Low Fat vs Low Fat: Is there a difference

[Guest guest]

I posted this last year on May 2.

I wish they would be as careful about differentiating between what "low fat" means and what "high carb" means as much as they have been about the different types of fats in diets.

From: Jeff Novick Sent: Monday, May 02, 2005 8:31 PM Subject: [ ] Low Fat vs Low Fat: Is there a difference

Not all low fat diets are created equal....

Abstract and 2 lay articles on the study below.

Jeff

ANNALS OF INTERNAL MEDICINE ARTICLE

The Effect of a Plant-Based Diet on Plasma Lipids in Hypercholesterolemic Adults

A Randomized Trial D. Gardner, PhD; Ann Coulston, MS, RD; Lorraine Chatterjee, MS; Alison Rigby, PhD, MPH, RD; Gene Spiller, PhD; and W. Farquhar, MD

3 May 2005 | Volume 142 Issue 9 | Pages 725-733

Background: A variety of food combinations can be used to meet national U.S. guidelines for obtaining 30% of energy or less from total fat and 10% of energy or less from saturated fat.

Objective: To contrast plasma lipid responses to 2 low-fat diet patterns.

Design: Randomized clinical trial.

Setting: 4-week outpatient feeding study with weight held constant.

Participants: 120 adults 30 to 65 years of age with prestudy low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol concentrations of 3.3 to 4.8 mmol/L (130 to 190 mg/dL), body mass index less than 31 kg/m2, estimated dietary saturated fat at least 10% of calories, and otherwise general good health.

Measurements: Plasma lipid levels.

Intervention: Two diets, the Low-Fat diet and the Low-Fat Plus diet, designed to be identical in total fat, saturated fat, protein, carbohydrate, and cholesterol content, consistent with former American Heart Association Step I guidelines. The Low-Fat diet was relatively typical of a low-fat U.S. diet. The Low-Fat Plus diet incorporated considerably more vegetables, legumes, and whole grains, consistent with the 2000 American Heart Association revised guidelines.

Results: Four-week changes in the Low-Fat and Low-Fat Plus groups were –0.24 mmol/L (–9.2 mg/dL) versus –0.46 mmol/L (–17.6 mg/dL) for total cholesterol (P = 0.01) and –0.18 mmol/L (–7.0 mg/dL) versus –0.36 mmol/L (–13.8 mg/dL) for LDL cholesterol (P = 0.02); between-group differences were –0.22 mmol/L (–9 mg/dL) (95% CI, –0.05 to –0.39 mmol/L [–2 to –15 mg/dL]) and –0.18 mmol/L (–7 mg/dL) (CI, –0.04 to –0.32 mmol/L [–2 to –12 mg/dL]) for total and LDL cholesterol, respectively. The 2 diet groups did not differ significantly in high-density lipoprotein cholesterol and triglyceride levels.

Limitations: 4-week duration.

Conclusions: Previous national dietary guidelines primarily emphasized avoiding saturated fat and cholesterol; as a result, the guidelines probably underestimated the potential LDL cholesterol-lowering effect of diet. In this study, emphasis on including nutrient-dense plant-based foods, consistent with recently revised national guidelines, increased the total and LDL cholesterol-lowering effect of a low-fat diet.

http://tinyurl.com/cu82s

and

http://tinyurl.com/aydox

[Guest guest]

Jeff,

In the ls study you posted in terms of diet effects on cholesterol:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Results: Four-week changes in the Low-Fat and Low-Fat Plus groups were

-0.24 mmol/L (-9.2 mg/dL) versus -0.46 mmol/L (-17.6 mg/dL) for total

cholesterol (P = 0.01)

and -0.18 mmol/L (-7.0 mg/dL)

versus -0.36 mmol/L (-13.8 mg/dL) for LDL cholesterol (P = 0.02);

between-group differences were -0.22 mmol/L (-9 mg/dL) (95% CI, -0.05

to -0.39 mmol/L [-2 to -15 mg/dL]) and -0.18 mmol/L (-7 mg/dL) (CI,

-0.04 to -0.32 mmol/L [-2 to -12 mg/dL]) for total and LDL

cholesterol, respectively. The 2 diet groups did not differ

significantly in high-density lipoprotein cholesterol and

triglyceride levels.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

First, there was no benefit of the plant-based diet in terms of HDL

cholesterol or triglyceride.

More importantly, the differences in changes in LDL cholesterol

between the study and control groups certainly were not marked:

LDL cholesterol:

-7 mg in the control group vs. -14 mg in the super diet group.

So only a 7 mg difference in LDL cholesterol between the two groups.

So this difference in LDL amounts to what - 5% of the baseline LDL level?

There was an earlier discussion on this board about " statistically

significant " vs. " clinically important " .

This particular study might be a good one to illustrate this issue.

[Guest guest]

>> It's just that when you do a randomized study

of reducing certain TYPES OF FOOD in a group of unselected people, you

don't usually see that much of a change in cholesterol on average.

How about 30%.

Published: Journal of the American Medical Association, July 23, 2003

Research Organization: University of Toronto

Study Title: " A Dietary Portfolio of Cholesterol-Lowering Foods Versus a Statin

on Serum Lipids and C-Reactive Protein. "

Authors: J.A. , M.D., Cyril W.C. Kendall, Ph.D., Augustine Marchie,

B.Sc., Dorothea Faulkner, R.D., M.W. Wong, R.D., de Souza, R.D.,

Azadeh Emam, B.Sc., Tina L. , R.D., Vidgen, B.Sc., G.

Lapsley, D.Sc., Elke A. Trautwein, Ph.D., G. Josse, M.D., Lawrence A.

Leiter, M.D., W. Connelly, M.D.

Objective: To determine whether a diet containing all these food components

approached the effect of a statin in cholesterol reduction.

Subjects: 46 men and women

Study Description: For one month, 46 hyperlipidemic subjects were randomized to

one of three treatments on an outpatient basis: a very low-saturated fat diet

based on whole-wheat cereals and low-fat dairy foods (n=16, Control); the same

diet with 20 mg lovastatin (n=14, Statin); or a diet high in plant sterols (1.0

g/1000 kcal), soy protein (21.4 g/1000 kcal), viscous fibers (9.8 g/1000 kcal)

and almonds (14 g/1000 kcal) (n=16, Portfolio). Fasting blood samples, blood

pressure, and body weight were obtained at weeks 0, 2 and 4.

Results: On Control, Statin and Portfolio treatments, the fall in

LDL-cholesterol was 8.0 percent (± 2.1 percent) drop, 30.9 percent (± 3.6

percent) drop, and a 28.6 percent (± 3.2 percent) drop, respectively. The

significant reductions on the Statin and Portfolio treatments were all

significantly different from Control values. There were no significant

differences between the Statin and Portfolio treatments.

Conclusions: Diversifying cholesterol-lowering components in the same dietary

portfolio greatly increased the effectiveness of diet as an option in the

treatment of hypercholesterolemia.

[Guest guest]

>> It's just that when you do a randomized study

of reducing certain TYPES OF FOOD in a group of unselected people, you

don't usually see that much of a change in cholesterol on average.

How about 30%.

Published: Journal of the American Medical Association, July 23, 2003

Research Organization: University of Toronto

Study Title: " A Dietary Portfolio of Cholesterol-Lowering Foods Versus a Statin

on Serum Lipids and C-Reactive Protein. "

Authors: J.A. , M.D., Cyril W.C. Kendall, Ph.D., Augustine Marchie,

B.Sc., Dorothea Faulkner, R.D., M.W. Wong, R.D., de Souza, R.D.,

Azadeh Emam, B.Sc., Tina L. , R.D., Vidgen, B.Sc., G.

Lapsley, D.Sc., Elke A. Trautwein, Ph.D., G. Josse, M.D., Lawrence A.

Leiter, M.D., W. Connelly, M.D.

Objective: To determine whether a diet containing all these food components

approached the effect of a statin in cholesterol reduction.

Subjects: 46 men and women

Study Description: For one month, 46 hyperlipidemic subjects were randomized to

one of three treatments on an outpatient basis: a very low-saturated fat diet

based on whole-wheat cereals and low-fat dairy foods (n=16, Control); the same

diet with 20 mg lovastatin (n=14, Statin); or a diet high in plant sterols (1.0

g/1000 kcal), soy protein (21.4 g/1000 kcal), viscous fibers (9.8 g/1000 kcal)

and almonds (14 g/1000 kcal) (n=16, Portfolio). Fasting blood samples, blood

pressure, and body weight were obtained at weeks 0, 2 and 4.

Results: On Control, Statin and Portfolio treatments, the fall in

LDL-cholesterol was 8.0 percent (± 2.1 percent) drop, 30.9 percent (± 3.6

percent) drop, and a 28.6 percent (± 3.2 percent) drop, respectively. The

significant reductions on the Statin and Portfolio treatments were all

significantly different from Control values. There were no significant

differences between the Statin and Portfolio treatments.

Conclusions: Diversifying cholesterol-lowering components in the same dietary

portfolio greatly increased the effectiveness of diet as an option in the

treatment of hypercholesterolemia.

[Guest guest]

Since studies are what the scientific establishment accepts, they're a helluva lot better than one person's personal opinion (and better than a bias to throw them out the window) . You'll have to post studies in the future to back up your assertions such as the ones below (or they don't get posted) . Personal opinions don't cut it around here.

on 2/8/2006 2:36 AM, jt_qod at jt@... wrote:

I didn't agree, for example, with the movie " Supersize Me " . The

person in the movie gained all of his weight because he ate way too

much food. He was probably eating over 5000 calories per day, with

very little activity. I find nothing inherently unhealthy in a Big

Mac or even the fries (although I don't usually order these). (OK,

with AGEs, you've sort of got me there, but it's the manner of cooking

and not the food!) I do believe that soft drinks are inherently

unhealthy, given the very unnatural amount of pure sugar that they

contain. I also believe there is intriguing data about increasing use

of high-fructose corn syrup - since fructose-feeding is a great model

of inducing obesity in animals.

That being said, there probably are certain health benefits to

different classes of food, including meats and saturated fats, and of

course it's unhealthy to eat any one food type to excess.

Getting back to your postscript, in the QOD diet I was focusing

primarily on a relatively easy way to reduce the overall quantity of

food eaten by doing a sort of IF (intermittent fasting) approach while

maintaining mineral intake and some intake of hbv protein. With

regard to type of food, I did, actually, take a sort of agnostic

approach, while hewing fairly close to government and other regulatory

guidelines, counseling a good carb approach, and general avoidance of

eating too many saturated fats. In fact I do criticize the

ultra-low-carb approach - based on what I think is relatively new info

about its potential adverse effects on urinary calcium and uric acid.

So there's little debate that if you reduce calories you will lose

weight :-) (and most likely live longer, especially if you started out

being obese). Also, there appear to be health and longevity enhancing

benefits of CR, although these data are not in people. It's the

qualitative aspect of food (choices among carbs, fats, and proteins)

where I'm not prepared to be so dogmatic.

I do believe that this is an important discussion for people doing CR.

When you are restricting total calories, cutting out certain classes

of food because you feel they are inherently unhealthy may be quite

risky, since each type of food contains certain nutrients and

micronutrients that may not be in other classes of foods. A nice,

marbled steak for someone doing moderately strict CR may be " just the

ticket " once in a while to replenish body stores of nutrients they

need. I don't think that people should be afraid of any one type of

food, and I do believe that the " body knows best " , and that listening

for specific hungers is the best approach when doing CR, with as few

conceptual restrictions as possible.

[Guest guest]

>>With CR it's also a bit of a tough call, since malnutrition causes a

low cholesterol, and sometimes the line between severe CR and a bit of

malnutrition may be a bit fuzzy. Whether a low cholesterol in the

context of malnutrition is good or bad is really unknown.

