5 year plan

[Guest guest]

Francesca wrote:

<Could you tell us where in his books Dr. W advises losing 2 pounds a year

or 10 pounds over 5 years?>

I don't think Dr. Walford ever spelled out exactly " X " lbs over " X " years,

nor I have intended to do so. I was referring to his original 120 Year Diet

published in the mid 80's. Unfortunately, I don't have that copy available

for some reference points, but he was certainly suggesting taking many years

to lose weight very gradually. (Of course, that depends on how much there is

to lose and many other factors to consider.) Five to ten years would not be

unreasonable in many cases. Walford took 12 years actually. Again, I'm

not saying one size fits all.

<Same for Walford, where did you find this information?>

It's in the archive. And, BTW, she took 12 years to lose about 15-16 lbs. Of

course, this is NOT divided out into equal amounts per year. Her weight lose

varied year to year, but it was done very gradually.

Best, deVries

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

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

..

[Guest guest]

Dear ,

the 5 years is from early suggestions from Dr. Roy Walford. He

believed that when adults are losing weight below their set point,

they should lose it slowly. He suggest 5 to 7 years, with only a few pounds

a year. He suggested losing a couple of pounds, then resting.

This was before the Biosphere experience in which a group of people

lost significant amounts of weight without serious side effects.

Walford was not talking about someone who is 80 pounds overweight,

but rather someone who is at or near their set point, and is dropping

below that.

As someone who is coming from about where you are, I have found

that while I am in a weight loss mode, 3 pounds a month works well

for me. I lost quite a lot more, perhaps 6 or 8 pounds a month

for a while, early on. While I am still obese,

I am clearly below my "set point." There are a number of people in

my family who have been/are massively obese, and I seem to have some of

that inclination.

As a rule of thumb, for myself, I like to think in terms of losing

about 1% of my total bodyfat a week (in my case, about a half

pound). I have about 30 pounds to go...perhaps a few more pounds

than that, but not many...assuming most of the weight is fat loss,

without more than about 20% muscle loss.

The reason for the slow weight is that weight loss is a significan

strain for your body. Laboratory animals that reduced too fast,

didn't live to enjoy an advanced, vigorous old age. Nobody

knows what "too fast" really is...just as no one is sure just what your

set point is. You might be at your set point now....or it might

be at about the "normal" weight for your heighth and body type.

You can be pretty sure, though, that when your weight loss slows

down, and your hands are cold most of the time even though you're

exercising

several times a week....that you are below your set point.

So, lose weight at a pace that is reasonably comfortable for you.

I got too ambitious, and was hurting all of the time. Eventally,

I "broke" and regained about 20 pounds of the 50 pounds I had lost.

I am still working on getting the program going again. Some weeks

I re-start every day. However, I am not gaining weight, and I am

below my set point. Most of the negative health problems associated

with overweight are gone (not completely).

For me, each day requires new dedication. I must be aware

of what I am thinking and doing most of the time, every day.

I try to be hungry...but I try to avoid pain.

If you are going along and losing 2 pounds a week and feeling good...then

that should be fine for you. As it becomes more difficult (if

it does...some people just breeze right along all the way to their target)

then back off on the amount of weekly weight loss.

I'm glad your Doc is familiar with the CRON program Many

people just notice the "calorie restriction" part, and not the optimal

nutrition part. Remember, that calorie restriction without

excellent nutrition will promote weight loss...but not a longer, healthier

life...other than wiping out the health deficit caused by obesity.

It looks to me like you're on the right track, if you are going

for excellent nutrition, exercise aerobically and anaerobically several

times weekly, and keeping those calories down.

Ed S.

Fiorini wrote:

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]

Re: where can you find it"

Walford, as I recall, recommended losing 4 or 5 pounds a

year, and taking 5 to 7 years for total amount. He recommended

this as a result of his experiments with mature lab animals.

In earlier experiments with adult animals, the cr was introduced

quite suddenly.

