Just How Many Calories, Then?

[NYC XYZ]

What makes a diet "calorie-restricted"??

They used to feed us 3K-calorie breakfasts during Army basic training.
Them MREs are supposed to be like 5K calories! I was in the best shape
of my life, despite having accrued problems like a bad back, etc.

How many calories does the body need if you're staying home all day
reading a book or watching one of them holiday season re-run marathons
(Honeymooners, Star Trek, Three's Company, Godzilla)?

How many calories if you go to the gym three times a week
weight-lifting for about an hour each session?

I must say, I'm impressed to learn that the Dalai Lama is, what, close
to seventy? He really looks forty-something!

Also, I wonder what effect sex and the sex drive have on all this...I
feel most alive when having sex, but in between girls I also feel
great, just in a different way...kinda like the strength you feel
before a workout, and the sense of strength you have after it....



http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/31/he...&ex=1162530000


EXCERPTS

"In mice, calorie restriction doesn't just extend life span,"
said Leonard P. Guarente, professor of biology at the Massachusetts
Institute of Technology. "It mitigates many diseases of aging:
cancer, cardiovascular disease, neurodegenerative disease. The gain is
just enormous."

....

Despite widespread scientific enthusiasm, the evidence that calorie
restriction works in humans is indirect at best. The practice was
popularized in diet books by Dr. Roy Walford, a legendary pathologist
at the University of California, Los Angeles, who spent much of the
last 30 years of his life following a calorie-restricted regimen. He
died of Lou Gehrig's disease in 2004 at 79.

....

Animals on restricted diets seem particularly resistant to
environmental stresses like oxidation and heat, perhaps even radiation.
"It is a very deep, very important function," Dr. Miller said.
Experts theorize that limited access to energy alarms the body, so to
speak, activating a cascade of biochemical signals that tell each cell
to direct energy away from reproductive functions, toward repair and
maintenance. The calorie-restricted organism is stronger, according to
this hypothesis, because individual cells are more efficiently
repairing mutations, using energy, defending themselves and mopping up
harmful byproducts like free radicals.

....

"The stressed cell is really pulling out all the stops" to preserve
itself, said Dr. Cynthia Kenyon, a molecular biologist at the
University of California, San Francisco. "This system could have
evolved as a way of letting animals take a timeout from reproduction
when times are harsh."

....

Despite the initially promising results from studies of primates, some
scientists doubt that calorie restriction can ever work effectively in
humans. A mathematical model published last year by researchers at
University of California, Los Angeles, and University of California,
Irvine, predicted that the maximum life span gain from calorie
restriction for humans would be just 7 percent. A more likely figure,
the authors said, was 2 percent.

....

While an anti-aging pill may be the next big blockbuster, some
ethicists believe that the all-out determination to extend life span is
veined with arrogance. As appointments with death are postponed, says
Dr. Leon R. Kass, former chairman of the President's Council on
Bioethics, human lives may become less engaging, less meaningful, even
less beautiful.

"Mortality makes life matter," Dr. Kass recently wrote.
"Immortality is a kind of oblivion - like death itself."

That man's time on this planet is limited, and rightfully so, is a
cultural belief deeply held by many. But whether an increasing life
span affords greater opportunity to find meaning or distracts from the
pursuit, the prospect has become too great a temptation to ignore -
least of all, for scientists.

"It's a just big waste of talent and wisdom to have people die in
their 60s and 70s," said Dr. Sinclair of Harvard.

[[email protected]]

NYC XYZ wrote:
> What makes a diet "calorie-restricted"??

It's when CALORIES_EATEN < CALORIES_BURNED.

CALORIES_BURNED = (Basal Metabolic Rate * Activity Factor) + (Extra
Exercise)

> They used to feed us 3K-calorie breakfasts during Army basic training.
> Them MREs are supposed to be like 5K calories! I was in the best shape
> of my life, despite having accrued problems like a bad back, etc.

When I was in good shape, I often gulped down a protein drink before a
climb even when I wasn't hungry. Still, the above rules are in effect.