Observational studies suggest that it's bad, but depressed, suicidal

people often pine away and don't eat, become malnourished, and commit

suicide - so what? That sheds no light on a low serum cholesterol

level in someone who is happy and doing CRON. So we just don't know.

You seem to parrot the " media hype " more than the research especially when it is

convenient for you.

Several studies have shown that its not the low cholesterol from diet that

causes these conditions.

>>In specific response to your postscript, my uncertainty is in the area

of the benefits of what types of food we eat, not the quantity.

Then you are missing the point. This isnt CR, its CRON and without doing the

experiment I suggested, you are walking along the edges of the CRON " pool "

without jumping in. Optimal nutrition is not based on Steak, Fancy Desserts or

Donuts, etc, but meeting the nutritional requirements of the body, a topic you

seem to avoid.

>>I personally sometimes feel my body crying out for a steak, or some

eggs, or some nice fatty dessert. I believe a lot of the bad press

that saturated fats and even sugar, have gotten derive more from

quantity of food eaten, than these being inherently bad foods.

We have posted interviews with Dr Castelli about his work in metabolic chambers

here, where saturated fat drove up cholecterol every time.

>>I think that's the real meaning of the " French

paradox " . Until recently, the French ate less food - 3 meals a day

with little snacking, and they walked everywhere.

Clearly, in the context of a healthy diet, there is room for exceptions once in

a while, which is well preached here by many. But the basics and the " rule "

before the exception must be followed. There is no french paradox. There is

differences in the way they count and attribute deaths, and there is higher

death rates in other categories and in the end they dont live much longer if at

all.

>> I find nothing inherently unhealthy in a Big

Mac or even the fries (although I don't usually order these). (OK,

with AGEs, you've sort of got me there, but it's the manner of cooking

and not the food!) I do believe that soft drinks are inherently

unhealthy, given the very unnatural amount of pure sugar that they

contain. I also believe there is intriguing data about increasing use

of high-fructose corn syrup - since fructose-feeding is a great model

of inducing obesity in animals.

Big Macs and french fries are no more natural than the unnatural amounts of pure

sugar in the soft drinks. Beef did not exist in nature as a Big Mac with ground

of beef full of grain fed marbeling of saturated fat, and served on two refined

floour buns with pickles ketchup and mayo. Potatoes cut into sticks and deep

fried in hydroeganted oils and then coated with salt with special flavor and

aroma enhancers added, are also not found in a natural environment.

>>That being said, there probably are certain health benefits to

different classes of food, including meats and saturated fats, and of

course it's unhealthy to eat any one food type to excess.

There is no known requrement for saturated fat or benefit.

>>So there's little debate that if you reduce calories you will lose

weight :-) (and most likely live longer, especially if you started out

being obese).

Again, CR without ON is malnutrition and starvation depending on how low you go.

CR ON is the purpose of this group.

>> A nice,

marbled steak for someone doing moderately strict CR may be " just the

ticket " once in a while to replenish body stores of nutrients they

need.

What nutrient?

When you do CR-ON you have to analyze the database for foods that are the

highest per calorie. As you will see, if you ever do the experiment, Steak and

meat are poor sources of nutrients per calorie. Many green leafies have more

protein and more iron per calorie.

>>I don't think that people should be afraid of any one type of

food, and I do believe that the " body knows best " , and that listening

for specific hungers is the best approach when doing CR, with as few

conceptual restrictions as possible.

I appreciate your approach. However, none of the CR science supports it, nor

does it meet the criteria for this list, which is current active relevant

science. Its almost beginning to sound like a stealth add for your book.

Good luck with your experiment

Jeff

[Guest guest]

Agree, and it would be nice if the study included some biochem to back up assertions of low fat or low carbo "goodness". I think they may not apply in a world where we eat the minimum calories.

Regards.

Re: [ ] Re: Low Fat vs Low Fat: Is there a difference

Since studies are what the scientific establishment accepts, they're a helluva lot better than one person's personal opinion (and better than a bias to throw them out the window) . You'll have to post studies in the future to back up your assertions such as the ones below (or they don't get posted) . Personal opinions don't cut it around here.

[Guest guest]

Hi :

Having read what you wrote (below) I am left with the overall

impression that it is your opinion that it pretty much doesn't matter

what people eat, so long as they eat less of it.

We can all agree on the " less of it " part. But what is advocated

here, indeed the entire purpose of this website, is CRON. And

the 'ON' in CRON stands for " optimal nutrition " . So if it is your

view that all we need to do is eat less of whatever we would like to

eat ( " follow your body " I think you said) then you are way out along

one of the extremes of the bell curve compared with the overwhelming

majority of the rest of us. The people who are morbidly obese are

morbidly obese because they eat however much their body tells them

they should eat, of whatever it is their body tells them would be

nice to eat. So you view that as desirable?

Certainly what ON is, is still not clearly defined. But there are a

number of factors you do not seem to have considered. For one, I

haven't see you emphasize the importance of getting at least the RDAs

for all the micronutrients. Doing a comprehensive analysis of

everything eaten for, say, a month seems to be fundamentally

important, if one believes the ON part of CRON means anything. Are

you, or people eating the diet you suggest, getting all the RDAs?

How do you know? If you are eating many fewer calories than the

population average then, naturally, you are going find it more

difficult to satify the RDAs for every nutrient. And especially so

if you are eating considerable amounts of highly caloric fats.

This raises the issue of the NUTRIENT DENSITY of foods. We need to

get plenty of the known, and the yet-to-be-discovered, healthy

micronutrients while minimizing calories. It is going to be much

more difficult to do so if you consume foods that contain plenty of

calories and few of the most important nutrients, especially if you

are seriously restricting total caloric intake. So this

consideration alone strongly suggests certain types of foods are

desirable, and those with low nutrient density undesirable. In

general foods containing fats have low nutrient density. Fries are a

typical example, loads of fat (plenty of calories) and starch (plenty

more calories) but not much in the way of non-caloric nutrients. But

you seem happy to embrace fries as OK in a person's diet.

Similarly you do not seem to have considered CALORIC DENSITY. Eating

foods that have high caloric density is not a good way to minimize

caloric intake.

These are issues that have been addressed here fairly extensively

over the years, particulary by Jeff Novick, and the material is

available in the archives.

Another issue you seem not to have considered is that other types of

foods may be desirable because of their high antioxidant capacity.

These foods have also been discussed here. Indeed, listings of foods

ranked by antioxidant capacity per calorie have been posted here.

Most of us think it may be prudent to include some of these foods in

our diets.

Also there are food types which have been consistently shown in many

studies to have a protective effect against many types of cancer.

Vegetables in general have been shown to have this effect,

cruciferous vegetables in particular. To the extent you consume high

high fat/high calorie foods you will, within your reduced overall

caloric allotment, be able to consume far more limited amounts of

these, which seems unlikely to be desirable.

In addition there have been literally THOUSANDS of posts made here

that linked studies that demonstrate PROTECTION afforded, by one food

product or another, against all kinds of other diseases, including

heart disease, or stroke, or diabetes or cancers of various types,

and others. Similarly, studies have been linked here regarding food

substances that have been shown to be associated with, and therefore

perhaps CAUSE, or are markers for the cause of, a variety of diseases.

Most people who have been here for a while think it may be prudent to

take these studies into account also, in deciding which are the more

desirable foods to eat, and which to avoid.

There have been so many of these types of posts that, as an example,

a list was put together and posted here of behaviours - mostly food

selection behaviours - of twenty-five to thirty ways to avoid just

prostate cancer. You can find it in the archives. But prostate

cancer is not a special case. No one made a special effort to post

only studies on that particular form of cancer. There is a wealth of

similar information on lots of other diseases also.

So from what I have seen it appears you have not given enough

consideration to factors like these. Most people here believe that,

in addition to minimizing calories and ensuring no nutrient

deficiencies, trying to take advantage of the best scientific

information available as regards disease avoidance, is also worth the

effort. As noted earlier, this is the 'ON' in CRON.

Much of this information is contained, of course, in Dr.

Walford's 'Beyond the 120-Year Diet' - must reading for anyone who

wants to understand what goes on here. Of particular relevance, imo,

is the section in the book which discusses the various different

types of evidence and distinguishes those types we should be paying

very close attention to, from those which we should ignore, or at

least regard with the greatest skepticicm. Probably the single most

important criterion here for whether a post gets approved or not, is

the quality of the evidence supporting it. And unusual,

controversial or important claims need to be supported by unusually

strong evidence.

Not all this scientific information, posted here and in Walford's

book, will in the end turn out to have been precisely accurate. But

I am sure you will agree that health science is continually edging

closer to the truth; that we are light-years ahead of where we were

just thirty years ago; and will be light years further ahead in

another thirty years.

--------------------

While I am writing this, and on another topic altogether, I see some

of us do not agree with other aspects of your philosophy.

I guess I should take your word for it, about what it is doctors

advise their hypertensive patients to do (see your post on this

attached below). If you are correct, then I have to say that, if you

don't mind my saying so, it is pretty dumb advice, imo. Hopefully

sometime in the next couple of centuries the medical profession will

catch up with the standards of scientific investigation first

established in the mid 1600s?

It was probably Boyle who first concluded (and became widely

celebrated for it) that the best way to determine if variable A

affected variable B, was to make a list of everything that could be

imagined might possibly affect B. Then, having done that, keep all

but variable A constant throughout the experiment, and vary A

significantly up and/or down. Then wait however long is considered

likely to be necessary, and observe to what extent, if at all,

variable B fluctuates in response.

If B remains unchanged then, of course, it seems likely A is not a

factor in changes in B. If B does change, then the experiment should

be repeated a number of times to see if B fairly consistently

responds the same way. If it does then it is likely a relationship

has been established between A and B. Then, if the investigator

wishes, he can go on to test another of the possible inputs on the

list .......... each time keeping all the others constant. Boyle

did this to examine the behaviour of gases, of course.

But if you try to conduct an experiment where you control nothing,

and you take measurements at random times ....... at all and any

times of the day or week; after meals and before; shortly after

getting up or hours after; before taking coffee, or tea, food or

alcohol, or after; before, during or after exercise; before your

fifteen year old daughter goes out for the evening, and after she is

two hours overdue to return home; etc.; when there may be dozens of

different factors affecting the outcome, quite a few of which you

likely are not even aware of, then you will end up with a morass of

data that it will take forever to unravel. Most people would have no

hope of figuring it out.

On this latter point I have every reason to have confidence in my

assertions. I have spent very nearly the past four decades on just

such an activity. Analyzing masses of data and trying to make sense

of which cause what, where there are at least 100 inputs and a

sizeable number of important outputs, and where it is impossible to

conduct controlled experiments. So this is not subject matter of

which I am completely ignorant.

I suggest the sensible (that is, scientific) thing for the medical

profession to advise hypertensives to do would be to suggest they get

a cuff, and give them a long list of every phenomenon (for a guess

perhaps 25?) that has, at least in some cases, been definitively

shown to affect blood pressure. Then they should tell them to

experiment - one variable at a time - going to great lengths to try

to keep the other 24 variables as constant as possible, while

sizeably varying a single input and watching for fluctuations in

BP. (This is, of course, what I have been doing to determine the

relationship, for me, between vitamin D and SBP ......... sizeably

varying my vitamin D intake, doing all I can to keep everything else

I know of constant, and looking for variations in SBP).

This way, if the patient does see a significant change in BP in

response to a change he has made in an input, and if this result

repeats pretty consistently, then he stands a very good chance of

spotting the factors that affect his BP.

I might be tempted to say: " jmo " . But it isn't my opinion. It was

the opinion of Boyle ~350 years ago, and as far as I know

still no one seriously challenges it today.

