Re: Re: New file w/ formula for computing ideal weight

[Guest guest]

For a few more data points; Al Pater (was) around 5'10 " before he shrunk

and I was 5'10.5 " in my youth (now more like 5 " 10 " ). Al has been shy of

100# too often for my comfort, and I decided to increase my intake (a

year ago) when I was unhappy low at 145#. I am now circa 160# and will

probably restrict back to 155# or so. IMO there is no simple single

ideal weight; different body types, different QOL expectations,

different previous experiences. We must find our own path.

JR

PS: I was 235#+ as a young adult.

finewinemark@... wrote:

> This newly posted file prompts me to post. As a male, I will limit my

comments to the applicable portion.

>

> Basically, I disagree.

>

> As it happens, my height is 5'10 " , exactly the size of the example given in

the formula. My weight has never, even at my heaviest, reached the " ideal "

described by the formula. (106 + (10 x 6) = 166).

>

> When I decided to begin CR, my weight was 157. After a year or so of following

a CR regimen, my weight got as low as 129. It has now stabilized at 135, a

weight I maintain within a pound or so each way.

>

> The concept of the " ideal " CR " target " weight is one that Roy Walford

discusses in his work, and one that has had much attention among CR

practitioners. The common conception is that there is for each person (male or

female) a natural weight -- being what a person weighs when they reach their

mature physical size -- perhaps at age 20 or so.

>

>>From that weight, the CR goal is 10-15% reduction.

>

> The CRON paradigm, as I understand it, is to maintain this reduced size by

limiting calorie intake while assuring that those calories include optimal

nutrition.

>

> At least, that is how I live my CR life.

>

> Comments from others would be appreciated.

>

> Mark

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

For a few more data points; Al Pater (was) around 5'10 " before he shrunk

and I was 5'10.5 " in my youth (now more like 5 " 10 " ). Al has been shy of

100# too often for my comfort, and I decided to increase my intake (a

year ago) when I was unhappy low at 145#. I am now circa 160# and will

probably restrict back to 155# or so. IMO there is no simple single

ideal weight; different body types, different QOL expectations,

different previous experiences. We must find our own path.

JR

PS: I was 235#+ as a young adult.

finewinemark@... wrote:

> This newly posted file prompts me to post. As a male, I will limit my

comments to the applicable portion.

>

> Basically, I disagree.

>

> As it happens, my height is 5'10 " , exactly the size of the example given in

the formula. My weight has never, even at my heaviest, reached the " ideal "

described by the formula. (106 + (10 x 6) = 166).

>

> When I decided to begin CR, my weight was 157. After a year or so of following

a CR regimen, my weight got as low as 129. It has now stabilized at 135, a

weight I maintain within a pound or so each way.

>

> The concept of the " ideal " CR " target " weight is one that Roy Walford

discusses in his work, and one that has had much attention among CR

practitioners. The common conception is that there is for each person (male or

female) a natural weight -- being what a person weighs when they reach their

mature physical size -- perhaps at age 20 or so.

>

>>From that weight, the CR goal is 10-15% reduction.

>

> The CRON paradigm, as I understand it, is to maintain this reduced size by

limiting calorie intake while assuring that those calories include optimal

nutrition.

>

> At least, that is how I live my CR life.

>

> Comments from others would be appreciated.

>

> Mark

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Another:

When I was a serious crew competitor who ran sub-5-minute miles,

clean-and-jerked 210 lb, and had very low body fat around age twenty, my

weight was 165-175, at 6' 1.5 " . This formula yields 187 less 19 or

168, which sounds in the right range, if higher than some would choose.

In any case, probably no worse an approach than trying to use BMI

numbers, imo.

Maco

At 10:53 AM 1/9/2006, you wrote:

For a few more data points;

Al Pater (was) around 5'10 " before he shrunk

and I was 5'10.5 " in my youth (now more like 5 " 10 " ). Al

has been shy of

100# too often for my comfort, and I decided to increase my intake (a

year ago) when I was unhappy low at 145#. I am now circa 160# and will

probably restrict back to 155# or so. IMO there is no simple single

ideal weight; different body types, different QOL expectations,

different previous experiences. We must find our own path.

JR

PS: I was 235#+ as a young adult.

finewinemark@... wrote:

> This newly posted file prompts me to post. As a male, I will

limit my comments to the applicable portion.

>

> Basically, I disagree.

>

> As it happens, my height is 5'10 " , exactly the size of the

example given in the formula. My weight has never, even at my heaviest,

reached the " ideal " described by the formula. (106 + (10 x 6) =

166).

>

> When I decided to begin CR, my weight was 157. After a year or so of

following a CR regimen, my weight got as low as 129. It has now

stabilized at 135, a weight I maintain within a pound or so each

way.

>

> The concept of the " ideal " CR " target " weight is

one that Roy Walford discusses in his work, and one that has had much

attention among CR practitioners. The common conception is that there is

for each person (male or female) a natural weight -- being what a person

weighs when they reach their mature physical size -- perhaps at age 20 or

so.

>

>>From that weight, the CR goal is 10-15% reduction.

>

> The CRON paradigm, as I understand it, is to maintain this reduced

size by limiting calorie intake while assuring that those calories

include optimal nutrition.

>

> At least, that is how I live my CR life.

>

> Comments from others would be appreciated.

>

> Mark

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Another:

When I was a serious crew competitor who ran sub-5-minute miles,

clean-and-jerked 210 lb, and had very low body fat around age twenty, my

weight was 165-175, at 6' 1.5 " . This formula yields 187 less 19 or

168, which sounds in the right range, if higher than some would choose.

In any case, probably no worse an approach than trying to use BMI

numbers, imo.

Maco

At 10:53 AM 1/9/2006, you wrote:

For a few more data points;

Al Pater (was) around 5'10 " before he shrunk

and I was 5'10.5 " in my youth (now more like 5 " 10 " ). Al

has been shy of

100# too often for my comfort, and I decided to increase my intake (a

year ago) when I was unhappy low at 145#. I am now circa 160# and will

probably restrict back to 155# or so. IMO there is no simple single

ideal weight; different body types, different QOL expectations,

different previous experiences. We must find our own path.

JR

PS: I was 235#+ as a young adult.

finewinemark@... wrote:

> This newly posted file prompts me to post. As a male, I will

limit my comments to the applicable portion.

>

> Basically, I disagree.

>

> As it happens, my height is 5'10 " , exactly the size of the

example given in the formula. My weight has never, even at my heaviest,

reached the " ideal " described by the formula. (106 + (10 x 6) =

166).

>

> When I decided to begin CR, my weight was 157. After a year or so of

following a CR regimen, my weight got as low as 129. It has now

stabilized at 135, a weight I maintain within a pound or so each

way.

>

> The concept of the " ideal " CR " target " weight is

one that Roy Walford discusses in his work, and one that has had much

attention among CR practitioners. The common conception is that there is

for each person (male or female) a natural weight -- being what a person

weighs when they reach their mature physical size -- perhaps at age 20 or

so.

>

>>From that weight, the CR goal is 10-15% reduction.

>

> The CRON paradigm, as I understand it, is to maintain this reduced

size by limiting calorie intake while assuring that those calories

include optimal nutrition.

>

> At least, that is how I live my CR life.

>

> Comments from others would be appreciated.

>

> Mark

>

>

>

>

>

>

>