5 year plan

[Guest guest]

Hi , welcome.

While the advice to lose weight slowly is almost always sound and would be doubly true for persons with certain ailments (osteo?). I for one think the idea of taking 5+ years to lose 10 pounds is (aside from being plain unnecessary) utterly impractical. May as well take 50 years. You can't track or monitor your progress. Nor can you stay on a particular course for that long. I would guess that the idea of losing 10 pounds in 5+ years would mean you need to reduce your consumption by an immeasurably small number of calories per day. Try this exercise: try sometime to drive your car at exactly 1 mile-per-hour speed (or 1 kmh; doesn't matter). Can't be done.

What's good in theory is sometimes quite different from what is achievable in reality.

My suggestion would be to continue your progress at 1 - 2 lbs. per week.

Just the opinion/experiences of one guy...

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

From: Fiorini

Sent: Sunday, September 09, 2001 1:33 PM

Subject: [ ] 5 year plan

Hello. My name is and I would like to ask some questions about what Dean wrote.

Dean M. wrote:

"If you have 10 lbs or more to lose, take 5+ years to lose the weight. You can then monitor your situation with your doctors advice and learn a lot in the meantime."

I am fairly new to this list. I have been following the CR program since the summer. I am averaging weight loss of approximately 2 pounds per week following this program. I should also add that I have about 80 more pounds to lose. I have seen my doctor and she is knowledgeable of the CRON diet and follows a modified version herself and is very supportive of my following the program and my corresponding weight loss.

So I was shocked to read the comments about taking 5 years plus to lose ten pounds. Was this because the question came from someone who was taking medication for osteoporosis and thyroid?

I wondering what I was missing in the context of the quote. As I am very new to the list and to the CRON diet, perphaps there is something that I am unaware of.

Regards

[Guest guest]

Hipp wrote:

What's good in theory is sometimes quite different from what is achievable

in reality.

The " 5 year plan " isn't good in theory either! If you're in ill health or

grossly overweight, you could get very sick (die even from disease brought

on by excess poundage) before you lose your 2 pounds a year!! With all due

respect to Dean, i don't think that anyone who sets a goal of 2 pounds

weight loss a year can be serious about CR.

[Guest guest]

Hi everyone,

F. wrote:

<I am fairly new to this list. I have been following the CR program since

the summer. I am averaging weight loss of approximately 2 pounds per week

following this program. I should also add that I have about 80 more pounds

to lose. So I was shocked to read the comments about taking 5 years plus to

lose ten pounds. Was this because the question came from someone who was

taking medication for osteoporosis and thyroid?>

Yes. I will note more below...

Hipp wrote:

<I for one think the idea of taking 5+ years to lose 10 pounds is (aside

from being plain unnecessary) utterly impractical. May as well take 50

years... What's good in theory is sometimes quite different from what is

achievable in reality.>

Many folks gain weight quite gradually. Ten or twenty pounds over twenty

years is not uncommon, so, in theory, it is possible to do this in reverse.

With a little conscious effort it might be easier to do than the unconscious

effort that got oneself overweight to begin with. Of course, there are many

variables that would go into an individual's equation to decide how fast and

how much to lose.

Francesca wrote:

<Dean: where did this " 5 year plan " come from??? And why are you advising

others to take 5 years to lose 10 pounds?>

Actually, the answer was meant to be targeted for someone with their

condition. Osteo and thyroid problems are often affected by CR too, so a

conservative approach may be wise.

Francesca wrote:

<Not meaning to sound disrespectful, but just how does one go about taking 5

years to lose 10 pounds? The " 5 year plan " isn't good in theory either!>

Well, Walford took 10 YEARS to lose about 10 lbs, which is twice " the

theory " you question. Ask about that theory. I'm not saying one size

fits all.

Francesca wrote:

<If you're in ill health or grossly overweight, you could get very sick (die

even from disease brought on by excess poundage) before you lose your 2

pounds a year!!>

I was answering someone's original question before anyone else replied.

Obviously, what you are stating is obvious. You can't generalize your

correct statement and apply it to my answer, which was meant for someone

with a different situation.

