy?mharriman wrote:Studies have found these fake sugarchemicals promote a dependance on sugar. And they can cause cancer.Maybe but if you give anything to someone at huge quantities it willhave bad effects. For example there was the example I heard of of aperson that drank huge quantities of milk and had bad health problems asa result.Most of these studies gave such huge amounts of chemicals that it wouldbe impossible to imitate as a consumer.Positive Dennis________________________________________________________This email has been scanned by Internet Pathway's EmailGateway scanning system for potentially harmful content,such as viruses or spam. Nothing out of the ordinary wasdetected in this email. For more information, call601-776-3355 or email support@...________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________

This email has been scanned by Internet Pathway's Email

Gateway scanning system for potentially harmful content,

such as viruses or spam. Nothing out of the ordinary was

detected in this email. For more information, call

601-776-3355 or email support@...

________________________________________________________

[Guest guest]

Francesca Skelton <fskelton@e...> wrote:

> There are undesirable side effects if going to extremes. Some of

these

> include: loss of libido (esp for men), . . .

What's undesirable about a loss of libido? Sounds like a benefit to

me. Libidos make men act in ways counter to their own interests.

I can say that because I'm an old man.

[Guest guest]

Hi Clyde:

How would Bonnie feel about the loss of your libido? And how would

you feel about the possible consequent loss of Bonnie to a more

libidinous male?

(Of course I do understand your point about what some people refer to

as 'testosterone dementia').

Rodney.

> There are undesirable side effects if going to extremes. Some of

> these

> > include: loss of libido (esp for men), . . .

>

> What's undesirable about a loss of libido? Sounds like a benefit

to

> me. Libidos make men act in ways counter to their own interests.

>

> I can say that because I'm an old man.

[Guest guest]

I'd have to agree with Rodney - if Clyde's libido diminished, I would

not be particularly happy. I suppose it's an individual choice ...

depending upon Clyde's situation with his mate (i.e.,

attached/unattached? celebate/sexually active?)

Bonnie

>

> > There are undesirable side effects if going to extremes. Some of

> > these

> > > include: loss of libido (esp for men), . . .

> >

> > What's undesirable about a loss of libido? Sounds like a benefit

> to

> > me. Libidos make men act in ways counter to their own interests.

> >

> > I can say that because I'm an old man.

[Guest guest]

Just going by the booming sales of Viagra and similar drugs, I'd say Clyde's

feelings on this are certainly not universal among men. OTOH, I remember

many of the extremists saying that they " didn't miss it " .

A real life example of what Rodney is saying was when Sherman quit

the CR Society list because his wife was about to divorce him over his

extremism and her lack of a sex life. He went on an odyssey to gain a bit

of weight to win his wife back and a couple of weeks later reported of his

sexual prowess as a result of becoming a more moderate CRONIE (I remember

this because I found it surprising that one would put such personal matters

on a public list.....)

on 5/31/2004 8:42 AM, Rodney at perspect1111@... wrote:

> Hi Clyde:

>

> How would Bonnie feel about the loss of your libido? And how would

> you feel about the possible consequent loss of Bonnie to a more

> libidinous male?

>

> (Of course I do understand your point about what some people refer to

> as 'testosterone dementia').

>

> Rodney.

>

>

>

>> There are undesirable side effects if going to extremes. Some of

>> these

>>> include: loss of libido (esp for men), . . .

>>

>> What's undesirable about a loss of libido? Sounds like a benefit

> to

>> me. Libidos make men act in ways counter to their own interests.

>>

>> I can say that because I'm an old man.

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Allow me to reinforce your suggestion. It is my belief that we have logical "evidence" if we put several things together.

Cells can divide a finite number of times. That’s a programmed feature so I doubt it can be altered. The more you eat the more food is available to do more work. The more work the more opportunity for a slightly faster cell division. Lower the intake, moderate the exercise or labor, and it's a logical conclusion we will live longer as in, extend lifespan.

In addition, we square the curve by:

The less we eat the less opportunity for carcinogens.

The less we eat the less excess food to feed carcinomas.

The less we eat the less radiation from the food.

The less we eat the less opportunity for waste products to be processed in your body that we don't want processed.

Regards.----- Original Message -----

From: Rodney

Sent: Friday, May 28, 2004 4:49 PM

Subject: [ ] Re: Thin or Healthy?

Hi :So far CR is the ONLY thing that has been shown scientifically to extend maximum lifespan in lots of species. (It hasn't yet been proven to do that in humans, although there is evidence that suggests it almost certainly does).No one knows for sure why it works. But there are lots of theories. Some people are hoping (expecting?) that when it is determined what the mechanism is, it will be possible to immitate that mechanism by means that do not require limiting calories. No one has yet done this, as far as I am aware.So, yes, as of today the CR bit is absolutely necessary. Who knows what may get discovered/published tomorrow.But I think I will be a little disappointed if it turns out that one can just take some dumb pill and live for ever. I think I would get more satisfaction from having to make some serious effort for it. But I would take it either way!Rodney.