Rodney.

>

> --- In , " Jeff Novick " <jnovick@>

wrote:

> > PS if you beleive there is so much unknown to really know

anything,

> even basic questions, what criteria did you use to evaluate the data

> and recommendations in your book? And, if we really beleive we

dont

> know that much, isnt it irresponsible to write a book for the public

> with recommendations?

> -----------------------------------------------------

> Jeff,

> Thanks for your response. Your points about needing to define diet

> composition in these studies are well taken. However, with regard

to

> the example you cited, most care providers will treat high serum

> cholesterol now with statins and not primarily with changes in diet,

> rightly or wrongly, since the reports are mostly like the one you

> listed - studies show a disappointingly small effect of diet change

> alone on serum LDL cholesterol. Of course in some patients

> cholesterol can go way down with changes in diet, especially in the

> context of weight loss if they were massively obese to begin with.

I'm

> sure there are people in this group who have enjoyed marked falls in

> their serum cholesterol based on diet alone. It's not clear how

much

> of this is due to reducing the total amount of food eaten vs.

changing

> the type of food eaten. It's just that when you do a randomized

study

> of reducing certain TYPES OF FOOD in a group of unselected people,

you

> don't usually see that much of a change in cholesterol on average.

>

> With CR it's also a bit of a tough call, since malnutrition causes a

> low cholesterol, and sometimes the line between severe CR and a bit

of

> malnutrition may be a bit fuzzy. Whether a low cholesterol in the

> context of malnutrition is good or bad is really unknown.

> Observational studies suggest that it's bad, but depressed, suicidal

> people often pine away and don't eat, become malnourished, and

commit

> suicide - so what? That sheds no light on a low serum cholesterol

> level in someone who is happy and doing CRON. So we just don't

know.

>

> In specific response to your postscript, my uncertainty is in the

area

> of the benefits of what types of food we eat, not the quantity. It

is

> clear that people in the U.S. are becoming obese because they are

> eating too many calories for their level of activity. The problem

is,

> with some diet books, people are led to think that if they change

the

> types of food they eat, they will lose weight or obtain other marked

> health benefits. I do agree with you that at least part of the

benefit

> of many diets is in simply restricting caloric intake. You can have

> an " avoid yellow food " diet, or " eat only foods that begin with the

> letter 'b' " diet, and probably these will be effective in short-term

> weight loss. Because we're in a situation of abundance and ready

> availability of food, any maneuver that restricts food is bound to

be

> beneficial in obese patients, as long as it's combined with a

freedom

> to let people eat what their bodies " need " .

>

> I personally sometimes feel my body crying out for a steak, or some

> eggs, or some nice fatty dessert. I believe a lot of the bad press

> that saturated fats and even sugar, have gotten derive more from

> quantity of food eaten, than these being inherently bad foods. So I

> think people doing CR can easily eat a donut once in awhile and be

> fine with it. I think that's the real meaning of the " French

> paradox " . Until recently, the French ate less food - 3 meals a day

> with little snacking, and they walked everywhere.

>

> So I was just never a big fan of the change the type of food

approach,

> with the exception of one factor- it is probable that eating certain

> types of foods will induce you to eat more. Sugary and salty foods

> fall in this category. On the other hand, proteins and fats and

high

> fiber foods do tend to be satiating, etc. etc.

>

> I didn't agree, for example, with the movie " Supersize Me " . The

> person in the movie gained all of his weight because he ate way too

> much food. He was probably eating over 5000 calories per day, with

> very little activity. I find nothing inherently unhealthy in a Big

> Mac or even the fries (although I don't usually order these). (OK,

> with AGEs, you've sort of got me there, but it's the manner of

cooking

> and not the food!) I do believe that soft drinks are inherently

> unhealthy, given the very unnatural amount of pure sugar that they

> contain. I also believe there is intriguing data about increasing

use

> of high-fructose corn syrup - since fructose-feeding is a great

model

> of inducing obesity in animals.

>

> That being said, there probably are certain health benefits to

> different classes of food, including meats and saturated fats, and

of

> course it's unhealthy to eat any one food type to excess.

>

> Getting back to your postscript, in the QOD diet I was focusing

> primarily on a relatively easy way to reduce the overall quantity of

> food eaten by doing a sort of IF (intermittent fasting) approach

while

> maintaining mineral intake and some intake of hbv protein. With

> regard to type of food, I did, actually, take a sort of agnostic

> approach, while hewing fairly close to government and other

regulatory

> guidelines, counseling a good carb approach, and general avoidance

of

> eating too many saturated fats. In fact I do criticize the

> ultra-low-carb approach - based on what I think is relatively new

info

> about its potential adverse effects on urinary calcium and uric

acid.

>

> So there's little debate that if you reduce calories you will lose

> weight :-) (and most likely live longer, especially if you started

out

> being obese). Also, there appear to be health and longevity

enhancing

> benefits of CR, although these data are not in people. It's the

> qualitative aspect of food (choices among carbs, fats, and proteins)

> where I'm not prepared to be so dogmatic.

>

> I do believe that this is an important discussion for people doing

CR.

> When you are restricting total calories, cutting out certain

classes

> of food because you feel they are inherently unhealthy may be quite

> risky, since each type of food contains certain nutrients and

> micronutrients that may not be in other classes of foods. A nice,

> marbled steak for someone doing moderately strict CR may be " just

the

> ticket " once in a while to replenish body stores of nutrients they

> need. I don't think that people should be afraid of any one type of

> food, and I do believe that the " body knows best " , and that

listening

> for specific hungers is the best approach when doing CR, with as few

> conceptual restrictions as possible.

>

>

>

>>Well, I think people who are seriously interested in their BP levels

>should do what most patients who are being treated for high BP are

>advised to do - go out and buy an Omron (or some other automated) BP

>cuff and take your BP at home several times a day and keep a

notebook.

> The price for such a cuff is about 50-70 dollars. Not a big outlay

>for something so important to your health.

>Then you can look at average daily readings, see how they change over

>time, see how they change every day, etc. etc.

>To try and get an answer by a trip once every 2 weeks to a drugstore

>using their automated cuff - I think that's not a reliable way to get

>an answer.

[Guest guest]

Hi :

Having read what you wrote (below) I am left with the overall

impression that it is your opinion that it pretty much doesn't matter

what people eat, so long as they eat less of it.

We can all agree on the " less of it " part. But what is advocated

here, indeed the entire purpose of this website, is CRON. And

the 'ON' in CRON stands for " optimal nutrition " . So if it is your

view that all we need to do is eat less of whatever we would like to

eat ( " follow your body " I think you said) then you are way out along

one of the extremes of the bell curve compared with the overwhelming

majority of the rest of us. The people who are morbidly obese are

morbidly obese because they eat however much their body tells them

they should eat, of whatever it is their body tells them would be

nice to eat. So you view that as desirable?

Certainly what ON is, is still not clearly defined. But there are a

number of factors you do not seem to have considered. For one, I

haven't see you emphasize the importance of getting at least the RDAs

for all the micronutrients. Doing a comprehensive analysis of

everything eaten for, say, a month seems to be fundamentally

important, if one believes the ON part of CRON means anything. Are

you, or people eating the diet you suggest, getting all the RDAs?

How do you know? If you are eating many fewer calories than the

population average then, naturally, you are going find it more

difficult to satify the RDAs for every nutrient. And especially so

if you are eating considerable amounts of highly caloric fats.

This raises the issue of the NUTRIENT DENSITY of foods. We need to

get plenty of the known, and the yet-to-be-discovered, healthy

micronutrients while minimizing calories. It is going to be much

more difficult to do so if you consume foods that contain plenty of

calories and few of the most important nutrients, especially if you

are seriously restricting total caloric intake. So this

consideration alone strongly suggests certain types of foods are

desirable, and those with low nutrient density undesirable. In

general foods containing fats have low nutrient density. Fries are a

typical example, loads of fat (plenty of calories) and starch (plenty

more calories) but not much in the way of non-caloric nutrients. But

you seem happy to embrace fries as OK in a person's diet.

Similarly you do not seem to have considered CALORIC DENSITY. Eating

foods that have high caloric density is not a good way to minimize

caloric intake.

These are issues that have been addressed here fairly extensively

over the years, particulary by Jeff Novick, and the material is

available in the archives.

Another issue you seem not to have considered is that other types of

foods may be desirable because of their high antioxidant capacity.

These foods have also been discussed here. Indeed, listings of foods

ranked by antioxidant capacity per calorie have been posted here.

Most of us think it may be prudent to include some of these foods in

our diets.

Also there are food types which have been consistently shown in many

studies to have a protective effect against many types of cancer.

Vegetables in general have been shown to have this effect,

cruciferous vegetables in particular. To the extent you consume high

high fat/high calorie foods you will, within your reduced overall

caloric allotment, be able to consume far more limited amounts of

these, which seems unlikely to be desirable.

In addition there have been literally THOUSANDS of posts made here

that linked studies that demonstrate PROTECTION afforded, by one food

product or another, against all kinds of other diseases, including

heart disease, or stroke, or diabetes or cancers of various types,

and others. Similarly, studies have been linked here regarding food

substances that have been shown to be associated with, and therefore

perhaps CAUSE, or are markers for the cause of, a variety of diseases.

Most people who have been here for a while think it may be prudent to

take these studies into account also, in deciding which are the more

desirable foods to eat, and which to avoid.

There have been so many of these types of posts that, as an example,

a list was put together and posted here of behaviours - mostly food

selection behaviours - of twenty-five to thirty ways to avoid just

prostate cancer. You can find it in the archives. But prostate

cancer is not a special case. No one made a special effort to post

only studies on that particular form of cancer. There is a wealth of

similar information on lots of other diseases also.

So from what I have seen it appears you have not given enough

consideration to factors like these. Most people here believe that,

in addition to minimizing calories and ensuring no nutrient

deficiencies, trying to take advantage of the best scientific

information available as regards disease avoidance, is also worth the

effort. As noted earlier, this is the 'ON' in CRON.

Much of this information is contained, of course, in Dr.

Walford's 'Beyond the 120-Year Diet' - must reading for anyone who

wants to understand what goes on here. Of particular relevance, imo,

is the section in the book which discusses the various different

types of evidence and distinguishes those types we should be paying

very close attention to, from those which we should ignore, or at

least regard with the greatest skepticicm. Probably the single most

important criterion here for whether a post gets approved or not, is

the quality of the evidence supporting it. And unusual,

controversial or important claims need to be supported by unusually

strong evidence.

Not all this scientific information, posted here and in Walford's

book, will in the end turn out to have been precisely accurate. But

I am sure you will agree that health science is continually edging

closer to the truth; that we are light-years ahead of where we were

just thirty years ago; and will be light years further ahead in

another thirty years.

--------------------

While I am writing this, and on another topic altogether, I see some

of us do not agree with other aspects of your philosophy.

I guess I should take your word for it, about what it is doctors

advise their hypertensive patients to do (see your post on this

attached below). If you are correct, then I have to say that, if you

don't mind my saying so, it is pretty dumb advice, imo. Hopefully

sometime in the next couple of centuries the medical profession will

catch up with the standards of scientific investigation first

established in the mid 1600s?

It was probably Boyle who first concluded (and became widely

celebrated for it) that the best way to determine if variable A

affected variable B, was to make a list of everything that could be

imagined might possibly affect B. Then, having done that, keep all

but variable A constant throughout the experiment, and vary A

significantly up and/or down. Then wait however long is considered

likely to be necessary, and observe to what extent, if at all,

variable B fluctuates in response.

