Guest guest Posted September 20, 2006 Report Share Posted September 20, 2006 At 08:35 AM 9/20/2006, you wrote: >Has anyone reviewed The Every other Day diet recently? I read the list >but not consistently so I may not have seen it if it was discussed. I actually practice a variation on his approach--I think it's more doable than many approaches. Basically, he has a person consume at least 60 g of protein (through a shake of some ilk) plus 400 kcal of other food on the " fasting " days, then eat healthily on the " on " days. The amount of food on the off days and on days can, of course, be modified to enable steady-state CR rather than a weight-loss result. There are certain defined advantages of EOD strategies over continual CR (specifically the retention of greater lean body mass and likely better bone mass), and the biomarker enhancements are equal to or superior to " straight " CR. Anyway, works for me. Maco Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 21, 2006 Report Share Posted September 21, 2006 Hi Maco: Thanks for reminding us about this issue. I know it has been discussed previously. But I no longer remember which studies it was that showed the benefits you described below, specifically: " ......... the retention of greater lean body mass and likely better bone mass, and the biomarker enhancements are equal to or superior to 'straight' CR. " The fact that I never decided to do the EOD/ADF thing has me assuming that I wasn't entirely persuaded by what I saw. But perhaps I should take another look at it? And where is Mattson's study of 'only one meal a day at 6 pm', which was supposed to have been completed over a year ago, I thought? Also, do you know if there is some logic behind the requirement for 60 grams of protein on the low intake days? It is difficult to imagine anyone would suffer from protein deficiency in a 36 hour partial fast. But perhaps that is not the reason for it? Rodney. > > >Has anyone reviewed The Every other Day diet recently? I read the list > >but not consistently so I may not have seen it if it was discussed. > > I actually practice a variation on his approach--I think it's more doable > than many approaches. > > Basically, he has a person consume at least 60 g of protein (through a > shake of some ilk) plus 400 kcal of other food on the " fasting " days, then > eat healthily on the " on " days. The amount of food on the off days and on > days can, of course, be modified to enable steady-state CR rather than a > weight-loss result. > > There are certain defined advantages of EOD strategies over continual CR > (specifically the retention of greater lean body mass and likely better > bone mass), and the biomarker enhancements are equal to or superior to > " straight " CR. Anyway, works for me. > > Maco > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 22, 2006 Report Share Posted September 22, 2006 Hi Maco I remember you describing what you eat on an ON day, but what do you eat on the fasting day, if you do a variety of this EOD diet? I also remember that you don't eat lunch. Is that no lunch any day at all, including your healthy ON day? Rodney raised the question on why the diet recommends high protein intake on the fasting day. I imagine that a reason for it may not avoid protein defficiency but to provide a modicum of satiety. Cheers Arturo Veve -------------------- Re: QOD Posted by: " Maco " mstewart@... mstewarthm I actually practice a variation on his approach--I think it's more doable than many approaches. Basically, he has a person consume at least 60 g of protein (through a shake of some ilk) plus 400 kcal of other food on the " fasting " days, then eat healthily on the " on " days. The amount of food on the off days and on days can, of course, be modified to enable steady-state CR rather than a weight-loss result. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 22, 2006 Report Share Posted September 22, 2006 Hi folks: I guess the questions I have about EOD (ADF) are: 1. Is there persuasive evidence that the ADF version of 30% CR is healthier than 30% CR with a relatively stable intake? Or do they both simply provide quite similar, but not identical, health benefits? 2. Do we have persuasive evidence that the ADF version of 30% CR results in greater LBM than regular 30% CR? (I know there are experiments in certain specific strains of mice, but not other strains I believe, which could be interpreted that way. But is it persuasive? In at least one case the higher mouse body weight results because the mice eat just as much in total as the ad lib mice as a result of gorging themselves on the eating days). 