These animals did not thrive. Walford (with Weindruch, I believe)

introduced cr much more slowly, and the mature animals did fine,

greatly extending their lifespans. Walford hypothesized that

it would take an equivalent amount of time, based on the ratio of

mouse lifespan to human lifespan (or..how old in human years is a 12 month

old mouse)..or, 5 to ten years.

However, his experience with humans (all young adults except

Walford who was already on the program) in Biosphere seemed to demonstrate

that such extreme care was not essential in humans. He now

recommends fairly rapid weight loss for perhaps six months, then

proceeding at a slower rate. However, in no case was he talking

about dealing with obesity. He has indicated that obese persons should

lose the excess weight as quickly as they safely can.

Ed S.

"T. Francesca Skelton" wrote:

Dean: Thank you for answering our questions.

Could you tell us where in his books Dr. W advises losing 2 pounds

a year

or 10 pounds over 5 years?

Same for Walford, where did you find this information?

>From her picture, Walford after only a 10 pound loss (if this

is indeed

the case) is very thin. Such persons, who start out thin,

should not lose a

lot of weight.

[Guest guest]

Dean,

I can find that reference for you, if you really want it.

My naturally lazy, energy conserving nature prevents me from rushing

off and finding it right now, but let me know. I have all of

his books, including the one delineating his analysis of laboratory

experience with cr.

ED S

"Dean M." wrote:

Francesca wrote:

<Could you tell us where in his books Dr. W advises losing 2

pounds a year

or 10 pounds over 5 years?>

I don't think Dr. Walford ever spelled out exactly "X" lbs over

"X" years,

nor I have intended to do so. I was referring to his original 120

Year Diet

published in the mid 80's. Unfortunately, I don't have that copy

available

for some reference points, but he was certainly suggesting taking

many years

to lose weight very gradually. (Of course, that depends on how

much there is

to lose and many other factors to consider.) Five to ten years

would not be

unreasonable in many cases. Walford took 12 years actually.

Again, I'm

not saying one size fits all.

<Same for Walford, where did you find this information?>

It's in the archive. And, BTW, she took 12 years to lose about 15-16

lbs. Of

course, this is NOT divided out into equal amounts per year. Her

weight lose

varied year to year, but it was done very gradually.

Best, deVries

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

Intake

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

..

[Guest guest]

Hi everyone,

Francesca wrote: <Could you tell us where in his books Dr. W advises losing

2 pounds a year or 10 pounds over 5 years?>

Dean wrote: I don't think Dr. Walford ever spelled out exactly " X " lbs over

" X " years, nor I have intended to do so.

F answers:

<Ok then, in the future it would be a better idea to please NOT post 10+

pounds in 5 years.>

Francesca, I already clarified that just " above " . I previously said: I don't

think Dr. Walford ever spelled out exactly " X " lbs over " X " years, nor I

have intended to do so.

AND in my previous posts:

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.

AND again previously:

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.

AND more than once I said: I'm not saying one size fits all.

Francesca, I'm getting off this merry-go-round, as I can't be more clear.

I'm not (nor was I) " advertising " or advising any 5 year 10+ lb plans.

You'll get the last word if you want it.

Now, to change the subject...

F answers:

<In Dr W's latest book B120YD, here are some excerpts:

pg 6: " The program calls for gradual weight loss over 6 months to a year or

so, until you reach and remain at a new weight substantially below your set

point........

pg 62: " The program calls for gradual weight reductions over a period of six

to nine months or longer.... "

pg 78: " Based on further work....I now believe the time period for weight

loss in humans can be reduced from 4 to 6 years to 6 to 9 months or, better

still up to one to two years. "

Note: please note the words " UP TO " 1 to 2 years. Which means not

recommending more than that.>

Ok, BUT I've already said (just below) which refers to, and shows a weak

spot or soft underbelly, regarding all of your above W points.

I quote: 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.

So, my reading is, I personally won't base my weight loss plan on such

limited data he based his (faster weight loss) decision on, which you noted

above. Six or so Biospherians do NOT extrapolate to the entire (healthy and

unhealthy) human population of body types and weights on planet Earth, IMHO.