If B remains unchanged then, of course, it seems likely A is not a

factor in changes in B. If B does change, then the experiment should

be repeated a number of times to see if B fairly consistently

responds the same way. If it does then it is likely a relationship

has been established between A and B. Then, if the investigator

wishes, he can go on to test another of the possible inputs on the

list .......... each time keeping all the others constant. Boyle

did this to examine the behaviour of gases, of course.

But if you try to conduct an experiment where you control nothing,

and you take measurements at random times ....... at all and any

times of the day or week; after meals and before; shortly after

getting up or hours after; before taking coffee, or tea, food or

alcohol, or after; before, during or after exercise; before your

fifteen year old daughter goes out for the evening, and after she is

two hours overdue to return home; etc.; when there may be dozens of

different factors affecting the outcome, quite a few of which you

likely are not even aware of, then you will end up with a morass of

data that it will take forever to unravel. Most people would have no

hope of figuring it out.

On this latter point I have every reason to have confidence in my

assertions. I have spent very nearly the past four decades on just

such an activity. Analyzing masses of data and trying to make sense

of which cause what, where there are at least 100 inputs and a

sizeable number of important outputs, and where it is impossible to

conduct controlled experiments. So this is not subject matter of

which I am completely ignorant.

I suggest the sensible (that is, scientific) thing for the medical

profession to advise hypertensives to do would be to suggest they get

a cuff, and give them a long list of every phenomenon (for a guess

perhaps 25?) that has, at least in some cases, been definitively

shown to affect blood pressure. Then they should tell them to

experiment - one variable at a time - going to great lengths to try

to keep the other 24 variables as constant as possible, while

sizeably varying a single input and watching for fluctuations in

BP. (This is, of course, what I have been doing to determine the

relationship, for me, between vitamin D and SBP ......... sizeably

varying my vitamin D intake, doing all I can to keep everything else

I know of constant, and looking for variations in SBP).

This way, if the patient does see a significant change in BP in

response to a change he has made in an input, and if this result

repeats pretty consistently, then he stands a very good chance of

spotting the factors that affect his BP.

I might be tempted to say: " jmo " . But it isn't my opinion. It was

the opinion of Boyle ~350 years ago, and as far as I know

still no one seriously challenges it today.

Rodney.

>

> --- In , " Jeff Novick " <jnovick@>

wrote:

> > PS if you beleive there is so much unknown to really know

anything,

> even basic questions, what criteria did you use to evaluate the data

> and recommendations in your book? And, if we really beleive we

dont

> know that much, isnt it irresponsible to write a book for the public

> with recommendations?

> -----------------------------------------------------

> Jeff,

> Thanks for your response. Your points about needing to define diet

> composition in these studies are well taken. However, with regard

to

> the example you cited, most care providers will treat high serum

> cholesterol now with statins and not primarily with changes in diet,

> rightly or wrongly, since the reports are mostly like the one you

> listed - studies show a disappointingly small effect of diet change

> alone on serum LDL cholesterol. Of course in some patients

> cholesterol can go way down with changes in diet, especially in the

> context of weight loss if they were massively obese to begin with.

I'm

> sure there are people in this group who have enjoyed marked falls in

> their serum cholesterol based on diet alone. It's not clear how

much

> of this is due to reducing the total amount of food eaten vs.

changing

> the type of food eaten. It's just that when you do a randomized

study

> of reducing certain TYPES OF FOOD in a group of unselected people,

you

> don't usually see that much of a change in cholesterol on average.

>

> With CR it's also a bit of a tough call, since malnutrition causes a

> low cholesterol, and sometimes the line between severe CR and a bit

of

> malnutrition may be a bit fuzzy. Whether a low cholesterol in the

> context of malnutrition is good or bad is really unknown.

> Observational studies suggest that it's bad, but depressed, suicidal

> people often pine away and don't eat, become malnourished, and

commit

> suicide - so what? That sheds no light on a low serum cholesterol

> level in someone who is happy and doing CRON. So we just don't

know.

>

> In specific response to your postscript, my uncertainty is in the

area

> of the benefits of what types of food we eat, not the quantity. It

is

> clear that people in the U.S. are becoming obese because they are

> eating too many calories for their level of activity. The problem

is,

> with some diet books, people are led to think that if they change

the

> types of food they eat, they will lose weight or obtain other marked

> health benefits. I do agree with you that at least part of the

benefit

> of many diets is in simply restricting caloric intake. You can have

> an " avoid yellow food " diet, or " eat only foods that begin with the

> letter 'b' " diet, and probably these will be effective in short-term

> weight loss. Because we're in a situation of abundance and ready

> availability of food, any maneuver that restricts food is bound to

be

> beneficial in obese patients, as long as it's combined with a

freedom

> to let people eat what their bodies " need " .

>

> I personally sometimes feel my body crying out for a steak, or some

> eggs, or some nice fatty dessert. I believe a lot of the bad press

> that saturated fats and even sugar, have gotten derive more from

> quantity of food eaten, than these being inherently bad foods. So I

> think people doing CR can easily eat a donut once in awhile and be

> fine with it. I think that's the real meaning of the " French

> paradox " . Until recently, the French ate less food - 3 meals a day

> with little snacking, and they walked everywhere.

>

> So I was just never a big fan of the change the type of food

approach,

> with the exception of one factor- it is probable that eating certain

> types of foods will induce you to eat more. Sugary and salty foods

> fall in this category. On the other hand, proteins and fats and

high

> fiber foods do tend to be satiating, etc. etc.

>

> I didn't agree, for example, with the movie " Supersize Me " . The

> person in the movie gained all of his weight because he ate way too

> much food. He was probably eating over 5000 calories per day, with

> very little activity. I find nothing inherently unhealthy in a Big

> Mac or even the fries (although I don't usually order these). (OK,

> with AGEs, you've sort of got me there, but it's the manner of

cooking

> and not the food!) I do believe that soft drinks are inherently

> unhealthy, given the very unnatural amount of pure sugar that they

> contain. I also believe there is intriguing data about increasing

use

> of high-fructose corn syrup - since fructose-feeding is a great

model

> of inducing obesity in animals.

>

> That being said, there probably are certain health benefits to

> different classes of food, including meats and saturated fats, and

of

> course it's unhealthy to eat any one food type to excess.

>

> Getting back to your postscript, in the QOD diet I was focusing

> primarily on a relatively easy way to reduce the overall quantity of

> food eaten by doing a sort of IF (intermittent fasting) approach

while

> maintaining mineral intake and some intake of hbv protein. With

> regard to type of food, I did, actually, take a sort of agnostic

> approach, while hewing fairly close to government and other

regulatory

> guidelines, counseling a good carb approach, and general avoidance

of

> eating too many saturated fats. In fact I do criticize the

> ultra-low-carb approach - based on what I think is relatively new

info

> about its potential adverse effects on urinary calcium and uric

acid.

>

> So there's little debate that if you reduce calories you will lose

> weight :-) (and most likely live longer, especially if you started

out

> being obese). Also, there appear to be health and longevity

enhancing

> benefits of CR, although these data are not in people. It's the

> qualitative aspect of food (choices among carbs, fats, and proteins)

> where I'm not prepared to be so dogmatic.

>

> I do believe that this is an important discussion for people doing

CR.

> When you are restricting total calories, cutting out certain

classes

> of food because you feel they are inherently unhealthy may be quite

> risky, since each type of food contains certain nutrients and

> micronutrients that may not be in other classes of foods. A nice,

> marbled steak for someone doing moderately strict CR may be " just

the

> ticket " once in a while to replenish body stores of nutrients they

> need. I don't think that people should be afraid of any one type of

> food, and I do believe that the " body knows best " , and that

listening

> for specific hungers is the best approach when doing CR, with as few

> conceptual restrictions as possible.

>

>

>

>>Well, I think people who are seriously interested in their BP levels

>should do what most patients who are being treated for high BP are

>advised to do - go out and buy an Omron (or some other automated) BP

>cuff and take your BP at home several times a day and keep a

notebook.

> The price for such a cuff is about 50-70 dollars. Not a big outlay

>for something so important to your health.

>Then you can look at average daily readings, see how they change over

>time, see how they change every day, etc. etc.

>To try and get an answer by a trip once every 2 weeks to a drugstore

>using their automated cuff - I think that's not a reliable way to get

>an answer.

[Guest guest]

>Hi :

> Having read what you wrote (below) I am left with the overall

> impression that it is your opinion that it pretty much doesn't

matter what people eat, so long as they eat less of it.

---------------------------

Rodney,

Well, this is not what I believe. The statement was made in the

context of weight loss, not in the context of CRON. Also, the

discussion had to do with fat content of the diet (see the title of

the post), and saturated fat, in particular.

But once you get to CRON, I'm not sure evidence is there to guide us

about to what extent we should avoid saturated fat, for example. I'm

not saying that there aren't benefits to omega-3, 6, etc. fats, and

mono-unsaturated fats and that we shouldn't eat these. The point I was

trying to make, and probably didn't make very effectively, since this

got into a " argument mode " is, that data regarding fat intake is not

derived from a CRON population. I'll agree that trans fats are bad -

there's no reason to include those - these are totally artificial

fats, etc.

I'll give you an example. Saturated fat is bad, right? Dairy

products are good, supposedly. Everyone assumes that if you take in

low-fat or non-fat dairy products, you will get the same benefits as

taking in dairy products, right? Maybe, but maybe not?

Well, what about CLA - conjugated linoleic acid?

http://www.cals.wisc.edu/media/news/05_97/CLA_update.html

What about the fact that overall fat content of the diet aids markedly

in absorption of calcium?

(I had this reference, but it was in a post that wasn't put through,

and I'm not going to look for it again).

Another example: I suspect that meat as a protein source is sort of

demonized among many people into ultra-healthy food choices, and lots

of such people are eating fish or are perhaps completely vegetarian.

Well, there was just a study revealed in today's Chicago tribune that

23% of young women whose hair samples were tested had elevated levels

of mercury in their hair (per EPA limits).

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0602090073feb09,1,675987.stor\

y?coll=chi-newsnationworld-hed

There was another study of ultra-health conscious upscale women

somewhere out in California who were eating fish very regularly who

had " toxic " levels of mercury in their blood. OK, what's toxic is

controversial, and today's conventional wisdom is that the health

benefits of eating fish outweigh any risk of mercury. But it's

controversial.

Meat is an important source of carnitine, and of selenium, and of B12,

and of who knows what other micronutrients out there that may be

important. So the risk of eliminating all meat from the diet and

substituting with fish and other protein sources, for example, might

outweigh any benefit in terms of reduced cancer risk. OK - this is

speculative - vegetarians tend to be healthier than meat eaters. But

remember, they are not doing CRON. I'm not sure that CRON vegetarians

are healthier than CRON meat eaters. Plus, one can discuss now meat

is prepared (boiled vs. heated by some mechanism which causes

charring), etc. etc.

In medicine what is often found are " U-shaped curves " . Some of these

are tricky to interpret, but they are always interesting. Basically,

these U-shaped curves show and increased mortality risk with an excess

of some substance or property, but also there is increased mortaltiy

with a decrease. Most of these curves are often due to some

associated property and not to the substance itself, but it is not

always clear. (Serum cholesterol is a good example).

So all I'm saying is, it is risky, in my opinion, especially when

doing CRON, to exclude certain food groups from the diet with the idea

that they are unhealthy, especially when the data about their

" unhealth " was (a) derived from observational studies and may not be

that solid, and ( was often derived from people taking either normal

or excessive total amounts of calories.

With CRON, food choices may be " micromanaged " to the point that

certain food groups can be completely eliminated; this is what I am

concerned about. Maybe for no reason, and maybe most people doing

CRON are taking a " middle of the road " approach.

Anyway, I have no idea what the ideal fat content of a CRON diet

should be and I'm not at all sure that a low or ultra-low fat diet is

the correct answer. That's how we got into this whole discussion. I

don't believe there is any literature either pro or con to guide us in

this area. Common sense and avoiding extremes (Ok, and avoiding

trans-fats, but why not the occaional cookie?)is always wise.