*** BMR ***

Harris-Benedict (normal):
BMR(men) = 66.473 + 5.003 x (length) + 13.752 x (weight) - 6.755 x
(age)
BMR(women) = 655.096 + 1.850 x (length) + 9.563 x (weight) - 4.676 x
(age)

Harris-Benedict/Rosa (obese):
BMR (men) = 88.362 + 4.799 x (length) + 13.397 x (weight) - 5.677 x
(age);
BMR (women) = 447.593 + 3.098 x (length) + 9.247 x (weight) - 4.330 x
(age)

There are plenty of online calculators that do this for you.

> How many calories does the body need if you're staying home all day
> reading a book or watching one of them holiday season re-run marathons
> (Honeymooners, Star Trek, Three's Company, Godzilla)?

*** Activity Factor ***
BMR x 1.1 (sedentary) is probably appropriate.

> How many calories if you go to the gym three times a week
> weight-lifting for about an hour each session?

*** Activity Factor ***
BMR x 1.4 (light-to-moderate exercise) is probably appropriate.

> Despite widespread scientific enthusiasm, the evidence that calorie
> restriction works in humans is indirect at best.

Dieting works for some, and the only alternatives are drugs and surgery.

[TC]

These "restricted calorie" studies are pure crap. The control groups
are usually fed un-natural pelletized manufactured crap for food . Then
when they feed the test group less of the crap food, they live longer
than the control group. Then they attribute it to restricted calories.
Hey, the less poison you eat the longer you will live. It is that
simple. It has nothing to do with calories.

TC

NYC XYZ wrote:
> What makes a diet "calorie-restricted"??
>
> They used to feed us 3K-calorie breakfasts during Army basic training.
> Them MREs are supposed to be like 5K calories! I was in the best shape
> of my life, despite having accrued problems like a bad back, etc.
>
> How many calories does the body need if you're staying home all day
> reading a book or watching one of them holiday season re-run marathons
> (Honeymooners, Star Trek, Three's Company, Godzilla)?
>
> How many calories if you go to the gym three times a week
> weight-lifting for about an hour each session?
>
> I must say, I'm impressed to learn that the Dalai Lama is, what, close
> to seventy? He really looks forty-something!
>
> Also, I wonder what effect sex and the sex drive have on all this...I
> feel most alive when having sex, but in between girls I also feel
> great, just in a different way...kinda like the strength you feel
> before a workout, and the sense of strength you have after it....
>
>
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/31/he...&ex=1162530000
>
>
> EXCERPTS
>
> "In mice, calorie restriction doesn't just extend life span,"
> said Leonard P. Guarente, professor of biology at the Massachusetts
> Institute of Technology. "It mitigates many diseases of aging:
> cancer, cardiovascular disease, neurodegenerative disease. The gain is
> just enormous."
>
> ...
>
> Despite widespread scientific enthusiasm, the evidence that calorie
> restriction works in humans is indirect at best. The practice was
> popularized in diet books by Dr. Roy Walford, a legendary pathologist
> at the University of California, Los Angeles, who spent much of the
> last 30 years of his life following a calorie-restricted regimen. He
> died of Lou Gehrig's disease in 2004 at 79.
>
> ...
>
> Animals on restricted diets seem particularly resistant to
> environmental stresses like oxidation and heat, perhaps even radiation.
> "It is a very deep, very important function," Dr. Miller said.
> Experts theorize that limited access to energy alarms the body, so to
> speak, activating a cascade of biochemical signals that tell each cell
> to direct energy away from reproductive functions, toward repair and
> maintenance. The calorie-restricted organism is stronger, according to
> this hypothesis, because individual cells are more efficiently
> repairing mutations, using energy, defending themselves and mopping up
> harmful byproducts like free radicals.
>
> ...
>
> "The stressed cell is really pulling out all the stops" to preserve
> itself, said Dr. Cynthia Kenyon, a molecular biologist at the
> University of California, San Francisco. "This system could have
> evolved as a way of letting animals take a timeout from reproduction
> when times are harsh."
>
> ...
>
> Despite the initially promising results from studies of primates, some
> scientists doubt that calorie restriction can ever work effectively in
> humans. A mathematical model published last year by researchers at
> University of California, Los Angeles, and University of California,
> Irvine, predicted that the maximum life span gain from calorie
> restriction for humans would be just 7 percent. A more likely figure,
> the authors said, was 2 percent.
>
> ...
>
> While an anti-aging pill may be the next big blockbuster, some
> ethicists believe that the all-out determination to extend life span is
> veined with arrogance. As appointments with death are postponed, says
> Dr. Leon R. Kass, former chairman of the President's Council on
> Bioethics, human lives may become less engaging, less meaningful, even
> less beautiful.
>
> "Mortality makes life matter," Dr. Kass recently wrote.
> "Immortality is a kind of oblivion - like death itself."
>
> That man's time on this planet is limited, and rightfully so, is a
> cultural belief deeply held by many. But whether an increasing life
> span affords greater opportunity to find meaning or distracts from the
> pursuit, the prospect has become too great a temptation to ignore -
> least of all, for scientists.
>
> "It's a just big waste of talent and wisdom to have people die in
> their 60s and 70s," said Dr. Sinclair of Harvard.

