Guest guest Posted March 3, 2006 Report Share Posted March 3, 2006 In some recent notes to the Calorie Restriction Society, Mcglothin reported that at 124 lb (BMI 17 and BF 5%) he required 2000-2100 cal/day to maintain his weight, whereas at 137 lb (8-9% BF) he requires 1800 cal/day and that it seems easier. He explained this apparent contradiction by saying that at the 124 level, he lost between 2.5-3 lbs overnight, whereas now the average loss is about 2. Calculating 's lean body mass indicates that he has 6.9 lb MORE lean body mass now than before which should require extra calories. 124 * 5% = 6.2 lb Fat, and 117.8 Lean body mass 137 * 9% = 12.3 lb Fat, and 124.7 Lean body mass However, he also has 6 additional pounds of fat. Since 80% of body fat is subcutaneous and acts as a thermal insulator, this skin fat could prevent 300 calories per day from being used for temperature maintenance, thereby reducing total calorie requirements. Although most overnight weight loss is attributable to water loss, the excess overnight weight loss at the 124 level could have provided the extra calories for temperature maintenance. Maybe the lesson to be learned from 's experience is that VERY LOW BODY FAT IS NOT OPTIMUM for CR. According to the American Council on Exercise[1], male athletes have 6-13% BF, whereas female athletes have 14-20% BF. A good target for CRONies may be the middle ground: 9.5% BF for males and 17% BF for females. Tony [1] Understanding Your Body Fat Percentage http://www.healthchecksystems.com/bodyfat.htm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 3, 2006 Report Share Posted March 3, 2006 I have the a lack of understanding of data such as that . Many times, it is simply a matter of calorie intake " wishful thinking " AKA underreporting. is quite meticulous, so maybe that the calories of the foods he eats are taken up more efficiently than they are taken up by others such as me and I take it you. suggests that his metabolism is now more efficient with the calories that he eats. Biomarkers of CR are the important test of how much and others CR. He reports that his glucose blood level has decreased. This sounds good. It would be nice to see his blood immune cell levels now, to see if they feature CR-like low levels. Mark Mattson pushes the restricting of the time during which food is eaten also, but it always appears to turn up that the level of calories and weight decrease. That fasting type of eating could improve glucose and insulin dynamics is believable. That the effects translate into enhanced longevity without CR is what I question. I remember noting previously: CRONies: McGlothin Al Pater ==================================== Date: 7/30/02 8/23/02 Weight (pounds): 124 101 Activity: Moderate Moderate Total Daily Nutrient Intake - All Foods: Energy (kcal): 1683 1685 Cheers, Al. -- Al Pater, alpater@... --- citpeks <citpeks@...> wrote: > In some recent notes to the Calorie Restriction Society, > Mcglothin reported that at 124 lb (BMI 17 and BF 5%) he required > 2000-2100 cal/day to maintain his weight, whereas at 137 lb (8-9% BF) > he requires 1800 cal/day and that it seems easier. > > He explained this apparent contradiction by saying that at the 124 > level, he lost between 2.5-3 lbs overnight, whereas now the average > loss is about 2. > > Calculating 's lean body mass indicates that he has 6.9 lb MORE > lean body mass now than before which should require extra calories. > > 124 * 5% = 6.2 lb Fat, and 117.8 Lean body mass > 137 * 9% = 12.3 lb Fat, and 124.7 Lean body mass > > However, he also has 6 additional pounds of fat. Since 80% of body > fat is subcutaneous and acts as a thermal insulator, this skin fat > could prevent 300 calories per day from being used for temperature > maintenance, thereby reducing total calorie requirements. Although > most overnight weight loss is attributable to water loss, the excess > overnight weight loss at the 124 level could have provided the extra > calories for temperature maintenance. > > Maybe the lesson to be learned from 's experience is that VERY LOW > BODY FAT IS NOT OPTIMUM for CR. > > According to the American Council on Exercise[1], male athletes have > 6-13% BF, whereas female athletes have 14-20% BF. A good target for > CRONies may be the middle ground: 9.5% BF for males and 17% BF for > females. > > [1] Understanding Your Body Fat Percentage > http://www.healthchecksystems.com/bodyfat.htm __________________________________________________ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 3, 2006 Report Share Posted March 3, 2006 I have the a lack of understanding of data such as that . Many times, it is simply a matter of calorie intake " wishful thinking " AKA underreporting. is quite meticulous, so maybe that the calories of the foods he eats are taken up more efficiently than they are