Re: set point

[Guest guest]

> From: " Mambo Mambo " <mambomambo@...>

>Subject: Re: Digest Number 181

>

>Dear Francesca et al.

>Last time I was Stateside I bought the revised 120 yr Diet and have enjoyed

>reading it immensely for its wealth of information and documentation. I am

>very slowly reducing calories while tinkering with the calculator to get

>even more nurtients (I am already normal/thin) but have a question about

>setpoint.

>

>In my teens and early 20's I smoked passionately. I think this kept me

>abnormally thin as I just couldn't gain weight no matter how much I ate.

>Pencil thin. I lived in Italy and astounded everyone with the amounts of

>Pasta I could indulge in.... and still be very thin.

>I kicked the cigarettes eventually and the weight just poured on. I left it

>on for one year while adjusting to my cigaretless and pudgier self and then

>took a lot of it off with the extremely ketogenic Scarsdale diet. Fine,

>it's stayed down ever since.

>I now think that my setpoint was absurdly low due to the nicotine.

>I certainly don't wish to return to that emaciated state, or even consider

>going 30% below that! I wonder if I should think of my set point as the

>cigaretless version of myself, or the smoky one. If the former, then I am

>already CRing for many years!!

>All comments most welcome and best wishes to all,

>MM

MM: Set point is a guess at best. It seems to vary througout one's life;

so don't sweat it. The best way as an adult to gauge set point is that

point at which it becomes difficult to lose weight. Your body " fights "

going lower. To me that was a total surprise since I was about 112 -114 in

my youth, but when I started CR i was " fat " (for me) - way up in the 130's.

My set point had moved to about 122 or thereabouts. Now that I have broken

through that, it seems easier to lose, although I'm losing slowly. I had

to cut back on my nightly glass of wine (between 150-200 cal, I estimate)

and that did it.

[Guest guest]

>I do have a question about set point weight. When do I know I am at

>mine? I realize Dr. Walford says your weight if your neither over or

>under eat, usually your mid-twenties. Thing is I do not know what I

>weighed at that time, although I was much more slender then. I am 69

>inches in height, so I figure a weight of 160 give me a BMI of 23.

>My daily calorie intake is 2000 and I have been following the CRON

>diet most of the way. I have lost 30 lbs in 4 month and currently at

>181 lbs. I assume I continue at this past until I plateu out,

>correct? When I reach my set point I hope to have the health

>benefits of a lower weight (and there is a lot to that even if we put

>CRONing aside)and then decide whether to proceed with actual CRONing

>(getting below the setpoint for life extension).

Set point is a gray area. The only way you can know it is that it will be

hard to get under it. When you reach a " plateau " and find it hard to lose

weight, that's your set point. It will take a while to get under it, but

you will!!!!

[Guest guest]

Hi Gay:

It is generally agreed that most people are unable to be sure what

their setpoint is. I am an exception, I think I know mine! But I

may be quite wrong about it!

May I suggest you go click " Database " on the left side of the page.

Then click " BMI and WC/H " . There you will find data for BMI, ratio

of waist circumference to height, and body fat percent for many

people here who are in various stages of CRON.

You may be able to get a rough idea of what is appropriate for you.

But remember, go at it gradually. Rapid weight loss is hazardous. A

BMI below 20 may be hazardous. Body fat for females below 15% is

hazardous.

Rodney.

--- In , " Gay e " <@s...>

wrote:

> Hi everyone

>

> I've just finished " Beyond the 120 years diet " . I'm hooked!

>

> I desperately need some help determining my set point though. I

> simply don't know what my natural weight is and my eating habits

> have changed so much I'm not sure how to find out.

>

> The good news is, I'm not going to have too much trouble with the

> calorie restriction itself. I use Fitday to monitor my nutrients

> etc. and am already eating a fairly healthy diet. I dropped

weight

> too quickly and have increased my calories again.

>

> I have never paid any attention to my weight until I got CFS 8

years

> ago. Due to the inactivity I got up to 180lb and had to start

> thinking about it.