Additionally, overweight folks, such as I, have another serious health

consideration as follows:

To further understand my concerns please refer to pg. 275 of Walford's

Beyond The 120 Year Diet, second and third paragraphs, and see pg. 229 last

paragraph continued to pg. 230 to understand my concern about pesticide and

other toxins stored/released from human fat.

The government sets its (worthless) pesticide limits based on this

assumption:

That we only consume 1/2 pound per year for each of nine veggies/fruits they

listed, so the total consumption is 4.5 lbs per year of these 9 items.

Dr. Walford, rightly so, strongly protests this government standard for

pesticide levels! It IS ridiculous for anyone who eats a healthy diet!!!

Also, noted in the book Beyond 120 Year Diet about the Biospherians was

their elevated levels of toxins in their blood!!! Why? Because they lost

weight too fast!

They checked DDE levels (breakdown of DDT) and PCBs.

They found these increases in blood concentration parts/billion due to

weight loss in bio2.

9 to 38ppb (subject a) increase

..3 to 14ppb (subject increase

Other subjects had similar increases.

Dr. Walford strongly advises slow weight loss if you have a lot of fat to

burn or lose, otherwise you might poison yourself with your own fat stored

toxins!

The ONLY exception to this would be if you ate and drank pesticide free and

toxin free. Have you? Yes, then you're home free.

Sully wrote:

However, in no case was he talking about dealing with obesity. He has

indicated that obese persons should lose the excess weight as quickly as

they safely can.

Could you find some references to your statement that define that further,

as it could be at odds with Dr. Walford's pesticide/toxin stored fat theory.

In other words, where is the balance?

Francesca wrote:

<But let's not dwell on the former belief. We want everyone to have the most

up to date info.>

I have valid reasons to question and doubt whether we should lose weight

quickly. IMHO, Walford stretches himself very (too) thin basing his " newer "

recommendations that faster weight loss is Ok because of 6-8 Biospherian's

results. (Sorry, I just can't " buy " that one.) It is VERY REASONABLE for me

to question that, and it is reasonable to take a more conservative AND

slower approach as Walford did. BTW, kept losing weight very

slowly after Biosphere2. I'm sure her father approved.

Also, there is the SERIOUS question about stored toxins in your fat that

will be released as you lose weight. Dr. Walford stated the Biospherians

lost weight far too fast, so he cautions against losing weight too fast.

When you take that into consideration, slower IS better.

P.S. Maybe they realize Americans are far toooo impatient to get results,

now! How many folks are patient enough to lose weight as slowly as

Walford did???

Best, Dean M.

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

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

..

[Guest guest]

Dean: Our disagreement is what Dr. W's definition of " slow " weight loss is.

For example you say:

Dr. Walford stated the Biospherians

lost weight far too fast, so he cautions against

losing weight too fast.

When you take that into consideration, slower IS

better.

again no reference do you cite as to what " slower " is.

I don't want to have any last word. I just want the words to be accurate.

In my post, I have provided references as to what Dr W actually meant by

" slow " weight loss.

[Guest guest]

Francesca wrote:

<In my post, I have provided references as to what Dr W actually meant by

" slow " weight loss.>

I have pointed out there are two extremely weak links in your references,

which you have not addressed.

1) Dr. Walford's new advice (which is ALL that it is) is based solely on

about 6 Biospherian's results. Thin ice, IMHO.

2) There is the toxin and pesticide fat storage issue that threatens one's

health if you lose weight too fast. Dr. W proves this with his Biospherian

test results.

If you can't address these two loose ends, then no amount of quoting W's

book will help.

Best, Dean M.

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

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

..

[Guest guest]

Hi everyone,

Should you lose total CR weight within 1-2 years? Please consider the

following. I posted this to the main list for further debate too.

See pages 78-80 of Beyond The 120 Year Diet for reference.

Francesca wrote;

<Note: please note the words " UP TO " 1 to 2 years. Which means not

recommending more than that.>

Are you suggesting Walford was wrong to take 12 years to lose her

weight? I don't think so.

Dr. Walford does NOT say he does not recommend taking longer than two years

to lose all your weight. Those are your assumptions Francesca, which I

believe can be wrong for many reasons.