taken up by others such as me and I take it you. suggests that his metabolism is now more efficient with the calories that he eats. Biomarkers of CR are the important test of how much and others CR. He reports that his glucose blood level has decreased. This sounds good. It would be nice to see his blood immune cell levels now, to see if they feature CR-like low levels. Mark Mattson pushes the restricting of the time during which food is eaten also, but it always appears to turn up that the level of calories and weight decrease. That fasting type of eating could improve glucose and insulin dynamics is believable. That the effects translate into enhanced longevity without CR is what I question. I remember noting previously: CRONies: McGlothin Al Pater ==================================== Date: 7/30/02 8/23/02 Weight (pounds): 124 101 Activity: Moderate Moderate Total Daily Nutrient Intake - All Foods: Energy (kcal): 1683 1685 Cheers, Al. -- Al Pater, alpater@... --- citpeks <citpeks@...> wrote: > In some recent notes to the Calorie Restriction Society, > Mcglothin reported that at 124 lb (BMI 17 and BF 5%) he required > 2000-2100 cal/day to maintain his weight, whereas at 137 lb (8-9% BF) > he requires 1800 cal/day and that it seems easier. > > He explained this apparent contradiction by saying that at the 124 > level, he lost between 2.5-3 lbs overnight, whereas now the average > loss is about 2. > > Calculating 's lean body mass indicates that he has 6.9 lb MORE > lean body mass now than before which should require extra calories. > > 124 * 5% = 6.2 lb Fat, and 117.8 Lean body mass > 137 * 9% = 12.3 lb Fat, and 124.7 Lean body mass > > However, he also has 6 additional pounds of fat. Since 80% of body > fat is subcutaneous and acts as a thermal insulator, this skin fat > could prevent 300 calories per day from being used for temperature > maintenance, thereby reducing total calorie requirements. Although > most overnight weight loss is attributable to water loss, the excess > overnight weight loss at the 124 level could have provided the extra > calories for temperature maintenance. > > Maybe the lesson to be learned from 's experience is that VERY LOW > BODY FAT IS NOT OPTIMUM for CR. > > According to the American Council on Exercise[1], male athletes have > 6-13% BF, whereas female athletes have 14-20% BF. A good target for > CRONies may be the middle ground: 9.5% BF for males and 17% BF for > females. > > [1] Understanding Your Body Fat Percentage > http://www.healthchecksystems.com/bodyfat.htm __________________________________________________ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 3, 2006 Report Share Posted March 3, 2006 Al, You make some good points. However, one aspect of metabolism is heat generation which we generally do not take into account. According to Craig H. Warden, assistant professor of Pediatrics and Rowe Program in Genetics at the UC School of Medicine and Medical Center, " The UCP2 gene is a missing link that helps us understand the connection between body temperature and weight. " " Energy expenditure takes three forms: physical activity, resting metabolic rate, and thermogenesis or heat production. UCP2 affects the last of these by burning calories as heat rather storing them as fat. " http://www.ucdmc.ucdavis.edu/news/medicalnews/obesity.html My heavy Norwegian wool sweater weighs 1.5 pounds. An extra 6 pounds of fat could provide the insulation of a couple of wool sweaters and reduce the need to burn calories to produce heat. I don't know how this tranlsates into longevity, but it may be able to help to cut calories. Tony > > > In some recent notes to the Calorie Restriction Society, > > Mcglothin reported that at 124 lb (BMI 17 and BF 5%) he required > > 2000-2100 cal/day to maintain his weight, whereas at 137 lb (8-9% BF) > > he requires 1800 cal/day and that it seems easier. > > > > He explained this apparent contradiction by saying that at the 124 > > level, he lost between 2.5-3 lbs overnight, whereas now the average > > loss is about 2. > > > > Calculating 's lean body mass indicates that he has 6.9 lb MORE > > lean body mass now than before which should require extra calories. > > > > 124 * 5% = 6.2 lb Fat, and 117.8 Lean body mass > > 137 * 9% = 12.3 lb Fat, and 124.7 Lean body mass > > > > However, he also has 6 additional pounds of fat. Since 80% of body > > fat is subcutaneous and acts as a thermal insulator, this skin fat > > could prevent 300 calories per day from being used for temperature > > maintenance, thereby reducing total calorie requirements. Although > > most overnight weight loss is attributable to water loss, the excess > > overnight weight loss at the 124 level could have provided the extra > > calories for temperature maintenance. > > > > Maybe the lesson to be learned from 's experience is that VERY