[nkd_one]

i've noticed as people age past 60 there are less fat ones
NYC XYZ wrote:
> What makes a diet "calorie-restricted"??
>
> They used to feed us 3K-calorie breakfasts during Army basic training.
> Them MREs are supposed to be like 5K calories! I was in the best shape
> of my life, despite having accrued problems like a bad back, etc.
>
> How many calories does the body need if you're staying home all day
> reading a book or watching one of them holiday season re-run marathons
> (Honeymooners, Star Trek, Three's Company, Godzilla)?
>
> How many calories if you go to the gym three times a week
> weight-lifting for about an hour each session?
>
> I must say, I'm impressed to learn that the Dalai Lama is, what, close
> to seventy? He really looks forty-something!
>
> Also, I wonder what effect sex and the sex drive have on all this...I
> feel most alive when having sex, but in between girls I also feel
> great, just in a different way...kinda like the strength you feel
> before a workout, and the sense of strength you have after it....
>
>
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/31/he...&ex=1162530000
>
>
> EXCERPTS
>
> "In mice, calorie restriction doesn't just extend life span,"
> said Leonard P. Guarente, professor of biology at the Massachusetts
> Institute of Technology. "It mitigates many diseases of aging:
> cancer, cardiovascular disease, neurodegenerative disease. The gain is
> just enormous."
>
> ...
>
> Despite widespread scientific enthusiasm, the evidence that calorie
> restriction works in humans is indirect at best. The practice was
> popularized in diet books by Dr. Roy Walford, a legendary pathologist
> at the University of California, Los Angeles, who spent much of the
> last 30 years of his life following a calorie-restricted regimen. He
> died of Lou Gehrig's disease in 2004 at 79.
>
> ...
>
> Animals on restricted diets seem particularly resistant to
> environmental stresses like oxidation and heat, perhaps even radiation.
> "It is a very deep, very important function," Dr. Miller said.
> Experts theorize that limited access to energy alarms the body, so to
> speak, activating a cascade of biochemical signals that tell each cell
> to direct energy away from reproductive functions, toward repair and
> maintenance. The calorie-restricted organism is stronger, according to
> this hypothesis, because individual cells are more efficiently
> repairing mutations, using energy, defending themselves and mopping up
> harmful byproducts like free radicals.
>
> ...
>
> "The stressed cell is really pulling out all the stops" to preserve
> itself, said Dr. Cynthia Kenyon, a molecular biologist at the
> University of California, San Francisco. "This system could have
> evolved as a way of letting animals take a timeout from reproduction
> when times are harsh."
>
> ...
>
> Despite the initially promising results from studies of primates, some
> scientists doubt that calorie restriction can ever work effectively in
> humans. A mathematical model published last year by researchers at
> University of California, Los Angeles, and University of California,
> Irvine, predicted that the maximum life span gain from calorie
> restriction for humans would be just 7 percent. A more likely figure,
> the authors said, was 2 percent.
>
> ...
>
> While an anti-aging pill may be the next big blockbuster, some
> ethicists believe that the all-out determination to extend life span is
> veined with arrogance. As appointments with death are postponed, says
> Dr. Leon R. Kass, former chairman of the President's Council on
> Bioethics, human lives may become less engaging, less meaningful, even
> less beautiful.
>
> "Mortality makes life matter," Dr. Kass recently wrote.
> "Immortality is a kind of oblivion - like death itself."
>
> That man's time on this planet is limited, and rightfully so, is a
> cultural belief deeply held by many. But whether an increasing life
> span affords greater opportunity to find meaning or distracts from the
> pursuit, the prospect has become too great a temptation to ignore -
> least of all, for scientists.
>
> "It's a just big waste of talent and wisdom to have people die in
> their 60s and 70s," said Dr. Sinclair of Harvard.