This issue of losing weight in 1-2 years was addressed in the context of two

issues. Issue One, the " hurry up " attitude to do it now. Read paragraph two

pg. 78 to confirm my point. Issue Two, 1-2 years was stated for metabolism

adjustment. Please note his last sentence of paragraph two: " Less might also

be all right, but I'm not entirely sure. " ( " Less " in this context means less

than 1-2 years.)

So Dr. Walford clearly states that losing total weight in less than 1-2

years -MIGHT- be Ok. He states: " I'm not entirely sure. "

Hence, taking at least two years to lose your total weight loss is the

conservative approach in this context, BUT this IS NOT entirely true. Read

further...

On the same page 78 he changes the subject to pesticides and toxins -after-

the above subjects. See third paragraph and read through to page 80.

Now, study page 79 and look at the graphs. It's easy to see that one's

pesticide DDE/DDT and toxin PCB levels stay elevated over two years in

Biosphere2. The toxins went down POST EXIT ONLY because they were diluted by

the higher weight gain of the ex-Biospherians.

ALL Dr. Walford does to address this issue is say on page 80 " You should

lose weight slowly enough for the released toxins to be cleared without

getting too high. " He says " Any level is too high... " He admits the toxins

and pesticides will stay elevated for a year or more (after the two years in

Biosphere2), yet we do NOT have the data which shows how long this could be!

This is important to note.

Do you? Dr. W's book doesn't show that data.

So when you quote how fast Dr. Walford states you should lose weight, you

need to consider the ENTIRE CONTEXT he suggests that within. He was

addressing the 1-2 year weight loss in the context of the impatient

attitudes of Americans wanting to lose weight " now " -and- metabolism

adjustment.

He was NOT addressing the problem of toxin and pesticide release from your

fat stores when you lose weight. That can NOT be done within 1-2 years. Look

at the graph on page 79.

Five to ten years of weight loss may not be such a bad idea after all. When

you consider the toxin and pesticide issue, it looks like a good idea to me.

Dr. Walford's book is not in conflict with this possibility. In fact, I

believe he provides evidence for slower weight loss well beyond 2 years.

Best, Dean M.

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

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

..

[Guest guest]

Dean wrote:

1) Dr. Walford's new advice (which is ALL that it is) is based solely on

about 6 Biospherian's results. Thin ice, IMHO.

>This issue of losing weight in 1-2 years was addressed in the context of two

>issues. Issue One, the " hurry up " attitude to do it now. Read paragraph two

>pg. 78 to confirm my point. Issue Two, 1-2 years was stated for metabolism

>adjustment. Please note his last sentence of paragraph two: " Less might also

>be all right, but I'm not entirely sure. " ( " Less " in this context means less

>than 1-2 years.)

Dean you have omitted a very important sentence from that paragraph:

.... " one to two years seems conservatively safe for humans in terms of what

we learned from the animal experiments " . So you see there were other

experiments, not just the Biospherans. Nowhere does he say suggest taking

longer than the maximum he suggests: 1-2 years at the outside. However if

you want to take longer, good luck to you. If you're going to quote Dr W,

again, please quote him accurately.

[Guest guest]

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

Hipp wrote:

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

wrong.

Yes, on page 80 of Beyond The 120 Year Diet Dr. Walford does say

that. Please note the three dots " ... " inside my quotation marks, which is a

continuation of his sentence. The rest of his sentence does say a certain

amount of toxins and pesticides can not be avoided in the environment. BUT

that still does not reconcile the beginning of his sentence " Any level is

too high... " , which I'm using to make an important point. The point being,

it will take more than 2-3 years to lose weight safely for many folks who

have a lot of weight to lose. Why? This is due to the pesticide and toxin

danger stored in our body fat. We are at the " tip top " of the food chain.

(So I'm not trying to hide or cover-up Dr. W's meaning, despite what someone

else seems to think.)