LOW > > BODY FAT IS NOT OPTIMUM for CR. > > > > According to the American Council on Exercise[1], male athletes have > > 6-13% BF, whereas female athletes have 14-20% BF. A good target for > > CRONies may be the middle ground: 9.5% BF for males and 17% BF for > > females. > > > > [1] Understanding Your Body Fat Percentage > > http://www.healthchecksystems.com/bodyfat.htm > > __________________________________________________ > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 3, 2006 Report Share Posted March 3, 2006 Al, You make some good points. However, one aspect of metabolism is heat generation which we generally do not take into account. According to Craig H. Warden, assistant professor of Pediatrics and Rowe Program in Genetics at the UC School of Medicine and Medical Center, " The UCP2 gene is a missing link that helps us understand the connection between body temperature and weight. " " Energy expenditure takes three forms: physical activity, resting metabolic rate, and thermogenesis or heat production. UCP2 affects the last of these by burning calories as heat rather storing them as fat. " http://www.ucdmc.ucdavis.edu/news/medicalnews/obesity.html My heavy Norwegian wool sweater weighs 1.5 pounds. An extra 6 pounds of fat could provide the insulation of a couple of wool sweaters and reduce the need to burn calories to produce heat. I don't know how this tranlsates into longevity, but it may be able to help to cut calories. Tony > > > In some recent notes to the Calorie Restriction Society, > > Mcglothin reported that at 124 lb (BMI 17 and BF 5%) he required > > 2000-2100 cal/day to maintain his weight, whereas at 137 lb (8-9% BF) > > he requires 1800 cal/day and that it seems easier. > > > > He explained this apparent contradiction by saying that at the 124 > > level, he lost between 2.5-3 lbs overnight, whereas now the average > > loss is about 2. > > > > Calculating 's lean body mass indicates that he has 6.9 lb MORE > > lean body mass now than before which should require extra calories. > > > > 124 * 5% = 6.2 lb Fat, and 117.8 Lean body mass > > 137 * 9% = 12.3 lb Fat, and 124.7 Lean body mass > > > > However, he also has 6 additional pounds of fat. Since 80% of body > > fat is subcutaneous and acts as a thermal insulator, this skin fat > > could prevent 300 calories per day from being used for temperature > > maintenance, thereby reducing total calorie requirements. Although > > most overnight weight loss is attributable to water loss, the excess > > overnight weight loss at the 124 level could have provided the extra > > calories for temperature maintenance. > > > > Maybe the lesson to be learned from 's experience is that VERY LOW > > BODY FAT IS NOT OPTIMUM for CR. > > > > According to the American Council on Exercise[1], male athletes have > > 6-13% BF, whereas female athletes have 14-20% BF. A good target for > > CRONies may be the middle ground: 9.5% BF for males and 17% BF for > > females. > > > > [1] Understanding Your Body Fat Percentage > > http://www.healthchecksystems.com/bodyfat.htm > > __________________________________________________ > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 3, 2006 Report Share Posted March 3, 2006 Hi Tony: Thanks for that link, but on the face of it I find most of it simply not credible. Indeed in the absence of a better documented piece than that, the word 'ridiculous' comes to mind. First, as we have discussed before, if it is a GENE that is responsible for obesity where in hell did these obese people get this gene from? Three times as many people are obese now as were in their parents' generation thirty years ago. So their PARENTS clearly didn't have the gene. So where did they get it? ET? Second, it would be a very simple thing to measure body temperature and show that obese humans almost all have a reduced core body temperature, or a reduced skin temperature (where, obviously, most heat is lost). So why would they come out with such great claims before they had bothered to check even the most elementary first test of their hypothesis? (If they had already checked this I am sure it would have been one of the first things they would have told us). Third, they claim that even one-tenth of a degree difference in body temperature could make the difference between being slim and obese. This is totally ridiculous. We all know that people on CRON have reduced body temperatures. As much as two degrees below 'average'. (Perhaps four degrees below the temperatures of those with the most elevated temperatures?) So, if one-tenth of a degree is as important as they would have us believe, then we are TWENTY TIMES (2 divided by one-tenth) more susceptible to becoming obese, than a person whose temperature is a mere one-tenth of a degree lower than average. They would have us believe that just one-tenth of one