>

> My size has gone up and down over the years depending on lifestyle,

> eg when we had a farm, my weight dropped, as a computer manager,

> totally sedentary, it rose, changing companies to something more

> stressful, it dropped, and so on. Since age 45 I am `retired' due

> to ill health with the CFS.

>

> I'm 53, female and 5'6 " . To give as many clues as I can: (NB US

> dress size is 2 lower than UK ie our 10 is your 8.)

>

> Age 16 – size 10 (UK) Very thin build.

> Age 25 – size 12

> Age 40 - size 14

> Age 50 - size 16 178 lb (from medical records)

> Age 51 - size 14 150 lb (partial recovery, exercising)

> Age 52.5 – Feb 2005 166 lb (relapsed after exercising)

>

> Age 53 - Current weight 146 lb after losing 20lb between Jan and

> April

>

> I know I lost too much too quick and my approach to weight loss was

> silly but I wasn't looking at CRON at the time. Since adapting to

a

> much healthier diet I seem to be doing well with the CFS (touch

> wood) so I now need to get my act together with first my diet and

> then a sensible exercise plan.

>

> Dr Walford states in his book, of being apt to lose weight faster

> than planned, that it's OK for the first 3 to 6 months and it's

also

> encouraging, but then you must slow down.

>

> I need to decide on a set point weight though and I can't see how I

> can do it. I can easily lose, gain or hold steady so it's

> impossible to see what my weight would settle at.

>

> At 146 lb, BMI 24, I am still carrying too much fat especially

> around my middle. My dress size is 14.

>

> I'm guessing that in my mid to early 20's I would have been about

> 126lb which is my aim from a purely health and fitness view point,

> ie getting the fat from round my middle. On the other hand, I am

> starting at age 53 though calling 126 my set point might be a bit

> optimistic.

>

> Any ideas would be very much appreciated.

>

> Thanks, Gay

[Guest guest]

Thanks Rodney

I don't think I'm in danger of my BF going to low for a while. I'm

carrying a lot of fat round my waist and I really want to get that

off. My BMI is 24. MY BF% according to my Tanita scales and

caliper measurements is around 27%.

I would like to drop another 20lb at a rate of half a lb a week to

reach what I hope is approx. my set point but I really have no idea

even after looking at the data.

Is waist to height ratio very informative? Mine is a really gross

at .5

My waist is 84 (33 inches) and my height is 168 (5'6 " ).

I thought I would get closer to my 126 lb goal this year and then

slow down. I'm guessing I would have been at least that weight in

my early twenties. Does that make sense?

This time I'm also taking a much closer look at my fat percentage to

make sure I am losing fat not muscle/lean mass.

Gay

--- In , " Rodney " <perspect1111@y...>

wrote:

> Hi Gay:

>

> It is generally agreed that most people are unable to be sure what

> their setpoint is. I am an exception, I think I know mine! But I

> may be quite wrong about it!

>

> May I suggest you go click " Database " on the left side of the

page.

> Then click " BMI and WC/H " . There you will find data for BMI,

ratio

> of waist circumference to height, and body fat percent for many

> people here who are in various stages of CRON.

>

> You may be able to get a rough idea of what is appropriate for

you.

> But remember, go at it gradually. Rapid weight loss is

hazardous. A

> BMI below 20 may be hazardous. Body fat for females below 15% is

> hazardous.

>

> Rodney.

[Guest guest]

Hi Gay:

O.50 for waist/height is high but not gross. But based on the data

in the table you should be safe to drop gradually to 0.43. Probably

safe lower than that, but perhaps not for everyone.

Fat around the waist is supposed to be particularly dangerous, so

yes, most of us here think the ratio of waist to height is a quite

relevant health indicator. But yer need to calculate it to at least

two decimal places.

It is impossible for anyone who didn't measure you in your twenties

to know what your measurements were then. But you can see the ranges

that exist within this group from the database table. There are

probably some people in that table who are too thin.

Everyone, when they lose fat, also loses lean body mass. That is

entirely normal. Your body simply realizes it no longer needs as

much muscle to move you around, nor as much bone to hold you up.