3. Out of curiosity, do we know what the logic is by which the ADF version of 30% CR might be expected to result in better LBM? If ADF 30% CR is better than regular 30% CR I really would like to be persuaded about it. : ^ ))) Rodney. > > >Hi Maco: > > > >Thanks for reminding us about this issue. I know it has been > >discussed previously. But I no longer remember which studies it was > >that showed the benefits you described below, specifically: > > > > " ......... the retention of greater lean body mass and likely > >better bone mass, and the biomarker enhancements are equal to or > >superior to 'straight' CR. " > > > >The fact that I never decided to do the EOD/ADF thing has me assuming > >that I wasn't entirely persuaded by what I saw. But perhaps I should > >take another look at it? > > I think it's a matter of preference rather than one really being > demonstrably better than the other. > > I can't get into the CR Society archives to search the EOD stuff-- Nerissa > has posted copiously and informatively on the subject--but here are a > couple of PubMed studies; neither of them seems to specify superior > retained bone mass, but I've read that's part of the supposed benefits of > an EOD approach vs " straight " CR although I can't hurl forth a ref for it. > > *********************************** > > The effect on health of alternate day calorie restriction: eating less and > more than needed on alternate days prolongs life. > > JB, > Laub DR, > S. > > Department of Surgery, Louisiana State University Medical Center, 2547A > Lyon Street, 2nd Floor, San Francisco, CA 94123, USA. jim@... > > Restricting caloric intake to 60-70% of normal adult weight maintenance > requirement prolongs lifespan 30-50% and confers near perfect health across > a broad range of species. Every other day feeding produces similar effects > in rodents, and profound beneficial physiologic changes have been > demonstrated in the absence of weight loss in ob/ob mice. Since May 2003 we > have experimented with alternate day calorie restriction, one day consuming > 20-50% of estimated daily caloric requirement and the next day ad lib > eating, and have observed health benefits starting in as little as two > weeks, in insulin resistance, asthma, seasonal allergies, infectious > diseases of viral, bacterial and fungal origin (viral URI, recurrent > bacterial tonsillitis, chronic sinusitis, periodontal disease), autoimmune > disorder (rheumatoid arthritis), osteoarthritis, symptoms due to CNS > inflammatory lesions (Tourette's, Meniere's) cardiac arrhythmias (PVCs, > atrial fibrillation), menopause related hot flashes. We hypothesize that > other many conditions would be delayed, prevented or improved, including > Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, multiple sclerosis, brain injury due to > thrombotic stroke atherosclerosis, NIDDM, congestive heart failure. Our > hypothesis is supported by an article from 1957 in the Spanish medical > literature which due to a translation error has been construed by several > authors to be the only existing example of calorie restriction with good > nutrition. We contend for reasons cited that there was no reduction in > calories overall, but that the subjects were eating, on alternate days, > either 900 calories or 2300 calories, averaging 1600, and that body weight > was maintained. Thus they consumed either 56% or 144% of daily caloric > requirement. The subjects were in a residence for old people, and all were > in perfect health and over 65. Over three years, there were 6 deaths among > 60 study subjects and 13 deaths among 60 ad lib-fed controls, > non-significant difference. Study subjects were in hospital 123 days, > controls 219, highly significant difference. We believe widespread use of > this pattern of eating could impact influenza epidemics and other > communicable diseases by improving resistance to infection. In addition to > the health effects, this pattern of eating has proven to be a good method > of weight control, and we are continuing to study the process in > conjunction with the NIH. > > PMID: 16529878 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] > > http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi? db=pubmed & cmd=Retrieve & dopt=AbstractPlus & list_uids=16529878 & query_hl=8 & itool=pubmed_docsum > ************************ > Intermittent fasting dissociates beneficial effects of dietary restriction > on glucose metabolism and neuronal resistance to injury from calorie intake. > > Anson RM, > Guo Z, > de Cabo R, > Iyun T, > Rios M, > Hagepanos A, > Ingram DK, > Lane MA, > Mattson MP. > > Laboratory of Neurosciences, Gerontology Research Center, National > Institute on Aging, 5600 Shock Drive, Baltimore, MD 21224, USA. > > Dietary restriction has been shown to have several health benefits > including increased insulin sensitivity, stress resistance, reduced > morbidity, and increased life span. The mechanism remains unknown, but the > need for a long-term reduction in caloric intake to achieve these benefits > has been assumed. We report that when C57BL6 mice are maintained on an > intermittent fasting (alternate-day fasting) dietary-restriction regimen > their overall food intake is not decreased and their body weight is > maintained. Nevertheless, intermittent fasting resulted in beneficial > effects that met or exceeded those of caloric restriction including reduced > serum glucose and insulin levels and increased resistance of neurons in the > brain to excitotoxic stress. Intermittent fasting therefore has beneficial > effects on glucose regulation and neuronal resistance to injury in these > mice that are independent of caloric intake. > > PMID: 12724520 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] > > http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi? db=pubmed & cmd=Retrieve & dopt=AbstractPlus & list_uids=12724520 & query_hl=2 & itool=pubmed_DocSum > > > >And where is Mattson's study of 'only one meal a day at 6 pm', which > >was