[Doug Freyburger]

NYC XYZ wrote:
>
> What makes a diet "calorie-restricted"??

And how do you map rat results to human results? If they even DO map.

Note that rats are fed a high carb grain based diet. Reduce their feed
30% and they live longer. The calorie people will point at the reduced
calorie count and say eat less. The carb people will point at the
reduced carb count and say eat low carb. The grain intolerance
people will look at rats and ask "mooo?" figuring rats eat grain and
are therefore related to cattle. The vegans will point out that the
rats
aren't getting meat are the ones that are healthy.

We can't put a bunch of humans in cages for their entire lives and feed
each set a different number of calories and see how it comes out 120
years later.

[Doug Freese]

"TC" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected] oups.com...
> These "restricted calorie" studies are pure crap. The control groups
> are usually fed un-natural pelletized manufactured crap for food . Then
> when they feed the test group less of the crap food, they live longer
> than the control group. Then they attribute it to restricted calories.
> Hey, the less poison you eat the longer you will live. It is that
> simple. It has nothing to do with calories.


How can anyone have an intelligent dissussion with TC when he see's
ghosts and goblins 252 days of year.

-DF

[DZ]

Doug Freyburger <[email protected]> wrote:
> NYC XYZ wrote:
>> What makes a diet "calorie-restricted"??
>
> And how do you map rat results to human results? If they even DO
> map.

Whether they map convincingly inversely depends on the degree a person
who's looking at the evidence enjoys food . It's just the rule, like
Newton laws. But here go the monkeys -

http://www.technologyreview.com/read...572&ch=biotech

Interestingly, in monkeys, CR is preventing the loss of muscle mass,
just like it does in aging rats and mice.

Oh, to be a monkey!

[TC]

Doug Freese wrote:
> "TC" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected] oups.com...
> > These "restricted calorie" studies are pure crap. The control groups
> > are usually fed un-natural pelletized manufactured crap for food . Then
> > when they feed the test group less of the crap food, they live longer
> > than the control group. Then they attribute it to restricted calories.
> > Hey, the less poison you eat the longer you will live. It is that
> > simple. It has nothing to do with calories.
>
>
> How can anyone have an intelligent dissussion with TC when he see's
> ghosts and goblins 252 days of year.
>
> -DF

Have you read any of the studies discussed? I have.

TC

[TP]

"Doug Freyburger" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected] oups.com...
> NYC XYZ wrote:
> >
> > What makes a diet "calorie-restricted"??
>
> And how do you map rat results to human results? If they even DO map.
>
> Note that rats are fed a high carb grain based diet. Reduce their feed
> 30% and they live longer. The calorie people will point at the reduced
> calorie count and say eat less. The carb people will point at the
> reduced carb count and say eat low carb. The grain intolerance
> people will look at rats and ask "mooo?" figuring rats eat grain and
> are therefore related to cattle. The vegans will point out that the
> rats
> aren't getting meat are the ones that are healthy.
>
> We can't put a bunch of humans in cages for their entire lives and feed
> each set a different number of calories and see how it comes out 120
> years later.
>

Now you've done it. You've gone and trampled upon a religion called CRON whose god is the late Roy Walford, M.D. Walford wrote the CRON bible The 120 Year Diet. He didn't make it past 79. But dying of ALS doesn't count. He would have lived to 120 if he hadn't died.

When you're an athiest there is no afterlife except if you have faith in getting frozen and later revivified, so you've got to believe CRON will enable you to live forever. It's not nice to trample on other people's religion.

[[email protected]]

On 1 Nov 2006 19:09:26 -0800, "TC" <[email protected]> wrote:

>
>Doug Freese wrote:
>> "TC" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected] oups.com...
>> > These "restricted calorie" studies are pure crap. The control groups
>> > are usually fed un-natural pelletized manufactured crap for food . Then
>> > when they feed the test group less of the crap food, they live longer
>> > than the control group. Then they attribute it to restricted calories.
>> > Hey, the less poison you eat the longer you will live. It is that
>> > simple. It has nothing to do with calories.
>>
>>
>> How can anyone have an intelligent dissussion with TC when he see's
>> ghosts and goblins 252 days of year.
>>
>> -DF
>
>Have you read any of the studies discussed? I have.
>
>TC

Reading and understanding are two different things.