However, some exercise will minimize loss of lean body mass as you

lose fat.

From the numbers you give it seems clear that you have plenty of room

to safely lose more fat. So do I, for that matter!

Rodney.

--- In , " Gay e " <@s...>

wrote:

> Is waist to height ratio very informative? Mine is a really gross

> at .5

>

> My waist is 84 (33 inches) and my height is 168 (5'6 " ).

>

> I thought I would get closer to my 126 lb goal this year and then

> slow down. I'm guessing I would have been at least that weight in

> my early twenties. Does that make sense?

>

> This time I'm also taking a much closer look at my fat percentage

to

> make sure I am losing fat not muscle/lean mass.

[Guest guest]

Thanks Rodney

That's cheered me up. I will get a little more fat off then slow it

down.

Gay

>

> > Is waist to height ratio very informative? Mine is a really

gross

> > at .5

> >

> > My waist is 84 (33 inches) and my height is 168 (5'6 " ).

> >

> > I thought I would get closer to my 126 lb goal this year and

then

> > slow down. I'm guessing I would have been at least that weight

in

> > my early twenties. Does that make sense?

> >

> > This time I'm also taking a much closer look at my fat

percentage

> to

> > make sure I am losing fat not muscle/lean mass.

[Guest guest]

My ratio is .37 but I will get it even lower. Possibly .33. Not that I

really try but I estimate I have another 20 lbs or so of adipose to

lose at a minimum.

Anyone else have a ratio under .35?

>

> > Is waist to height ratio very informative? Mine is a really gross

> > at .5

> >

> > My waist is 84 (33 inches) and my height is 168 (5'6 " ).

> >

> > I thought I would get closer to my 126 lb goal this year and then

> > slow down. I'm guessing I would have been at least that weight in

> > my early twenties. Does that make sense?

> >

> > This time I'm also taking a much closer look at my fat percentage

> to

> > make sure I am losing fat not muscle/lean mass.

[Guest guest]

Hi :

Well if you get down to a WC/H of 0.33, here are some numbers:

For a person who is 5' 6 " in height, their waist would be 21.8 " in

circumference. Then, making the assumption that your waist is

approximately circular that would make your waist diameter a little

less than seven inches.

That seems incredibly thin to me. I would have thought dangerously

thin. But then the mice whose caloric intake was reduced by 60% did

quite well .......... lived a long time, at least. Perhaps you are

the human equivalent of the 60% restricted mouse? Please keep us up

to date with your progress. But I think your version of CRON is more

extreme than most here would consider appropriate based on what we

know so far about CR in humans - not enough, that is.

Rodney.

> >

> > > Is waist to height ratio very informative? Mine is a really

gross

> > > at .5

> > >

> > > My waist is 84 (33 inches) and my height is 168 (5'6 " ).

> > >

> > > I thought I would get closer to my 126 lb goal this year and

then

> > > slow down. I'm guessing I would have been at least that weight

in

> > > my early twenties. Does that make sense?

> > >

> > > This time I'm also taking a much closer look at my fat

percentage

> > to

> > > make sure I am losing fat not muscle/lean mass.

[Guest guest]

,

Out of curiosity, what is your percent of body fat? We discussed some

of the dangers of getting your body fat too low in messages 15791,

15804, 16922. For a woman, a percentage of body fat of 14% should

probably be the minimum safe limit. You can use the Navy

circumference method

(http://www.scientificpsychic.com/fitness/diet.html) or a caliper

method for estimating your percent of body fat.

Tony

> > >

> > > > Is waist to height ratio very informative? Mine is a really

> gross

> > > > at .5

> > > >

> > > > My waist is 84 (33 inches) and my height is 168 (5'6 " ).

> > > >

> > > > I thought I would get closer to my 126 lb goal this year and

> then

> > > > slow down. I'm guessing I would have been at least that

weight

> in

> > > > my early twenties. Does that make sense?

> > > >

> > > > This time I'm also taking a much closer look at my fat

> percentage

> > > to

> > > > make sure I am losing fat not muscle/lean mass.