Dr. W does go on to talk about government standards on the same page 80. He

also calls into question the safety of PCB levels (which might be dangerous

in your area) that are higher than the national average, as he cites a study

when human fetus's were exposed unintentionally " to only slightly higher

levels of PCBs than the U.S. average " , they were found later as children to

have their IQs " measurably lower " . (Quotation marks are W's, and the entire

meaning is accurate.)

I personally suggest if one has a lot of weight to lose, please do so well

beyond three years to complete your weight loss plan. (I am taking 5+

years.) The exception to this would be if you have other immediate health

issues to address that OUTWEIGH the problem with pesticides and toxins being

released from your fat stores at a faster rate. Just remember if you lose a

lot of weight in less than three years you will expose your body to higher

levels of pesticides and toxins released from your fat stores. This may be

too fast for your body to neutralize or get rid of in a safe fashion, and

this is a point Dr. Walford does address. He just leaves the time frame

open-ended saying, and I quote page 80, " You should lose weight slowly

enough for the released toxins to be cleared without getting too high. " See

pages 78, 79, 80 to verify what I just said.

If you think I'm wrong (or just wish to comment), please read my previous

posts on this issue (if necessary). Also, please post your comments or ideas

about this. Your comments and suggestions are -most welcomed- by me.

Discussion and debate is most " nutritiously healthy " too. So thanks. If I'm

wrong, I'll happily eat my words. Lol. : ))

Best, Dean M.

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

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

..

[Guest guest]

Francesca wrote:

If you're going to quote Dr W,

again, please quote him accurately.

It is inaccurate to imply I quoted Dr. Walford in this instance. (See

previous discussion below.) I did not. So you are misleading folks to the

wrong conclusions about me quoting someone, when I did not use a quote.

I used ONE word incorrectly " SOLELY " . It was a mistake. If I had simply

removed that one word I would be (mostly) accurate. It is true Dr. Walford

mentions Biospherians AND animal studies without a single specific reference

to " those " animal studies, so I omitted that fact by accident. A simple (yet

untimely) lapse of memory, but I was NOT quoting Dr. Walford. Nor, am I

trying to mislead anyone.

I do humbly apologize for my mistake and error, but it does not alter my

main points or belief.

You still have not addressed the pesticide and toxin issues, which I have

clearly shown to be separate from his 1-2 year metabolism adjustment. I have

detailed W's actual quotes, which bring into question your statement as

follows. I quote: " Nowhere does he say suggest taking longer than the

maximum he suggests: 1-2 years at the outside. "

I believe your statement to be clearly inaccurate by its implications.

(Please note, I emphasize the word " implications " .) See my previous posts

and actual quotes of Dr. Walford that question your 1-2 year weight loss

inference or implication you conclude Dr. Walford suggests. IMHO, that

limited amount of time (1-2 years) can not mix or fit with the pesticide and

toxin data and information.

If you simply ignore the data and pesticide and toxin issue, yes you can

draw your 1-2 year conclusion. The question is... Is that accurate or

correct?

Best, Dean M.

Francesca's previous post:

Dean wrote:

1) Dr. Walford's new advice (which is ALL that it is) is based solely on

about 6 Biospherian's results. Thin ice, IMHO.

>This issue of losing weight in 1-2 years was addressed in the context of

two

>issues. Issue One, the " hurry up " attitude to do it now. Read paragraph two

>pg. 78 to confirm my point. Issue Two, 1-2 years was stated for metabolism

>adjustment. Please note his last sentence of paragraph two: " Less might

also

>be all right, but I'm not entirely sure. " ( " Less " in this context means

less

>than 1-2 years.)

Dean you have omitted a very important sentence from that paragraph:

.... " one to two years seems conservatively safe for humans in terms of what

we learned from the animal experiments " . So you see there were other

experiments, not just the Biospherans. Nowhere does he say suggest taking

longer than the maximum he suggests: 1-2 years at the outside. However if

you want to take longer, good luck to you. If you're going to quote Dr W,

again, please quote him accurately.