degree will add five pounds a year to a persons weight. By that measure - THEIR OWN measure - we should be putting on weight at a rate of 100 pounds a year purely because of our much reduced body temperatures. (If even a single one of us 2000 here who has a below-normal body temperature has put on 100 pounds in the past year, please advise.) Sorry. But this looks to me like just another in a long line of excuses used to relieve obese people from taking responsibility for the actions that it is necessary for them to take in order to lose weight. Fourth, I will sit up and pay attention to this kind of stuff only after some people who do not have an axe to grind do a metabolic ward study of slim and less slim people on precisely isocaloric diets. They would need to measure the amount of energy excreted various ways; their internal and skin body temperatures; their exercise taken (as little as possible in this case, for simplicity), and then show that the obese people all have lower body temperatures than the slim people. Why should anyone take this kind of stuff seriously until this kind of study is done? (If there is a good study that has done this, anyone please post it.) On a slightly different note. Fifteen years ago the canadian government came out with what it called 'Canada's Food Guide for Healthy Eating' - eat X servings of this, Y servings of that etc. At the time it was released I added up the calories they recommended for the average person and it was over 3000 a day. I wrote to them and pointed out that the average person who ate that much would put on weight at a rate of about 100 pounds a year. I also phoned and spoke to them, and also wrote a letter to the local member of parliament. Of course no one cared. Reminded of this yesterday I did the Mifflin-St Jeor calculation for that recommended caloric intake for the average person and found that the equilibrium weight at that level of intake is approximately 350 pounds. Sigh. Rant over! If I am missing something here I do wish someone would point out what it is. Either on list or off list, you choose. Rodney. > > > > > In some recent notes to the Calorie Restriction Society, > > > Mcglothin reported that at 124 lb (BMI 17 and BF 5%) he required > > > 2000-2100 cal/day to maintain his weight, whereas at 137 lb (8- 9% BF) > > > he requires 1800 cal/day and that it seems easier. > > > > > > He explained this apparent contradiction by saying that at the 124 > > > level, he lost between 2.5-3 lbs overnight, whereas now the average > > > loss is about 2. > > > > > > Calculating 's lean body mass indicates that he has 6.9 lb MORE > > > lean body mass now than before which should require extra calories. > > > > > > 124 * 5% = 6.2 lb Fat, and 117.8 Lean body mass > > > 137 * 9% = 12.3 lb Fat, and 124.7 Lean body mass > > > > > > However, he also has 6 additional pounds of fat. Since 80% of body > > > fat is subcutaneous and acts as a thermal insulator, this skin fat > > > could prevent 300 calories per day from being used for temperature > > > maintenance, thereby reducing total calorie requirements. Although > > > most overnight weight loss is attributable to water loss, the excess > > > overnight weight loss at the 124 level could have provided the extra > > > calories for temperature maintenance. > > > > > > Maybe the lesson to be learned from 's experience is that VERY LOW > > > BODY FAT IS NOT OPTIMUM for CR. > > > > > > According to the American Council on Exercise[1], male athletes have > > > 6-13% BF, whereas female athletes have 14-20% BF. A good target for > > > CRONies may be the middle ground: 9.5% BF for males and 17% BF for > > > females. > > > > > > [1] Understanding Your Body Fat Percentage > > > http://www.healthchecksystems.com/bodyfat.htm > > > > __________________________________________________ > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 3, 2006 Report Share Posted March 3, 2006 Hi Tony: Thanks for that link, but on the face of it I find most of it simply not credible. Indeed in the absence of a better documented piece than that, the word 'ridiculous' comes to mind. First, as we have discussed before, if it is a GENE that is responsible for obesity where in hell did these obese people get this gene from? Three times as many people are obese now as were in their parents' generation thirty years ago. So their PARENTS clearly didn't have the gene. So where did they get it? ET? Second, it would be a very simple thing to measure body temperature and show that obese humans almost all have a reduced core body temperature, or a reduced skin temperature (where, obviously, most heat is lost). So why would they come out with such great claims before they had bothered to check even the most elementary first test of their hypothesis? (If they had already checked this I am sure it would have been one