Again I was just reading the Longevity Diet book and the advice there

is very middle of the road and to the point - I have no argument with

it -

Just to move on to another topic:

To me, in terms of CRON, the main area of concern would be long-term

maintenance of lean muscle mass, bone density, and bone strength, in

addition to what seems to be everyone's preoccupation with insulin

resistance and atherosclerosis and anti-oxidants.

I downloaded yesterday an e-book by Tom Venuto, who is a body builder,

called BFFM (burn the fat, feed the muscle). I just skimmed it, but

was impressed with his overall knowledge and the level of this book.

Again, he takes some perhaps edgy viewpoints, but I'm interested in

muscle mass, and body builders (anabolic steroids aside :-) aren't a

bad group to consult about this issue. One of his points is, that you

can never build muscle unless you take in more calories than your

estimated energy intake - so this is something that a CRON person

would never do.

He believes (perhaps overstating the case) that it is very easy to

lose muscle mass (this is why he advocates eating 6x/day with protein

at every meal).

But the fact of the matter is, if you are constantly doing CRON, the

question is, is it impossible to build muscle? And if this is so,

even if you're off on your diet a bit and lose some muscle each year,

it may not be possible to gain it back while doing CRON, so over the

years and decades, are you then " doomed " to an ever diminishing muscle

mass?

Maybe this doesn't happen and maybe this is of no concern. I believe

it all depends to what degree calories are restricted. I saw pics of

some people on the CR website who looked like they had very little

muscle left. I doubt that this is healthy.

Again, I have no set point of view - I'm thinking around all of these

issues, so I'm sorry if I've offended some sort of " party line " on the

right way to do CRON.

[Guest guest]

>Hi :

> Having read what you wrote (below) I am left with the overall

> impression that it is your opinion that it pretty much doesn't

matter what people eat, so long as they eat less of it.

---------------------------

Rodney,

Well, this is not what I believe. The statement was made in the

context of weight loss, not in the context of CRON. Also, the

discussion had to do with fat content of the diet (see the title of

the post), and saturated fat, in particular.

But once you get to CRON, I'm not sure evidence is there to guide us

about to what extent we should avoid saturated fat, for example. I'm

not saying that there aren't benefits to omega-3, 6, etc. fats, and

mono-unsaturated fats and that we shouldn't eat these. The point I was

trying to make, and probably didn't make very effectively, since this

got into a " argument mode " is, that data regarding fat intake is not

derived from a CRON population. I'll agree that trans fats are bad -

there's no reason to include those - these are totally artificial

fats, etc.

I'll give you an example. Saturated fat is bad, right? Dairy

products are good, supposedly. Everyone assumes that if you take in

low-fat or non-fat dairy products, you will get the same benefits as

taking in dairy products, right? Maybe, but maybe not?

Well, what about CLA - conjugated linoleic acid?

http://www.cals.wisc.edu/media/news/05_97/CLA_update.html

What about the fact that overall fat content of the diet aids markedly

in absorption of calcium?

(I had this reference, but it was in a post that wasn't put through,

and I'm not going to look for it again).

Another example: I suspect that meat as a protein source is sort of

demonized among many people into ultra-healthy food choices, and lots

of such people are eating fish or are perhaps completely vegetarian.

Well, there was just a study revealed in today's Chicago tribune that

23% of young women whose hair samples were tested had elevated levels

of mercury in their hair (per EPA limits).

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0602090073feb09,1,675987.stor\

y?coll=chi-newsnationworld-hed

There was another study of ultra-health conscious upscale women

somewhere out in California who were eating fish very regularly who

had " toxic " levels of mercury in their blood. OK, what's toxic is

controversial, and today's conventional wisdom is that the health

benefits of eating fish outweigh any risk of mercury. But it's

controversial.

Meat is an important source of carnitine, and of selenium, and of B12,

and of who knows what other micronutrients out there that may be

important. So the risk of eliminating all meat from the diet and

substituting with fish and other protein sources, for example, might

outweigh any benefit in terms of reduced cancer risk. OK - this is

speculative - vegetarians tend to be healthier than meat eaters. But

remember, they are not doing CRON. I'm not sure that CRON vegetarians

are healthier than CRON meat eaters. Plus, one can discuss now meat

is prepared (boiled vs. heated by some mechanism which causes

charring), etc. etc.

In medicine what is often found are " U-shaped curves " . Some of these

are tricky to interpret, but they are always interesting. Basically,

these U-shaped curves show and increased mortality risk with an excess

of some substance or property, but also there is increased mortaltiy

with a decrease. Most of these curves are often due to some

associated property and not to the substance itself, but it is not

always clear. (Serum cholesterol is a good example).

So all I'm saying is, it is risky, in my opinion, especially when

doing CRON, to exclude certain food groups from the diet with the idea

that they are unhealthy, especially when the data about their

" unhealth " was (a) derived from observational studies and may not be

that solid, and ( was often derived from people taking either normal

or excessive total amounts of calories.

With CRON, food choices may be " micromanaged " to the point that

certain food groups can be completely eliminated; this is what I am

concerned about. Maybe for no reason, and maybe most people doing

CRON are taking a " middle of the road " approach.

Anyway, I have no idea what the ideal fat content of a CRON diet

should be and I'm not at all sure that a low or ultra-low fat diet is

the correct answer. That's how we got into this whole discussion. I

don't believe there is any literature either pro or con to guide us in

this area. Common sense and avoiding extremes (Ok, and avoiding

trans-fats, but why not the occaional cookie?)is always wise.

Again I was just reading the Longevity Diet book and the advice there

is very middle of the road and to the point - I have no argument with

it -

Just to move on to another topic:

To me, in terms of CRON, the main area of concern would be long-term

maintenance of lean muscle mass, bone density, and bone strength, in

addition to what seems to be everyone's preoccupation with insulin

resistance and atherosclerosis and anti-oxidants.

I downloaded yesterday an e-book by Tom Venuto, who is a body builder,

called BFFM (burn the fat, feed the muscle). I just skimmed it, but

was impressed with his overall knowledge and the level of this book.

Again, he takes some perhaps edgy viewpoints, but I'm interested in

muscle mass, and body builders (anabolic steroids aside :-) aren't a

bad group to consult about this issue. One of his points is, that you

can never build muscle unless you take in more calories than your

estimated energy intake - so this is something that a CRON person

would never do.

He believes (perhaps overstating the case) that it is very easy to

lose muscle mass (this is why he advocates eating 6x/day with protein

at every meal).

But the fact of the matter is, if you are constantly doing CRON, the

question is, is it impossible to build muscle? And if this is so,

even if you're off on your diet a bit and lose some muscle each year,

it may not be possible to gain it back while doing CRON, so over the

years and decades, are you then " doomed " to an ever diminishing muscle

mass?

Maybe this doesn't happen and maybe this is of no concern. I believe

it all depends to what degree calories are restricted. I saw pics of

some people on the CR website who looked like they had very little

muscle left. I doubt that this is healthy.

Again, I have no set point of view - I'm thinking around all of these

issues, so I'm sorry if I've offended some sort of " party line " on the

right way to do CRON.

[Guest guest]

>>But the fact of the matter is, if you are constantly doing CRON, the question is, is it impossible to build muscle? And if this is so, even if you're off on your diet a bit and lose some muscle each year, it may not be possible to gain it back while doing CRON, so over the years and decades, are you then "doomed" to an ever diminishing muscle mass?"In another group of volunteers, with chronic kidney disease and on low-protein diets, total muscle fiber increased by 32 percent, and muscle strength increased by 30 percent after 12 weeks of strength training."Strength Training Is an Antidote to Muscle Loss By lie n BlissMay 3, 2005Resistance or "strength" training has repeatedly been shown to be a safe and effective method of reversing sarcopenia, or muscle loss, in the elderly. The condition actually starts around age 45, when muscle mass begins to decline at a rate of about 1 percent per year. Scientists funded by the Agricultural Research Service (ARS) have been studying the factors involved in gradual muscle loss since 1988.The work is conducted at the Mayer USDA Human Nutrition Research Center on Aging at Tufts University in Boston, Mass. Carmen Castaneda Sceppa, a physician specializing in nutrition, led the research at the HNRCA's Nutrition, Exercise Physiology, and Sarcopenia Laboratory (NEPS).While older adults need strength training to maintain their muscle mass, exercise can also help reduce the risk and symptoms of many chronic diseases, such as arthritis, coronary artery disease, diabetes, frailty, obesity and osteoporosis.Exercise is by definition different from moderate physical activity. Actual exercise--by design--improves the five key components of physical fitness: muscle strength, muscle endurance, body composition, cardio-respiratory endurance and flexibility.The findings show that in a group of volunteers with osteoarthritis, a joint disease, muscle strength increased by 14 percent and balance improved by 55 percent after a 12-week strength-training program. Flexibility also improved by 17 percent, and pain, based on self reports, decreased by 30 percent.In another group of volunteers, with chronic kidney disease and on low-protein diets, total muscle fiber increased by 32 percent, and muscle strength increased by 30 percent after 12 weeks of strength training. Those who did not exercise lost about 9 pounds, or 3 percent of their body weight.Instruction by a trained individual is important for strength-training older adults, according to HNRCA senior exercise physiologist Layne, who started a grass-roots exercise initiative for older adults inspired by NEPS studies.Read more about the research in the May 2005 issue of Agricultural Research magazine.

[Guest guest]

>>But the fact of the matter is, if you are constantly doing CRON, the question is, is it impossible to build muscle? And if this is so, even if you're off on your diet a bit and lose some muscle each year, it may not be possible to gain it back while doing CRON, so over the years and decades, are you then "doomed" to an ever diminishing muscle mass?"In another group of volunteers, with chronic kidney disease and on low-protein diets, total muscle fiber increased by 32 percent, and muscle strength increased by 30 percent after 12 weeks of strength training."Strength Training Is an Antidote to Muscle Loss By lie n BlissMay 3, 2005Resistance or "strength" training has repeatedly been shown to be a safe and effective method of reversing sarcopenia, or muscle loss, in the elderly. The condition actually starts around age 45, when muscle mass begins to decline at a rate of about 1 percent per year. Scientists funded by the Agricultural Research Service (ARS) have been studying the factors involved in gradual muscle loss since 1988.The work is conducted at the Mayer USDA Human Nutrition Research Center on Aging at Tufts University in Boston, Mass. Carmen Castaneda Sceppa, a physician specializing in nutrition, led the research at the HNRCA's Nutrition, Exercise Physiology, and Sarcopenia Laboratory (NEPS).While older adults need strength training to maintain their muscle mass, exercise can also help reduce the risk and symptoms of many chronic diseases, such as arthritis, coronary artery disease, diabetes, frailty, obesity and osteoporosis.Exercise is by definition different from moderate physical activity. Actual exercise--by design--improves the five key components of physical fitness: muscle strength, muscle endurance, body composition, cardio-respiratory endurance and flexibility.The findings show that in a group of volunteers with osteoarthritis, a joint disease, muscle strength increased by 14 percent and balance improved by 55 percent after a 12-week strength-training program. Flexibility also improved by 17 percent, and pain, based on self reports, decreased by 30 percent.In another group of volunteers, with chronic kidney disease and on low-protein diets, total muscle fiber increased by 32 percent, and muscle strength increased by 30 percent after 12 weeks of strength training. Those who did not exercise lost about 9 pounds, or 3 percent of their body weight.Instruction by a trained individual is important for strength-training older adults, according to HNRCA senior exercise physiologist Layne, who started a grass-roots exercise initiative for older adults inspired by NEPS studies.Read more about the research in the May 2005 issue of Agricultural Research magazine.