[Guest guest]

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

achievable.....?>

Dear ,

Let me share with you my two yrs experience by CR. At the beginning i

had 2200 cal/day with 70 kg weight. After the first 8 months i was

able to achieve 1500 cal/day with a 5 kg lose. But it was

temporarily. As i was able to keep 1500 cal/day for an other yr my

daily comsumption was better and better composed and surprisingly

my weight come back close to the starting one. I assume due to better

digestion efficiency or metabolism improvement. In this May i had at

first my 1300 cal/day month and in this Aug i had my second 1300

cal/day months Now my weight is 68 kg. I assume it's taken one full yr

or more when i will be trained with a significantly better composed

1300 cal/day - without extra daily pay attention - and the body could

gain benefit from it by the further increased metabolism / digestion

efficiency. I fully given up any weight losing expectation by CR. I

have understood the real benefit of CR is the improved digestion /

metabolism process which cause the better healthy condition the Body.

In my experience the CR is not a weight losing excercise. CR is the

way to supply the body better by the diet and gain better health.

If I'm going to achive weight lose the extra excercise is only the way

to get it.

[Guest guest]

Dean,

my understanding of Walford's comments re: toxicity is about the same

as yours. He had an interesting article published in, I believe "Toxicology"

a peer-reviewed publication dealing with the subject at hand.

I agree with your analysis that those with large amounts of store fat

to lose (especially old fat...) might consider taking some time to lose

the weight...subject to the need to deal with obesity itself. A case

in point. My son, Dennis, weighted close to 500 pounds

at one point. He still weights 425. He has some back

trauma from a couple of accidents. He needs a wheel chair for any

extended shopping, etc. To suggest he lose weight slowly would

be wrong. His life is in danger now. Heart failure is threatening.

But, as his weight becomes more manageable...say the high 200's or

low 300's...then he should slow down a little. All this is moot,

however, because in fact he has great difficulty losing weight at

all.

The habits and the genetics that caused the weight gain are still with

him. Losing fat is the point, not how fast or how slow.

Yes, this is about finding the right answer. Not my

answer, or your answer, or even RW's answer. It's even

about realizing that for now the right answer is that we don't know what

the right answer really is, and proceeding with the accurate information

at hand.

Thanks for your many contributions

Ed S.

"Dean M." wrote:

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

The rest of his sentence does say a certain

amount of toxins and pesticides can not be avoided in the environment.

BUT

that still does not reconcile the beginning of his sentence "Any

level is

too high...", which I'm using to make an important point. The point

being,

it will take more than 2-3 years to lose weight safely for many

folks who

have a lot of weight to lose. Why? This is due to the pesticide

and toxin

danger stored in our body fat. We are at the "tip top" of the food

chain.

(So I'm not trying to hide or cover-up Dr. W's meaning, despite

what someone

else seems to think.)

Dr. W does go on to talk about government standards on the same

page 80. He

also calls into question the safety of PCB levels (which might

be dangerous

in your area) that are higher than the national average, as he

cites a study

when human fetus's were exposed unintentionally "to only slightly

higher

levels of PCBs than the U.S. average", they were found later as

children to

have their IQs "measurably lower". (Quotation marks are W's, and

the entire

meaning is accurate.)

I personally suggest if one has a lot of weight to lose, please

do so well

beyond three years to complete your weight loss plan. (I am taking

5+

years.) The exception to this would be if you have other immediate

health

issues to address that OUTWEIGH the problem with pesticides and

toxins being

released from your fat stores at a faster rate. Just remember if

you lose a

lot of weight in less than three years you will expose your body

to higher

levels of pesticides and toxins released from your fat stores.

This may be

too fast for your body to neutralize or get rid of in a safe fashion,

and

this is a point Dr. Walford does address. He just leaves the time

frame

open-ended saying, and I quote page 80, "You should lose weight

slowly

enough for the released toxins to be cleared without getting too

high." See

pages 78, 79, 80 to verify what I just said.

If you think I'm wrong (or just wish to comment), please read my

previous

posts on this issue (if necessary). Also, please post your comments

or ideas

about this. Your comments and suggestions are -most welcomed- by

me.

Discussion and debate is most "nutritiously healthy" too. So thanks.

If I'm

wrong, I'll happily eat my words. Lol. : ))

Best, Dean M.

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

Intake

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

..