of the first things they would have told us). Third, they claim that even one-tenth of a degree difference in body temperature could make the difference between being slim and obese. This is totally ridiculous. We all know that people on CRON have reduced body temperatures. As much as two degrees below 'average'. (Perhaps four degrees below the temperatures of those with the most elevated temperatures?) So, if one-tenth of a degree is as important as they would have us believe, then we are TWENTY TIMES (2 divided by one-tenth) more susceptible to becoming obese, than a person whose temperature is a mere one-tenth of a degree lower than average. They would have us believe that just one-tenth of one degree will add five pounds a year to a persons weight. By that measure - THEIR OWN measure - we should be putting on weight at a rate of 100 pounds a year purely because of our much reduced body temperatures. (If even a single one of us 2000 here who has a below-normal body temperature has put on 100 pounds in the past year, please advise.) Sorry. But this looks to me like just another in a long line of excuses used to relieve obese people from taking responsibility for the actions that it is necessary for them to take in order to lose weight. Fourth, I will sit up and pay attention to this kind of stuff only after some people who do not have an axe to grind do a metabolic ward study of slim and less slim people on precisely isocaloric diets. They would need to measure the amount of energy excreted various ways; their internal and skin body temperatures; their exercise taken (as little as possible in this case, for simplicity), and then show that the obese people all have lower body temperatures than the slim people. Why should anyone take this kind of stuff seriously until this kind of study is done? (If there is a good study that has done this, anyone please post it.) On a slightly different note. Fifteen years ago the canadian government came out with what it called 'Canada's Food Guide for Healthy Eating' - eat X servings of this, Y servings of that etc. At the time it was released I added up the calories they recommended for the average person and it was over 3000 a day. I wrote to them and pointed out that the average person who ate that much would put on weight at a rate of about 100 pounds a year. I also phoned and spoke to them, and also wrote a letter to the local member of parliament. Of course no one cared. Reminded of this yesterday I did the Mifflin-St Jeor calculation for that recommended caloric intake for the average person and found that the equilibrium weight at that level of intake is approximately 350 pounds. Sigh. Rant over! If I am missing something here I do wish someone would point out what it is. Either on list or off list, you choose. Rodney. > > > > > In some recent notes to the Calorie Restriction Society, > > > Mcglothin reported that at 124 lb (BMI 17 and BF 5%) he required > > > 2000-2100 cal/day to maintain his weight, whereas at 137 lb (8- 9% BF) > > > he requires 1800 cal/day and that it seems easier. > > > > > > He explained this apparent contradiction by saying that at the 124 > > > level, he lost between 2.5-3 lbs overnight, whereas now the average > > > loss is about 2. > > > > > > Calculating 's lean body mass indicates that he has 6.9 lb MORE > > > lean body mass now than before which should require extra calories. > > > > > > 124 * 5% = 6.2 lb Fat, and 117.8 Lean body mass > > > 137 * 9% = 12.3 lb Fat, and 124.7 Lean body mass > > > > > > However, he also has 6 additional pounds of fat. Since 80% of body > > > fat is subcutaneous and acts as a thermal insulator, this skin fat > > > could prevent 300 calories per day from being used for temperature > > > maintenance, thereby reducing total calorie requirements. Although > > > most overnight weight loss is attributable to water loss, the excess > > > overnight weight loss at the 124 level could have provided the extra > > > calories for temperature maintenance. > > > > > > Maybe the lesson to be learned from 's experience is that VERY LOW > > > BODY FAT IS NOT OPTIMUM for CR. > > > > > > According to the American Council on Exercise[1], male athletes have > > > 6-13% BF, whereas female athletes have 14-20% BF. A good target for > > > CRONies may be the middle ground: 9.5% BF for males and 17% BF for > > > females. > > > > > > [1] Understanding Your Body Fat Percentage > > > http://www.healthchecksystems.com/bodyfat.htm > > > > __________________________________________________ > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 4, 2006 Report Share Posted March 4, 2006 Rodney wrote: > Hi Tony: > > Thanks for that link, but on the face of it I find most of it simply > not credible. Indeed in the absence of a better documented piece > than that, the word 'ridiculous' comes to