[Guest guest]

: At first, I hesitated to put your post through. Why that is, is explained below. But then I decided that if you, an MD were not reading your instructions as well as our files, perhaps other newbies aren't either and so decided to explain what I am about to explain.

It's obvious to me that you are confusing the two CRON groups. The two groups are not affiliated with each other and in fact have different philosophies. The philosophy of this group is moderation and caution. We do not have any pictures of extreme CRONIES here.

This is all quite irritating to me for several reasons. You could have saved a lot of our time (and yours) if you had read the auto mail you received when you joined the group as well as read the files, as instructed in the introductory material.

We have spent countless hours putting together this material for the sole benefit of newbies. We are not paid for the time we put into this. We do it for your benefit only. The least that you can do is read it. Also it could have prevented many posts that covered material extensively hashed over in the past.

I hope you read my previous post about why many posts do not make it to the board.

Please pardon my rant but as I said, after all our work on this, it's frustrating and we cannot take up 2000 member's time on this stuff everytime someone joins the group. That's why it's sent to you and that's why the files exist.

on 2/9/2006 2:19 PM, jt_qod at jt@... wrote:

>Hi :

> Having read what you wrote (below) I am left with the overall

> impression that it is your opinion that it pretty much doesn't

matter what people eat, so long as they eat less of it.

---------------------------

Rodney,

Well, this is not what I believe. The statement was made in the

context of weight loss, not in the context of CRON. Also, the

discussion had to do with fat content of the diet (see the title of

the post), and saturated fat, in particular.

But once you get to CRON, I'm not sure evidence is there to guide us

about to what extent we should avoid saturated fat, for example. I'm

not saying that there aren't benefits to omega-3, 6, etc. fats, and

mono-unsaturated fats and that we shouldn't eat these. The point I was

trying to make, and probably didn't make very effectively, since this

got into a " argument mode " is, that data regarding fat intake is not

derived from a CRON population. I'll agree that trans fats are bad -

there's no reason to include those - these are totally artificial

fats, etc.

I'll give you an example. Saturated fat is bad, right? Dairy

products are good, supposedly. Everyone assumes that if you take in

low-fat or non-fat dairy products, you will get the same benefits as

taking in dairy products, right? Maybe, but maybe not?

Well, what about CLA - conjugated linoleic acid?

http://www.cals.wisc.edu/media/news/05_97/CLA_update.html

What about the fact that overall fat content of the diet aids markedly

in absorption of calcium?

(I had this reference, but it was in a post that wasn't put through,

and I'm not going to look for it again).

Another example: I suspect that meat as a protein source is sort of

demonized among many people into ultra-healthy food choices, and lots

of such people are eating fish or are perhaps completely vegetarian.

Well, there was just a study revealed in today's Chicago tribune that

23% of young women whose hair samples were tested had elevated levels

of mercury in their hair (per EPA limits).

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0602090073feb09,1,675987.story?coll=chi-newsnationworld-hed

There was another study of ultra-health conscious upscale women

somewhere out in California who were eating fish very regularly who

had " toxic " levels of mercury in their blood. OK, what's toxic is

controversial, and today's conventional wisdom is that the health

benefits of eating fish outweigh any risk of mercury. But it's

controversial.

Meat is an important source of carnitine, and of selenium, and of B12,

and of who knows what other micronutrients out there that may be

important. So the risk of eliminating all meat from the diet and

substituting with fish and other protein sources, for example, might

outweigh any benefit in terms of reduced cancer risk. OK - this is

speculative - vegetarians tend to be healthier than meat eaters. But

remember, they are not doing CRON. I'm not sure that CRON vegetarians

are healthier than CRON meat eaters. Plus, one can discuss now meat

is prepared (boiled vs. heated by some mechanism which causes

charring), etc. etc.

In medicine what is often found are " U-shaped curves " . Some of these

are tricky to interpret, but they are always interesting. Basically,

these U-shaped curves show and increased mortality risk with an excess

of some substance or property, but also there is increased mortaltiy

with a decrease. Most of these curves are often due to some

associated property and not to the substance itself, but it is not

always clear. (Serum cholesterol is a good example).

So all I'm saying is, it is risky, in my opinion, especially when

doing CRON, to exclude certain food groups from the diet with the idea

that they are unhealthy, especially when the data about their

" unhealth " was (a) derived from observational studies and may not be

that solid, and ( was often derived from people taking either normal

or excessive total amounts of calories.

With CRON, food choices may be " micromanaged " to the point that

certain food groups can be completely eliminated; this is what I am

concerned about. Maybe for no reason, and maybe most people doing

CRON are taking a " middle of the road " approach.

Anyway, I have no idea what the ideal fat content of a CRON diet

should be and I'm not at all sure that a low or ultra-low fat diet is

the correct answer. That's how we got into this whole discussion. I

don't believe there is any literature either pro or con to guide us in

this area. Common sense and avoiding extremes (Ok, and avoiding

trans-fats, but why not the occaional cookie?)is always wise.

Again I was just reading the Longevity Diet book and the advice there

is very middle of the road and to the point - I have no argument with

it -

Just to move on to another topic:

To me, in terms of CRON, the main area of concern would be long-term

maintenance of lean muscle mass, bone density, and bone strength, in

addition to what seems to be everyone's preoccupation with insulin

resistance and atherosclerosis and anti-oxidants.

I downloaded yesterday an e-book by Tom Venuto, who is a body builder,

called BFFM (burn the fat, feed the muscle). I just skimmed it, but

was impressed with his overall knowledge and the level of this book.

Again, he takes some perhaps edgy viewpoints, but I'm interested in

muscle mass, and body builders (anabolic steroids aside :-) aren't a

bad group to consult about this issue. One of his points is, that you

can never build muscle unless you take in more calories than your

estimated energy intake - so this is something that a CRON person

would never do.

He believes (perhaps overstating the case) that it is very easy to

lose muscle mass (this is why he advocates eating 6x/day with protein

at every meal).

But the fact of the matter is, if you are constantly doing CRON, the

question is, is it impossible to build muscle? And if this is so,

even if you're off on your diet a bit and lose some muscle each year,

it may not be possible to gain it back while doing CRON, so over the

years and decades, are you then " doomed " to an ever diminishing muscle

mass?

Maybe this doesn't happen and maybe this is of no concern. I believe

it all depends to what degree calories are restricted. I saw pics of

some people on the CR website who looked like they had very little

muscle left. I doubt that this is healthy.

Again, I have no set point of view - I'm thinking around all of these

issues, so I'm sorry if I've offended some sort of " party line " on the

right way to do CRON.

S

[Guest guest]

: At first, I hesitated to put your post through. Why that is, is explained below. But then I decided that if you, an MD were not reading your instructions as well as our files, perhaps other newbies aren't either and so decided to explain what I am about to explain.

It's obvious to me that you are confusing the two CRON groups. The two groups are not affiliated with each other and in fact have different philosophies. The philosophy of this group is moderation and caution. We do not have any pictures of extreme CRONIES here.

This is all quite irritating to me for several reasons. You could have saved a lot of our time (and yours) if you had read the auto mail you received when you joined the group as well as read the files, as instructed in the introductory material.

We have spent countless hours putting together this material for the sole benefit of newbies. We are not paid for the time we put into this. We do it for your benefit only. The least that you can do is read it. Also it could have prevented many posts that covered material extensively hashed over in the past.

I hope you read my previous post about why many posts do not make it to the board.

Please pardon my rant but as I said, after all our work on this, it's frustrating and we cannot take up 2000 member's time on this stuff everytime someone joins the group. That's why it's sent to you and that's why the files exist.

on 2/9/2006 2:19 PM, jt_qod at jt@... wrote:

>Hi :

> Having read what you wrote (below) I am left with the overall

> impression that it is your opinion that it pretty much doesn't

matter what people eat, so long as they eat less of it.

---------------------------

Rodney,

Well, this is not what I believe. The statement was made in the

context of weight loss, not in the context of CRON. Also, the

discussion had to do with fat content of the diet (see the title of

the post), and saturated fat, in particular.

But once you get to CRON, I'm not sure evidence is there to guide us

about to what extent we should avoid saturated fat, for example. I'm

not saying that there aren't benefits to omega-3, 6, etc. fats, and

mono-unsaturated fats and that we shouldn't eat these. The point I was

trying to make, and probably didn't make very effectively, since this

got into a " argument mode " is, that data regarding fat intake is not

derived from a CRON population. I'll agree that trans fats are bad -

there's no reason to include those - these are totally artificial

fats, etc.

I'll give you an example. Saturated fat is bad, right? Dairy

products are good, supposedly. Everyone assumes that if you take in

low-fat or non-fat dairy products, you will get the same benefits as

taking in dairy products, right? Maybe, but maybe not?

Well, what about CLA - conjugated linoleic acid?

http://www.cals.wisc.edu/media/news/05_97/CLA_update.html

What about the fact that overall fat content of the diet aids markedly

in absorption of calcium?

(I had this reference, but it was in a post that wasn't put through,

and I'm not going to look for it again).

Another example: I suspect that meat as a protein source is sort of

demonized among many people into ultra-healthy food choices, and lots

of such people are eating fish or are perhaps completely vegetarian.

Well, there was just a study revealed in today's Chicago tribune that

23% of young women whose hair samples were tested had elevated levels

of mercury in their hair (per EPA limits).

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0602090073feb09,1,675987.story?coll=chi-newsnationworld-hed

There was another study of ultra-health conscious upscale women

somewhere out in California who were eating fish very regularly who

had " toxic " levels of mercury in their blood. OK, what's toxic is

controversial, and today's conventional wisdom is that the health

benefits of eating fish outweigh any risk of mercury. But it's

controversial.

Meat is an important source of carnitine, and of selenium, and of B12,

and of who knows what other micronutrients out there that may be

important. So the risk of eliminating all meat from the diet and

substituting with fish and other protein sources, for example, might

outweigh any benefit in terms of reduced cancer risk. OK - this is

speculative - vegetarians tend to be healthier than meat eaters. But

remember, they are not doing CRON. I'm not sure that CRON vegetarians

are healthier than CRON meat eaters. Plus, one can discuss now meat

is prepared (boiled vs. heated by some mechanism which causes

charring), etc. etc.

In medicine what is often found are " U-shaped curves " . Some of these

are tricky to interpret, but they are always interesting. Basically,

these U-shaped curves show and increased mortality risk with an excess

of some substance or property, but also there is increased mortaltiy

with a decrease. Most of these curves are often due to some

associated property and not to the substance itself, but it is not

always clear. (Serum cholesterol is a good example).

So all I'm saying is, it is risky, in my opinion, especially when

doing CRON, to exclude certain food groups from the diet with the idea

that they are unhealthy, especially when the data about their

" unhealth " was (a) derived from observational studies and may not be

that solid, and ( was often derived from people taking either normal

or excessive total amounts of calories.

With CRON, food choices may be " micromanaged " to the point that

certain food groups can be completely eliminated; this is what I am

concerned about. Maybe for no reason, and maybe most people doing

CRON are taking a " middle of the road " approach.

Anyway, I have no idea what the ideal fat content of a CRON diet

should be and I'm not at all sure that a low or ultra-low fat diet is

the correct answer. That's how we got into this whole discussion. I

don't believe there is any literature either pro or con to guide us in

this area. Common sense and avoiding extremes (Ok, and avoiding

trans-fats, but why not the occaional cookie?)is always wise.

Again I was just reading the Longevity Diet book and the advice there

is very middle of the road and to the point - I have no argument with

it -

Just to move on to another topic:

To me, in terms of CRON, the main area of concern would be long-term

maintenance of lean muscle mass, bone density, and bone strength, in

addition to what seems to be everyone's preoccupation with insulin

resistance and atherosclerosis and anti-oxidants.