Francesca wrote:

<With all due respect to Dean, i don't think that anyone who sets a goal of

2 pounds weight loss a year can be serious about CR.>

With all due respect to Francesca, tell that to Walford who went slower

(1/2 as fast at about one lb/year) and millions of others who have done just

the reverse gaining weight slowly (albeit in the opposite direction).

Surely, Walford is serious about CR. Surely, it can be done in reverse

too, especially with a little conscious effort.

I am serious. That's my plan.

Best, Dean M.

BTW, Dr. Walford himself always advised losing weight very slowly over many

years. Even well beyond five years (if necessary) to maximize the life

extension aspect of his program. It was only until Biosphere2 that he

decided humans -MIGHT- be able to lose weight faster. That is based ONLY on

very few healthy individuals (6-8? people) he observed in Bio2. That can NOT

be easily extrapolated to the entire (healthy and unhealthy) population of

body types and weights on planet Earth.

Why not be conservative and take the slower approach. Walford did. I

will follow.

..

[Guest guest]

> He says " Any level is too high... "

I haven't verified the quote, but if Dr. W says this, he is just plain

wrong.

This is merely reciting the 'linear, no-threshold' nonsense. While

asserting that any level of pesticide/herbicide is bad may sound logical and

safe (who would want poisons in their body!). The truth in the real world is

different.

For most things (perhaps all), the effect of poisons or other " bad " things

has a threshold and is non-linear. Stated simply: at small doses the " bad "

things are of no effect or are even beneficial. Your body is completely able

to deal with the offending item and the exercise of eliminating it from the

body and/or repairing its effects actually improves your body's ability to

cope with such and effect self-repairs. Only once the threshold is crossed

does the effect become detrimental and then at increasing doses the damage

increases exponentially.

Thing to remember: Below the threshold it is neutral or even beneficial.

P.S. A bit of background ... the 'linear, no-threshold' argument is a

political argument. It has been fabricated to support an agenda. It is the

type of argument used by the environmental wackos to try to convince

" do-good " politicians that we should write regulations eliminating every

last single bit of anything even remotely thought to be bad from our

drinking water, our air, our food, our workplaces, the exhaust of our

automobiles, etc, etc., etc. Even if it bankrupts us all. Sounds good to a

gullible public. Sounds even better to self-righteous politicians who are

always in favor of more government regulation. But it is based on a false

premise and bad science. And bad science is not science at all.

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

From: " Dean M. " <bordercollie@...>

" " < >

Sent: Sunday, September 09, 2001 10:55 PM

Subject: [ ] RE: 5 year plan

> He says " Any level is too high... "

[Guest guest]

Francesca wrote:

<If you're going to quote Dr W, again, please quote him accurately.>

He did not reference the animal studies. Also, he was still discussing " all

that " in the context of the two issues I cited, which was losing weight fast

and metabolism adjustment.

Let's just say I give that argument away, as I -already- did in my previous

post, by saying the minimum -conservative- time he suggests losing weight

for metabolism adjustment is two years. Dr. Walford already has qualified

what I just said, and I quoted him in my previous post accurately. Anything

less than 1-2 years could be a problem. Hence, I say two years to be

entirely safe for metabolism adjustment.

Fine. I can agree with that, as I already have. BUT...

You have still -completely ignored- (why?) the other issue I raised. The

pesticide and toxin issue! Until that problem is addressed, we don't know

how fast you can lose weight regarding pesticides and toxins released from

body fat.

1-2 years for metabolism adjustment does NOT address the toxin and pesticide

issue. I can't just blindly ignore that fact. Can you???

Best, Dean M.

P.S. Besides, Walford took 12 years to lose about 15-16 pounds, so

there's that issue too that W's book does not address. Does that make it any

less relevant? Same thing goes for the vastly more important pesticide and

toxin issue.

Best, Dean M.

Mental Health = EPA + DHA + O6 calories @ 2-3% of Daily Caloric Intake

( p.s. alternative " equations " are always welcomed " : )

..