mind. > > First, as we have discussed before, if it is a GENE that is > responsible for obesity where in hell did these obese people get this > gene from? Three times as many people are obese now as were in their > parents' generation thirty years ago. So their PARENTS clearly > didn't have the gene. So where did they get it? ET? > Many (most?) of our (caveman) parents may have had the gene... It's probably what drove them to eat enough in times of plenty to survive the times of want... Those with less rapacious genomes would have lower energy reserves and thus reduced survival chances. Genes are not simple binary programs, either always on or off factors but more like potentials for expressing a factor that can get stimulated or suppressed by other environmental conditions (physical, emotional, whatever??). For one obvious example I suspect the quantity and quality of a pregnant mothers diet today is far different from her mother's, as was her's from her mother's. How our genes get influenced to express is not well understood but development can be somewhat plastic (in a mostly good way). About the only thing I can say with certainty is that in the future we will look back on how ignorant we were about such things.... and much more, assuming we don't ruin the neighborhood before gaining enlightenment. This is an interesting variant on the classic nature vs. nurture debate. Apparently you can also nurture nature... :-) JR Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 4, 2006 Report Share Posted March 4, 2006 Rodney wrote: > Hi Tony: > > Thanks for that link, but on the face of it I find most of it simply > not credible. Indeed in the absence of a better documented piece > than that, the word 'ridiculous' comes to mind. > > First, as we have discussed before, if it is a GENE that is > responsible for obesity where in hell did these obese people get this > gene from? Three times as many people are obese now as were in their > parents' generation thirty years ago. So their PARENTS clearly > didn't have the gene. So where did they get it? ET? > Many (most?) of our (caveman) parents may have had the gene... It's probably what drove them to eat enough in times of plenty to survive the times of want... Those with less rapacious genomes would have lower energy reserves and thus reduced survival chances. Genes are not simple binary programs, either always on or off factors but more like potentials for expressing a factor that can get stimulated or suppressed by other environmental conditions (physical, emotional, whatever??). For one obvious example I suspect the quantity and quality of a pregnant mothers diet today is far different from her mother's, as was her's from her mother's. How our genes get influenced to express is not well understood but development can be somewhat plastic (in a mostly good way). About the only thing I can say with certainty is that in the future we will look back on how ignorant we were about such things.... and much more, assuming we don't ruin the neighborhood before gaining enlightenment. This is an interesting variant on the classic nature vs. nurture debate. Apparently you can also nurture nature... :-) JR Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 5, 2006 Report Share Posted March 5, 2006 > In some recent notes to the Calorie Restriction > Society, Mcglothin reported that at 124 lb (BMI > 17 and BF 5%) he required 2000-2100 cal/day to > maintain his weight, whereas at 137 lb (8-9% BF) > he requires 1800 cal/day and that it seems easier Note that this guy is reportedly 5' 11.5 " , clearly above the average height for males in America and barely above " underweight " at 18.8 BMI. I can't visualize CRONies achieving an " ideal " BMI of 21.5 and 9.5% body fat without becoming de facto weight trainers -- and at what cost in increased calories? Also, he's reportedly only in his mid-50's. Since the elderly tend to be overweight and eat relatively smaller calories for their total body weight and/or have compromised enzyme defenciencies, there may be something to the fat hypothesis. Becoming fatter does appear on the surface to be the body's compensatory mechanism for the age-onset hormonal decline. Logan __________________________________________________ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 5, 2006 Report Share Posted March 5, 2006 > In some recent notes to the Calorie Restriction > Society, Mcglothin reported that at 124 lb (BMI > 17 and BF 5%) he required 2000-2100 cal/day to > maintain his weight, whereas at 137 lb (8-9% BF) > he requires 1800 cal/day and that it seems easier Note that this guy is reportedly 5' 11.5 " , clearly above the average height for males in America and barely above " underweight " at 18.8 BMI. I can't visualize CRONies achieving an " ideal " BMI of 21.5 and 9.5% body fat without becoming de