I downloaded yesterday an e-book by Tom Venuto, who is a body builder,

called BFFM (burn the fat, feed the muscle). I just skimmed it, but

was impressed with his overall knowledge and the level of this book.

Again, he takes some perhaps edgy viewpoints, but I'm interested in

muscle mass, and body builders (anabolic steroids aside :-) aren't a

bad group to consult about this issue. One of his points is, that you

can never build muscle unless you take in more calories than your

estimated energy intake - so this is something that a CRON person

would never do.

He believes (perhaps overstating the case) that it is very easy to

lose muscle mass (this is why he advocates eating 6x/day with protein

at every meal).

But the fact of the matter is, if you are constantly doing CRON, the

question is, is it impossible to build muscle? And if this is so,

even if you're off on your diet a bit and lose some muscle each year,

it may not be possible to gain it back while doing CRON, so over the

years and decades, are you then " doomed " to an ever diminishing muscle

mass?

Maybe this doesn't happen and maybe this is of no concern. I believe

it all depends to what degree calories are restricted. I saw pics of

some people on the CR website who looked like they had very little

muscle left. I doubt that this is healthy.

Again, I have no set point of view - I'm thinking around all of these

issues, so I'm sorry if I've offended some sort of " party line " on the

right way to do CRON.

S

[Guest guest]

>Another example: I suspect that meat as a protein source is sort of

>demonized among many people into ultra-healthy food choices, and lots

>of such people are eating fish or are perhaps completely vegetarian.

The best argument I've seen for eating red meat is to get iron +

cofactors that help iron absorption; most of the " good " vegetarian source

are rich in phytic acid, which reduces iron bioavailability.

That said, I had a friend who loved red meat and popped iron

supplements who ended up in the hospital with an iron overload.

That said, the difference between free range animal products and

the commercial junk you find in the supermarket is vast. Our tenants have

a flock of chickens, and it was about a year before I tried my first

one. My kid was poking around in the barn, and found an egg in the

shavings pile. He was about to smash it, so I took it from him. We found

another one and I fried them up and... yum! The taste is nothing like

" farm fresh " supermarket eggs... It's not scientific, but I'm sure the

nutrition is better.

>He believes (perhaps overstating the case) that it is very easy to

>lose muscle mass (this is why he advocates eating 6x/day with protein

>at every meal).

I think bodybuilders have different interests than other

people. If you want to weigh 300 pounds, mostly muscle, you've got

different interests than other people. My guess is that it's not much

healthier to have 100 pounds of excess muscle than it is to have 100 pounds

of fat. 10 pounds of muscle, I dunno. The fashion in pro bodybuilding

diets these days is alternating 10,000 calories per day on " on " cycles vs.

1,200 or so " cutting up " for competition

My experience with lifting is that I got OK results, definite

change in body composition when I was working out regularly and eating a

Zone diet w/ about 18 blocks a day + an extra rice cake or two after

workouts. At maybe 2000 calories a day, this wasn't the most CRON-ish but

I was doing a lot of cardio and a lot of weights, so I lost a lot of

weight. I certainly put some muscle on my chest and arms at this rate.

After a while I got sloppier in some ways, certainly ate less

protein, probably ate a little more total, went to lifting two times a

week instead of three, and found my strength shot up rapidly. I had to

slow down because my tendons weren't keeping up with my muscles...

-----

So far as this " every other day " eating is concerned, I've got a

beef with the idea of eating a meal in the morning and fasting the rest of

the day. This might work for some people, might help some people have

energy throughout the day. In my case, I have a hard time sleeping if I

fast, so I like the idea of eating just dinner on a fast day, rather than

eating breakfast. If I did it the other day, I'd get quite an Ambien

deficiency.

[Guest guest]

>Another example: I suspect that meat as a protein source is sort of

>demonized among many people into ultra-healthy food choices, and lots

>of such people are eating fish or are perhaps completely vegetarian.

The best argument I've seen for eating red meat is to get iron +

cofactors that help iron absorption; most of the " good " vegetarian source

are rich in phytic acid, which reduces iron bioavailability.

That said, I had a friend who loved red meat and popped iron

supplements who ended up in the hospital with an iron overload.

That said, the difference between free range animal products and

the commercial junk you find in the supermarket is vast. Our tenants have

a flock of chickens, and it was about a year before I tried my first

one. My kid was poking around in the barn, and found an egg in the

shavings pile. He was about to smash it, so I took it from him. We found

another one and I fried them up and... yum! The taste is nothing like

" farm fresh " supermarket eggs... It's not scientific, but I'm sure the

nutrition is better.

>He believes (perhaps overstating the case) that it is very easy to

>lose muscle mass (this is why he advocates eating 6x/day with protein

>at every meal).

I think bodybuilders have different interests than other

people. If you want to weigh 300 pounds, mostly muscle, you've got

different interests than other people. My guess is that it's not much

healthier to have 100 pounds of excess muscle than it is to have 100 pounds

of fat. 10 pounds of muscle, I dunno. The fashion in pro bodybuilding

diets these days is alternating 10,000 calories per day on " on " cycles vs.

1,200 or so " cutting up " for competition

My experience with lifting is that I got OK results, definite

change in body composition when I was working out regularly and eating a

Zone diet w/ about 18 blocks a day + an extra rice cake or two after

workouts. At maybe 2000 calories a day, this wasn't the most CRON-ish but

I was doing a lot of cardio and a lot of weights, so I lost a lot of

weight. I certainly put some muscle on my chest and arms at this rate.

After a while I got sloppier in some ways, certainly ate less

protein, probably ate a little more total, went to lifting two times a

week instead of three, and found my strength shot up rapidly. I had to

slow down because my tendons weren't keeping up with my muscles...

-----

So far as this " every other day " eating is concerned, I've got a

beef with the idea of eating a meal in the morning and fasting the rest of

the day. This might work for some people, might help some people have

energy throughout the day. In my case, I have a hard time sleeping if I

fast, so I like the idea of eating just dinner on a fast day, rather than

eating breakfast. If I did it the other day, I'd get quite an Ambien

deficiency.

[Guest guest]

Hi :

Well you will no doubt be pleased to hear that there is a limit to

how much time I am prepared to spend on this topic. But here goes

one more time, to address the specific issues you raised.

> But once you get to CRON, I'm not sure evidence is there to guide us

> about to what extent we should avoid saturated fat, for

> example. ...... data regarding fat intake is not derived from a

> CRON population

Naturally we all here agree with this, and fairly frequently express

regret that more studies are not done with people on CRON. However,

since you seem to be assuming that THE OPPOSITE of what applies to

non-CRON people may apply to CRON people with regard to saturated

fat, taking your argument to its logical conclusion are we then to

assume that for ALL findings of studies done on non-CRON people,

regarding ANY health issue, we should assume the opposite applies to

us on CRON? Perhaps that may turn out to be true. But until we have

EVIDENCE for that it would seem logical to me to believe the same

applies to both groups in the same way. So, what evidence do you

have to support the idea that for CRON the opposite applies?

> Dairy products are good, supposedly.

Depends on who you talk to. I generally avoid most dairy products

because of studies showing a direct relationship to prostate cancer.

Posted here quite some time ago - two studies.

> Well, what about CLA - conjugated linoleic acid?

Well you could search the archives for a post I made here - perhaps a

year ago - linking a study which suggested that CLA was positively

dangerous. I don't know if it is or not. But I certainly do not try

to raise my intake of it.

> Another example: I suspect that meat as a protein source is sort of

> demonized among many people into ultra-healthy food choices.

Well who is demonizing it? Not many people here. I eat fish a

little most days, chicken and a little pork. And beef on very rare

occasions. I am not aware of any discussions here demonizing meat.

Although since we don't need much of it, and its associations with

things like colon cancer, many people here, including me, do not eat

a lot of it.

> Well, there was just a study revealed in today's Chicago tribune

> that 23% of young women whose hair samples were tested had elevated

> levels of mercury in their hair (per EPA limits).

Well I would be VERY wary of a study done on a sample solely

consisting of people WHO HAD BEEN SELECTED BY GREENPEACE to be

encouraged to submit samples!!!! Were these people randomly

distributed around the country? I very much doubt it. My suspicion

is that they may have been very carefully selected to come from

communities on the shores of lakes known to be contaminated by local

natural or industrial mercury deposits. Do you know of anyone who

regards Greenpeace as a serious unbiased scientific organization?!!!

> There was another study of ultra-health conscious upscale women

> somewhere out in California who were eating fish very regularly who

> had " toxic " levels of mercury in their blood.

OK. Well lets see the study and determine the source of the

mercury. If it is demonstrated by a credible source to come from

canned commercial fish products then I will sit up and take notice.

But we have been through a lot of nonsense with regard to farmed

salmon just recently, discussed in some detail here, and this looks

very much to me like more of the same. Perhaps it isn't, so let's

see the evidence.

> Meat is an important source of carnitine, and of selenium, and of

> B12.

Agreed. Many of us get selenium from brazil nuts. I eat modest to

moderate amounts of animal products as a safety precaution. I think

you are mistaken if you believe has a large proportion

of fanatical vegetarians. But if there are some, I bet almost all of

them get enough selenium and B12 as this is something vegetarian

groups are very well acquainted with. Not sure about the carnitine.

> I'm not sure that CRON vegetarians are healthier than CRON meat

> eaters.

I don't know either. My GUESS is that those who eat a small amount

of meat are probably the healthiest. But that is pure speculation,

as is your observation.

> In medicine what is often found are " U-shaped curves " . Some of

> these are tricky to interpret, but they are always interesting.

> Basically, these U-shaped curves show and increased mortality risk

> with an excess of some substance or property, but also there is

> increased mortaltiy with a decrease. Most of these curves are

> often due to some associated property and not to the substance

> itself, but it is not always clear. (Serum cholesterol is a good

> example).

" Often found " ???? " Occasionally found " I believe would be more

accurate. And serum cholesterol is NOT a good example of a 'U-curve'

according to the large, German, PROCAM study (posted here perhaps

eighteen months ago) which found that higher mortality among those

with the lowest LDL was confined solely to smokers. I bet less than

5% of the people on CRON are current smokers. If you smoke don't let

your LDL go too low. Not many people in the population of

industrialized countries are blessed with that problem.

> So all I'm saying is, it is risky, in my opinion, especially when

> doing CRON, to exclude certain food groups from the diet with the

idea

> that they are unhealthy, especially when the data about their

> " unhealth " was (a) derived from observational studies and may not be

> that solid, and ( was often derived from people taking either

> normal or excessive total amounts of calories.

Agreed. I cannot remember a single post here in the past year where

anyone recommended to " exclude certain food groups from the diet " .

Apart from anything else, saturated fat is contained in fish, and in

avocadoes and coconut and palm products. Some of which often get

eaten by vegetarians. Lots of people here, however, limit their

intake of foods they believe to be not actively beneficial.

As to your point ( ........ again, what is your *evidence* that

CRON people respond differently???? As far as I can see this is

purely your personal opinion/speculation.

> With CRON, food choices may be " micromanaged " to the point that

> certain food groups can be completely eliminated; this is what I am

> concerned about.

Where did you get this impression? Do you know of people on CRON who

have completely eliminated certain food groups? How many of them?

And if so, do you have information that they are less healthy than

those who have not?

> Anyway, I have no idea what the ideal fat content of a CRON diet

> should be.

OK.

> To me, in terms of CRON, the main area of concern would be long-term

> maintenance of lean muscle mass, bone density, and bone strength, in

> addition to what seems to be everyone's preoccupation with insulin

> resistance and atherosclerosis and anti-oxidants.