supposed to have been completed over a year ago, I thought? > > Dunno. I think the central issue is how to kick in the CR- associated > protective mechanisms. > > >Also, do you know if there is some logic behind the requirement for > >60 grams of protein on the low intake days? > > Sure. You don't want the body to catabolize protein stores to generate > glucose for the brain et al., so the idea is that such supplementation will > help an individual retain more lean body mass and draw on lipid stores and, > of course, glycogen preferentially. > > >It is difficult to > >imagine anyone would suffer from protein deficiency in a 36 hour > >partial fast. But perhaps that is not the reason for it? > I don't think it's so much an optimal nutrition thing as a step to try to > help maintain lean body mass. > > Maco > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 23, 2006 Report Share Posted September 23, 2006 Without a doubt, the best way to maintain bone mass and lean body mass, if that is a concern, is by going on a regular weight training regimen. Given proper nutrition, resistance training is the most straightforward way to strenghen both bones and muscles -- and CRON is sure to keep your body fat down! > > > > >Has anyone reviewed The Every other Day diet recently? I read the > list > > >but not consistently so I may not have seen it if it was discussed. > > > > I actually practice a variation on his approach--I think it's more > doable > > than many approaches. > > > > Basically, he has a person consume at least 60 g of protein > (through a > > shake of some ilk) plus 400 kcal of other food on the " fasting " > days, then > > eat healthily on the " on " days. The amount of food on the off days > and on > > days can, of course, be modified to enable steady-state CR rather > than a > > weight-loss result. > > > > There are certain defined advantages of EOD strategies over > continual CR > > (specifically the retention of greater lean body mass and likely > better > > bone mass), and the biomarker enhancements are equal to or superior > to > > " straight " CR. Anyway, works for me. > > > > Maco > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 25, 2006 Report Share Posted September 25, 2006 Hi Orb: One question I have about weight training is whether it is possible to have muscles that are strong enough to lift weights that are heavy enough to cause fractures. The theory, I believe, is that the greatest strengthening effect results from a very small number of repetitions of the heaviest weight you can manage. But that approach of course would have more potential to cause problems than doing a larger number of reps of a lower weight. I have heard that it is known for little old ladies to break an arm simply picking up the telephone directory off the table. Which, if true, supports the idea that this may be a risk, at least for some. Does anyone have authoritative information about this? I emailed a couple of places that ought to know the answer. And they replied saying they refused to answer! (One claimed that doing so would constitute giving personal health advice!) My guess is that they were afraid of possible legal liability. Rodney. > > > > > > >Has anyone reviewed The Every other Day diet recently? I read the > > list > > > >but not consistently so I may not have seen it if it was discussed. > > > > > > I actually practice a variation on his approach--I think it's more > > doable > > > than many approaches. > > > > > > Basically, he has a person consume at least 60 g of protein > > (through a > > > shake of some ilk) plus 400 kcal of other food on the " fasting " > > days, then > > > eat healthily on the " on " days. The amount of food on the off days > > and on > > > days can, of course, be modified to enable steady-state CR rather > > than a > > > weight-loss result. > > > > > > There are certain defined advantages of EOD strategies over > > continual CR > > > (specifically the retention of greater lean body mass and likely > > better > > > bone mass), and the biomarker enhancements are equal to or superior > > to > > > " straight " CR. Anyway, works for me. > > > > > > Maco > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 26, 2006 Report Share Posted September 26, 2006 > > Hi Orb: > > One question I have about weight training is whether it is possible > to have muscles that are strong enough to lift weights that are heavy > enough to cause fractures. > [From the person formerly known as ph18@...] This might be a problem if you're really old, you've got severe osteoporosis, or if you are lifting incredibly heavy weights. You're much more likely to hurt a tendon, mess up your back, or break bones in your foot by dropping a barbell on it. Typical advice for most lifters is to alternately lift 5-7 reps and 8-12 reps. Experience shows that people get different benefits from different numbers of reps. A lot depends on the individual and on the particular muscle. For the big muscles used for the bench press, for instance, I'll do three warm-up sets and two heavy sets. I get better results for the little muscles, for instance, doing bicep curls, doing two sets, the first one heavier than the second. It's considered dangerous to attempt to lift a 1-rep maximum (1RM) weight. If you're trying to measure your strength, you can use a