[TC]

[email protected] wrote:
> On 1 Nov 2006 19:09:26 -0800, "TC" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >
> >Doug Freese wrote:
> >> "TC" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >> news:[email protected] oups.com...
> >> > These "restricted calorie" studies are pure crap. The control groups
> >> > are usually fed un-natural pelletized manufactured crap for food . Then
> >> > when they feed the test group less of the crap food, they live longer
> >> > than the control group. Then they attribute it to restricted calories.
> >> > Hey, the less poison you eat the longer you will live. It is that
> >> > simple. It has nothing to do with calories.
> >>
> >>
> >> How can anyone have an intelligent dissussion with TC when he see's
> >> ghosts and goblins 252 days of year.
> >>
> >> -DF
> >
> >Have you read any of the studies discussed? I have.
> >
> >TC
>
> Reading and understanding are two different things.

It isn't rocket science. Trust me, it isn't rocket science. Rocket
science has actually succeeded and has actually placed a man on the
moon and probes on Mars. Food science has only succeeded in giving us
the highest rates of obesity and diet related chronic disease in world
history, which is diametrically opposite to their stated goals.

I suggest you start reading these nutrition studies closely and with
an, at least, mildly critical eye. You will get an education on what
garbage science really is.

TC

[DZ]

TC <[email protected]> wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
>>"TC" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>Doug Freese wrote:
>>>> "TC" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>> These "restricted calorie" studies are pure crap. The control
>>>>> groups are usually fed un-natural pelletized manufactured crap
>>>>> for food . Then when they feed the test group less of the crap
>>>>> food, they live longer than the control group. Then they
>>>>> attribute it to restricted calories. Hey, the less poison you
>>>>> eat the longer you will live. It is that simple. It has nothing
>>>>> to do with calories.
>>>>
>>>> How can anyone have an intelligent dissussion with TC when he see's
>>>> ghosts and goblins 252 days of year.
>>>
>>>Have you read any of the studies discussed? I have.
>>
>> Reading and understanding are two different things.
>
> It isn't rocket science. Trust me, it isn't rocket science. Rocket
> science has actually succeeded and has actually placed a man on the
> moon and probes on Mars. Food science has only succeeded in giving
> us the highest rates of obesity and diet related chronic disease in
> world history, which is diametrically opposite to their stated
> goals. I suggest you start reading these nutrition studies closely
> and with an, at least, mildly critical eye. You will get an
> education on what garbage science really is.

CR studies are not a subset of "nutrition science". Here is a good
recent review:

http://www.sciam.com/print_version.c...8083414B7F0000

[TC]

DZ wrote:
> TC <[email protected]> wrote:
> > [email protected] wrote:
> >>"TC" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>Doug Freese wrote:
> >>>> "TC" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>>> These "restricted calorie" studies are pure crap. The control
> >>>>> groups are usually fed un-natural pelletized manufactured crap
> >>>>> for food . Then when they feed the test group less of the crap
> >>>>> food, they live longer than the control group. Then they
> >>>>> attribute it to restricted calories. Hey, the less poison you
> >>>>> eat the longer you will live. It is that simple. It has nothing
> >>>>> to do with calories.
> >>>>
> >>>> How can anyone have an intelligent dissussion with TC when he see's
> >>>> ghosts and goblins 252 days of year.
> >>>
> >>>Have you read any of the studies discussed? I have.
> >>
> >> Reading and understanding are two different things.
> >
> > It isn't rocket science. Trust me, it isn't rocket science. Rocket
> > science has actually succeeded and has actually placed a man on the
> > moon and probes on Mars. Food science has only succeeded in giving
> > us the highest rates of obesity and diet related chronic disease in
> > world history, which is diametrically opposite to their stated
> > goals. I suggest you start reading these nutrition studies closely
> > and with an, at least, mildly critical eye. You will get an
> > education on what garbage science really is.
>
> CR studies are not a subset of "nutrition science". Here is a good
> recent review:
>
> http://www.sciam.com/print_version.c...8083414B7F0000

CR studies are not a subset of "nutrition science", it is "nutrition
science", whether you want it to be or not.