Insulin resistance, atherosclerosis and anti-oxidants certainly do

not appear to be a problem for those on CRON - if the lipids data

mean anything, and given the discussions here about anti-oxidants.

Jeff I believe has already answered your point about muscle mass.

Based on data I have seen in a study I posted here I do not believe

bone DENSITY is a problem in CRON (by that I mean I do not believe

DENSITY is a function of slimness). But bone size (diameter) almost

certainly is. For which exercise of some kind is probably

indicated.

You do not mention anorexia. But a very small percentage of people

on CRON do become anorexic. And that should be very carefully kept

in mind.

> Again, I have no set point of view - I'm thinking around all of

> these issues, so I'm sorry if I've offended some sort

> " party line " on the right way to do CRON.

There certainly is no standard party line that is adhered to here

that I know of. I doubt any two of us approach it identically the

same way. Anyone with enough of what it takes to do CRON is not

gonna be pushed around into doing things that do not make sense to

THEM.

However, a lot of water has flowed under the bridge here. Thousands

of studies have been posted, discussed and conclusions drawn. But

different people are persuaded by different kinds of studies. Any

very general consensus here is a function of what we have all read

here and elsewhere the past few years. If you want to change the

ethos here, all you have to do is POST STUDIES FROM SERIOUS SOURCES

that persuasively suggest new information. But information based on

a study 'set up' by Greenpeace isn't likely to do it. Nor are

unusual personal opinions or speculations that are not supported by

serious information.

Rodney.

[Guest guest]

Hi :

Well you will no doubt be pleased to hear that there is a limit to

how much time I am prepared to spend on this topic. But here goes

one more time, to address the specific issues you raised.

> But once you get to CRON, I'm not sure evidence is there to guide us

> about to what extent we should avoid saturated fat, for

> example. ...... data regarding fat intake is not derived from a

> CRON population

Naturally we all here agree with this, and fairly frequently express

regret that more studies are not done with people on CRON. However,

since you seem to be assuming that THE OPPOSITE of what applies to

non-CRON people may apply to CRON people with regard to saturated

fat, taking your argument to its logical conclusion are we then to

assume that for ALL findings of studies done on non-CRON people,

regarding ANY health issue, we should assume the opposite applies to

us on CRON? Perhaps that may turn out to be true. But until we have

EVIDENCE for that it would seem logical to me to believe the same

applies to both groups in the same way. So, what evidence do you

have to support the idea that for CRON the opposite applies?

> Dairy products are good, supposedly.

Depends on who you talk to. I generally avoid most dairy products

because of studies showing a direct relationship to prostate cancer.

Posted here quite some time ago - two studies.

> Well, what about CLA - conjugated linoleic acid?

Well you could search the archives for a post I made here - perhaps a

year ago - linking a study which suggested that CLA was positively

dangerous. I don't know if it is or not. But I certainly do not try

to raise my intake of it.

> Another example: I suspect that meat as a protein source is sort of

> demonized among many people into ultra-healthy food choices.

Well who is demonizing it? Not many people here. I eat fish a

little most days, chicken and a little pork. And beef on very rare

occasions. I am not aware of any discussions here demonizing meat.

Although since we don't need much of it, and its associations with

things like colon cancer, many people here, including me, do not eat

a lot of it.

> Well, there was just a study revealed in today's Chicago tribune

> that 23% of young women whose hair samples were tested had elevated

> levels of mercury in their hair (per EPA limits).

Well I would be VERY wary of a study done on a sample solely

consisting of people WHO HAD BEEN SELECTED BY GREENPEACE to be

encouraged to submit samples!!!! Were these people randomly

distributed around the country? I very much doubt it. My suspicion

is that they may have been very carefully selected to come from

communities on the shores of lakes known to be contaminated by local

natural or industrial mercury deposits. Do you know of anyone who

regards Greenpeace as a serious unbiased scientific organization?!!!

> There was another study of ultra-health conscious upscale women

> somewhere out in California who were eating fish very regularly who

> had " toxic " levels of mercury in their blood.

OK. Well lets see the study and determine the source of the

mercury. If it is demonstrated by a credible source to come from

canned commercial fish products then I will sit up and take notice.

But we have been through a lot of nonsense with regard to farmed

salmon just recently, discussed in some detail here, and this looks

very much to me like more of the same. Perhaps it isn't, so let's

see the evidence.

> Meat is an important source of carnitine, and of selenium, and of

> B12.

Agreed. Many of us get selenium from brazil nuts. I eat modest to

moderate amounts of animal products as a safety precaution. I think

you are mistaken if you believe has a large proportion

of fanatical vegetarians. But if there are some, I bet almost all of

them get enough selenium and B12 as this is something vegetarian

groups are very well acquainted with. Not sure about the carnitine.

> I'm not sure that CRON vegetarians are healthier than CRON meat

> eaters.

I don't know either. My GUESS is that those who eat a small amount

of meat are probably the healthiest. But that is pure speculation,

as is your observation.

> In medicine what is often found are " U-shaped curves " . Some of

> these are tricky to interpret, but they are always interesting.

> Basically, these U-shaped curves show and increased mortality risk

> with an excess of some substance or property, but also there is

> increased mortaltiy with a decrease. Most of these curves are

> often due to some associated property and not to the substance

> itself, but it is not always clear. (Serum cholesterol is a good

> example).

" Often found " ???? " Occasionally found " I believe would be more

accurate. And serum cholesterol is NOT a good example of a 'U-curve'

according to the large, German, PROCAM study (posted here perhaps

eighteen months ago) which found that higher mortality among those

with the lowest LDL was confined solely to smokers. I bet less than

5% of the people on CRON are current smokers. If you smoke don't let

your LDL go too low. Not many people in the population of

industrialized countries are blessed with that problem.

> So all I'm saying is, it is risky, in my opinion, especially when

> doing CRON, to exclude certain food groups from the diet with the

idea

> that they are unhealthy, especially when the data about their

> " unhealth " was (a) derived from observational studies and may not be

> that solid, and ( was often derived from people taking either

> normal or excessive total amounts of calories.

Agreed. I cannot remember a single post here in the past year where

anyone recommended to " exclude certain food groups from the diet " .

Apart from anything else, saturated fat is contained in fish, and in

avocadoes and coconut and palm products. Some of which often get

eaten by vegetarians. Lots of people here, however, limit their

intake of foods they believe to be not actively beneficial.

As to your point ( ........ again, what is your *evidence* that

CRON people respond differently???? As far as I can see this is

purely your personal opinion/speculation.

> With CRON, food choices may be " micromanaged " to the point that

> certain food groups can be completely eliminated; this is what I am

> concerned about.

Where did you get this impression? Do you know of people on CRON who

have completely eliminated certain food groups? How many of them?

And if so, do you have information that they are less healthy than

those who have not?

> Anyway, I have no idea what the ideal fat content of a CRON diet

> should be.

OK.

> To me, in terms of CRON, the main area of concern would be long-term

> maintenance of lean muscle mass, bone density, and bone strength, in

> addition to what seems to be everyone's preoccupation with insulin

> resistance and atherosclerosis and anti-oxidants.

Insulin resistance, atherosclerosis and anti-oxidants certainly do

not appear to be a problem for those on CRON - if the lipids data

mean anything, and given the discussions here about anti-oxidants.

Jeff I believe has already answered your point about muscle mass.

Based on data I have seen in a study I posted here I do not believe

bone DENSITY is a problem in CRON (by that I mean I do not believe

DENSITY is a function of slimness). But bone size (diameter) almost

certainly is. For which exercise of some kind is probably

indicated.

You do not mention anorexia. But a very small percentage of people

on CRON do become anorexic. And that should be very carefully kept

in mind.

> Again, I have no set point of view - I'm thinking around all of

> these issues, so I'm sorry if I've offended some sort

> " party line " on the right way to do CRON.

There certainly is no standard party line that is adhered to here

that I know of. I doubt any two of us approach it identically the

same way. Anyone with enough of what it takes to do CRON is not

gonna be pushed around into doing things that do not make sense to

THEM.

However, a lot of water has flowed under the bridge here. Thousands

of studies have been posted, discussed and conclusions drawn. But

different people are persuaded by different kinds of studies. Any

very general consensus here is a function of what we have all read

here and elsewhere the past few years. If you want to change the

ethos here, all you have to do is POST STUDIES FROM SERIOUS SOURCES

that persuasively suggest new information. But information based on

a study 'set up' by Greenpeace isn't likely to do it. Nor are

unusual personal opinions or speculations that are not supported by

serious information.

Rodney.

[Guest guest]

Well, I've been offended by some very astute people, or at least they tried to offend me and I don't offend easily.

I believe there is little evidence to support CR or CRON for humans so it is what we have to do to find out. And I need to do it carefully.

Issues like building muscle mass or retaining muscle mass have to be looked at objectively also. For when I reach 100 yo, I am sure I will have lost a lot of weight, even down to my 20 yo weight of 135#.

The religion of strength/muscle/fitness is open to question as any other. I happen to like keeping muscle, but I recognize I have to give up some as well as fat, if I am to drop to 135#, but I don't hafta do it right away. I can still handle RR ties.

ly, I tune out people who "demonize" meat, or anything else, and look for the attributes in the food I eat. I haven't eliminated meat altogether, but I surely don't need a lot of it. FFmilk is another issue - I see it advantageous for protein and Ca, and IF IGF-1 is a true problem, it remains to be elucidated. Especially for the individual.

I don't require a lotta protein - milk suffices. I could use whey, but it raises my "metabolism", a word that means I operate hotter and need more fuel. (I feel colder and my temp runs a degree lower). I happen to believe it is the amount of food that's important and I want that as low as possible to MAINTAIN my weight.

In terms of BB's opinions about anything, let me say I got my muscle doing work, manual labor, and I never had to read a book or eat a lotta anything to get to a "perfect" 185#. And low fat/low carbo certainly had little to do with it. So I SERIOUSLY doubt the BB's opinions. If I eat 6x protein, I'll have to live outside in a tree, facing up wind. 56 grams is where I live, just to the left of the peak in the bell curve.

What I have to do now is figure out how to lose weight, say 5-6 # of excess adipose fat without losing muscle and I entertain your thoughts on that. Not an easy thing to do. Situps don't get it.

There are CRers/CRONies that have different approaches, and it's good to have a diverse approach within limits, IMO. I reserve judgment on the CRer's pics until I see how long they live. Some seem to have medical problems I'd like to avoid, but who knows, they may live to 140.

Regards.

[ ] Re: Low Fat vs Low Fat: Is there a difference

>Hi :> Having read what you wrote (below) I am left with the overall > impression that it is your opinion that it pretty much doesn'tmatter what people eat, so long as they eat less of it.---------------------------Rodney,Well, this is not what I believe. The statement was made in thecontext of weight loss, not in the context of CRON.

But once you get to CRON, I'm not sure evidence is there to guide usabout to what extent we should avoid saturated fat, for example. Just to move on to another topic:To me, in terms of CRON, the main area of concern would be long-termmaintenance of lean muscle mass, bone density, and bone strength, inaddition to what seems to be everyone's preoccupation with insulinresistance and atherosclerosis and anti-oxidants.But the fact of the matter is, if you are constantly doing CRON, thequestion is, is it impossible to build muscle? And if this is so,even if you're off on your diet a bit and lose some muscle each year,it may not be possible to gain it back while doing CRON, so over theyears and decades, are you then "doomed" to an ever diminishing musclemass?Maybe this doesn't happen and maybe this is of no concern. I believeit all depends to what degree calories are restricted. I saw pics ofsome people on the CR website who looked like they had very littlemuscle left. I doubt that this is healthy. Again, I have no set point of view - I'm thinking around all of theseissues, so I'm sorry if I've offended some sort of "party line" on theright way to do CRON.