facto weight trainers -- and at what cost in increased calories? Also, he's reportedly only in his mid-50's. Since the elderly tend to be overweight and eat relatively smaller calories for their total body weight and/or have compromised enzyme defenciencies, there may be something to the fat hypothesis. Becoming fatter does appear on the surface to be the body's compensatory mechanism for the age-onset hormonal decline. Logan __________________________________________________ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 5, 2006 Report Share Posted March 5, 2006 Logan wrote: > > Note that this guy is reportedly 5' 11.5 " , clearly > above the average height for males in America and > barely above " underweight " at 18.8 BMI. I can't > visualize CRONies achieving an " ideal " BMI of 21.5 and > 9.5% body fat without becoming de facto weight > trainers -- and at what cost in increased calories? > > Also, he's reportedly only in his mid-50's. Since the > elderly tend to be overweight and eat relatively > smaller calories for their total body weight and/or > have compromised enzyme defenciencies, there may be > something to the fat hypothesis. Becoming fatter does > appear on the surface to be the body's compensatory > mechanism for the age-onset hormonal decline. > > Logan > > > Interesting I always looked at the fat as a side effect rather than useful mechanism. As we age our body makes less growth hormone which tends to bias our LBM makeup toward less muscle mass which requires less energy to support. The increased fat is just the net result from a constant intake and activity level. This loss of muscle mass creates and compounds an energy imbalance. Some feel comfortable simply maintaining youthful total weight but both losing strength and the increased adipose mass have negative (?) general health and well being impacts. I guess there may be a Goldilocks " just right " amount of hormones, but is the adipose mass reliable about making what we need? I thought the hormone making by fat cells was one of those redundant remnants of our evolution from lower life forms. However evolution is pretty clever about keeping useful stuff. Modest energy restriction can mitigate any excess accumulation of adipose but may further accelerate the loss of LBM. I am an advocate of exercise " use it or lose it " , but concede this is based as much on QOL as any longevity issues. The only fairly obvious connection is that bone health requires some form of stress for maintenance, and some level of strength is required for functional self reliance. Yet one more argument for moderation and against too low BMI. JR Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 5, 2006 Report Share Posted March 5, 2006 Logan wrote: > > Note that this guy is reportedly 5' 11.5 " , clearly > above the average height for males in America and > barely above " underweight " at 18.8 BMI. I can't > visualize CRONies achieving an " ideal " BMI of 21.5 and > 9.5% body fat without becoming de facto weight > trainers -- and at what cost in increased calories? > > Also, he's reportedly only in his mid-50's. Since the > elderly tend to be overweight and eat relatively > smaller calories for their total body weight and/or > have compromised enzyme defenciencies, there may be > something to the fat hypothesis. Becoming fatter does > appear on the surface to be the body's compensatory > mechanism for the age-onset hormonal decline. > > Logan > > > Interesting I always looked at the fat as a side effect rather than useful mechanism. As we age our body makes less growth hormone which tends to bias our LBM makeup toward less muscle mass which requires less energy to support. The increased fat is just the net result from a constant intake and activity level. This loss of muscle mass creates and compounds an energy imbalance. Some feel comfortable simply maintaining youthful total weight but both losing strength and the increased adipose mass have negative (?) general health and well being impacts. I guess there may be a Goldilocks " just right " amount of hormones, but is the adipose mass reliable about making what we need? I thought the hormone making by fat cells was one of those redundant remnants of our evolution from lower life forms. However evolution is pretty clever about keeping useful stuff. Modest energy restriction can mitigate any excess accumulation of adipose but may further accelerate the loss of LBM. I am an advocate of exercise " use it or lose it " , but concede this is based as much on QOL as any longevity issues. The only fairly obvious connection is that bone health requires some form of stress for maintenance, and some level of strength is required for functional self reliance. Yet one more argument for moderation and against too low BMI. JR 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.