YV

[Proctologically Violated©®]

CR *prevents* loss of muscle mass?? How so?

From the little I've read/heard, one claim stuck in my mind:

That CR works across *all* species, in every specie tested, including
spiders! wow....

The question then is, how restricted is restricted?

It's not, as one poster stated, cal in < cal out-- that's the condition for
weight *loss*, which is not a long-term steady-state condition.
CR *is* steady state, corresonding to a weight less than "normal".
But again, how much less?

Beyond life extension, the best rationale for CR is that it, well, saves
money!

And the other point raised is a good one:
Finding research that's not total bull****.
Partial bull****, ok, but not total.
------
Mr. P.V.'d (formerly Droll Troll), Yonkers, NY
Stop Corruption in Congress & Send the Ultimate Message:
Absolutely Vote, but NOT for a Democrat or a Republican.
Ending Corruption in Congress is the *Single Best Way*
to Materially Improve Your Family's Life.

entropic3.14decay at optonline2.718 dot net; remove pi and e to reply--ie,
all d'numbuhs

"DZ" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected] ..
> Doug Freyburger <[email protected]> wrote:
>> NYC XYZ wrote:
>>> What makes a diet "calorie-restricted"??
>>
>> And how do you map rat results to human results? If they even DO
>> map.
>
> Whether they map convincingly inversely depends on the degree a person
> who's looking at the evidence enjoys food . It's just the rule, like
> Newton laws. But here go the monkeys -
>
> http://www.technologyreview.com/read...572&ch=biotech
>
> Interestingly, in monkeys, CR is preventing the loss of muscle mass,
> just like it does in aging rats and mice.
>
> Oh, to be a monkey!

[nkd_one]

people lived hundreds of years before the flood
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...er=5&version=9 and
120 was the age limit set in Genesis 6:3
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...er=6&version=9
TP wrote:
> "Doug Freyburger" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected] oups.com...
> > NYC XYZ wrote:
> > >
> > > What makes a diet "calorie-restricted"??
> >
> > And how do you map rat results to human results? If they even DO map.
> >
> > Note that rats are fed a high carb grain based diet. Reduce their feed
> > 30% and they live longer. The calorie people will point at the reduced
> > calorie count and say eat less. The carb people will point at the
> > reduced carb count and say eat low carb. The grain intolerance
> > people will look at rats and ask "mooo?" figuring rats eat grain and
> > are therefore related to cattle. The vegans will point out that the
> > rats
> > aren't getting meat are the ones that are healthy.
> >
> > We can't put a bunch of humans in cages for their entire lives and feed
> > each set a different number of calories and see how it comes out 120
> > years later.
> >
>
> Now you've done it. You've gone and trampled upon a religion called CRON whose god is the late Roy Walford, M.D. Walford wrote the CRON bible The 120 Year Diet. He didn't make it past 79. But dying of ALS doesn't count. He would have lived to 120 if he hadn't died.
>
> When you're an athiest there is no afterlife except if you have faith in getting frozen and later revivified, so you've got to believe CRON will enable you to live forever. It's not nice to trample on other people's religion.
> ------=_NextPart_000_0019_01C6FDFB.5F6F8300
> Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
> X-Google-AttachSize: 2617
>
> <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
> <HTML><HEAD>
> <META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
> <META content="MSHTML 6.00.2800.1561" name=GENERATOR>
> <STYLE></STYLE>
> </HEAD>
> <BODY>
> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>"Doug Freyburger" &lt;</FONT><A
> href="mailto:[email protected]"><FONT face=Arial
> size=2>[email protected]</FONT></A><FONT face=Arial size=2>&gt; wrote in
> message </FONT><A
> href="news:[email protected] oglegroups.com"><FONT
> face=Arial
> size=2>news:[email protected] ooglegroups.com</FONT></A><FONT
> face=Arial size=2>...</FONT></DIV>
> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>&gt; NYC XYZ wrote:<BR>&gt; &gt;<BR>&gt; &gt; What
> makes a diet "calorie-restricted"??<BR>&gt; <BR>&gt; And how do you map rat
> results to human results?&nbsp; If they even DO map.<BR>&gt; <BR>&gt; Note that
> rats are fed a high carb grain based diet.&nbsp; Reduce their feed<BR>&gt; 30%
> and they live longer.&nbsp; The calorie people will point at the reduced<BR>&gt;
> calorie count and say eat less.&nbsp; The carb people will point at the<BR>&gt;
> reduced carb count and say eat low carb.&nbsp; The grain intolerance<BR>&gt;
> people will look at rats and ask "mooo?" figuring rats eat grain and<BR>&gt; are
> therefore related to cattle.&nbsp; The vegans will point out that the<BR>&gt;
> rats<BR>&gt; aren't getting meat are the ones that are healthy.<BR>&gt; <BR>&gt;
> We can't put a bunch of humans in cages for their entire lives and feed<BR>&gt;
> each set a different number of calories and see how it comes out 120<BR>&gt;
> years later.<BR>&gt; </FONT></DIV>
> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Now you've done it.&nbsp; You've gone and trampled
> upon a religion called CRON&nbsp;whose&nbsp;god is&nbsp;the late Roy Walford,
> M.D.&nbsp;Walford wrote the CRON bible <U>The 120 Year Diet</U>.&nbsp;
> He&nbsp;didn't make it past 79. But dying of ALS
> doesn't&nbsp;count.&nbsp;&nbsp;He would have lived to 120 if he hadn't
> died.&nbsp; </FONT></DIV>
> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>When you're an athiest there is no afterlife except
> if you&nbsp;have faith in getting frozen and later revivified, so you've got to
> believe CRON will enable you to live forever.&nbsp; It's not nice to trample on
> other people's religion.</FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>
>
> ------=_NextPart_000_0019_01C6FDFB.5F6F8300--