chart to predict your 1RM by measuring the maximum weight you can lift, say, five times. Serious bodybuilders and powerlifters do all kinds of crazy things, and sometimes they get crazy injuries. A sensible weight training program is pretty safe. If you're just starting out, it's important to get a certain level of basic fitness. People get better results with free weights, but it's good to spend a few months using machines to get your muscles used to it. Many authorities today advocate " functional exercise " which has more emphasis on using body weight and less on iron: the idea is real functional strength depends on how your big muscles, little muscles and brain work together. For instance, a squat is a better exercise than a machine leg press because you're balancing. A great book on functional exercise (requiring little equipment in most cases is) Functional Traing For Sports Boyle ISBN 0-7360-4681-X If you're interested in lifting, two books that take very different approaches are: Getting Stronger: Weight Training for Sports Bill Pearl ISBN 0-936070-38-2 Unleashing the Wild Physique Vince Gironda ISBN: 0806941804 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 26, 2006 Report Share Posted September 26, 2006 Hi Jeff: Yes. And to nitpick a little, but possibly an important detail, I think you need to add the word " CRON " in this paragraph, between the words " same " and " weight " , so that it reads: " > An important question that I'm not sure we can answer > yet is whether or not two people (or animals) who > maintain the same *** CRON *** weight but one does more > exercise and eats more to maintain a reduced weight, would > end up aging faster than the one that eats less and > exercises less to maintain the same reduced weight, > even though the one that does more exercise is more > fit? " I could easily be persuaded by some evidence that that someone with a BMI of 30 who exercises may be less unhealthy than someone with a BMI of 30 who doesn't. But it is far less clear to me that someone with a BMI of 20 who exercises will necessarily live a longer healthier life than someone with a BMI of 20 who does not. Exercise may help a little to fix the CVD, diabetes, etc. that are caused by the excessive weight in the heavier person. But someone with a BMI of 20 will not have those problems in the first place, and exercise might confer little or no benfit, while the extra calories consumed by the exerciser might very likely be net deleterious. (I hope this is comprehensible!) Rodney. --- In , Jeff Novick <chefjeff40@...> wrote: > > This is all good info but the question, which we have > discussed quite a bit here is how much benefit to CRON > is exercise, and how much exercise is neccessary to > get that benefit. > > Much of this info has to do with " fitness " but how > much does increased levels of fitness have to do with > longevity. > > As some have pointed out, it seems most of the benefit > from exercise/fitness is in mitigating the damage of > the typical american diet. But, if one is following > CRON, than those risk factors are already minimized. > > An important question that I'm not sure we can answer > yet is whether or not two people (or animals) who > maintain the same weight but one does more exercise > and eats more to maintain a reduced weight, would end > up aging faster than the one that eats less and > exercises less to maintain the same reduced weight, > even though the one that does more exercise is more > fit? > > If it makes little or no difference then is all the > effort of getting and staying very fit really worth > it? > > You don't have to burn a lot of calories to get a > 80-90% of your fitness potential regardless of whether > that is aerobic or resistance. (As studies have shown, > if done properly over 90% of the benefit can be > achieved in the first set of weight training). > > My guess is 5 to at most 12 minutes of fairly intense > aerobic exercise a few times a week, and maybe 6-8 > resistant exercises (1 set maybe 5-10 reps for each) > 2-3 X per week and a little stretching maybe 2-3X per > week keeps you pretty fit but does not burn a lot of > calories or generate a lot of free radicals and might > be optimal for a long and healthy life. > > Regards > Jeff > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 26, 2006 Report Share Posted September 26, 2006 Hi Jeff: Yes ............. we need some studies in mice or, better, hamsters or guinea pigs, that determine the effects on longevity. Is anyone here a good pal of Mattson? Could suggest to him that he add it to his list of future studies. Rodney. --- In , Jeff Novick <chefjeff40@...> wrote: > > Hi Rodney: > > Yes. And to nitpick a little, but possibly an > important detail, I think you need to add the word > " CRON " in this paragraph, between the > words " a " and " BMI " , so that it reads: > > > > Exercise may help a little to fix the CVD, diabetes, > > etc. that are > > caused by the excessive weight in the heavier > > person. But someone > > with a **CRON** BMI of 20 will not have those > problems in the > > first place, and > > exercise might confer little or no benfit, while the > > extra calories > > consumed by the exerciser might very likely be net > > deleterious. > > > > Jeff > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.