[Proctologically Violated©®]

Oh yeah, I seem to remember reading sumpn bout BW 20-30% below Met Life
tables, BMI, or whatever std is in vogue, as "CR".
--
------
Mr. P.V.'d (formerly Droll Troll), Yonkers, NY
Stop Corruption in Congress & Send the Ultimate Message:
Absolutely Vote, but NOT for a Democrat or a Republican.
Ending Corruption in Congress is the *Single Best Way*
to Materially Improve Your Family's Life.
entropic3.14decay at optonline2.718 dot net; remove pi and e to reply--ie,
all d'numbuhs
"Proctologically Violated©®" <[email protected]> wrote in
message news:iWs2h.187$[email protected]..
> CR *prevents* loss of muscle mass?? How so?
>
> From the little I've read/heard, one claim stuck in my mind:
>
> That CR works across *all* species, in every specie tested, including
> spiders! wow....
>
> The question then is, how restricted is restricted?
>
> It's not, as one poster stated, cal in < cal out-- that's the condition
> for
> weight *loss*, which is not a long-term steady-state condition.
> CR *is* steady state, corresonding to a weight less than "normal".
> But again, how much less?
>
> Beyond life extension, the best rationale for CR is that it, well, saves
> money!
>
> And the other point raised is a good one:
> Finding research that's not total bull****.
> Partial bull****, ok, but not total.
> ------
> Mr. P.V.'d (formerly Droll Troll), Yonkers, NY
> Stop Corruption in Congress & Send the Ultimate Message:
> Absolutely Vote, but NOT for a Democrat or a Republican.
> Ending Corruption in Congress is the *Single Best Way*
> to Materially Improve Your Family's Life.
>
> entropic3.14decay at optonline2.718 dot net; remove pi and e to reply--ie,
> all d'numbuhs
>
> "DZ" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected] ..
>> Doug Freyburger <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> NYC XYZ wrote:
>>>> What makes a diet "calorie-restricted"??
>>>
>>> And how do you map rat results to human results? If they even DO
>>> map.
>>
>> Whether they map convincingly inversely depends on the degree a person
>> who's looking at the evidence enjoys food . It's just the rule, like
>> Newton laws. But here go the monkeys -
>>
>> http://www.technologyreview.com/read...572&ch=biotech
>>
>> Interestingly, in monkeys, CR is preventing the loss of muscle mass,
>> just like it does in aging rats and mice.
>>
>> Oh, to be a monkey!
>
>
>

[Hobbes]

In article <VJt2h.37$[email protected]>,
"Proctologically Violated©®" <[email protected]>
wrote:

> Oh yeah, I seem to remember reading sumpn bout BW 20-30% below Met Life
> tables, BMI, or whatever std is in vogue, as "CR".
> --
> ------
> Mr. P.V.'d (formerly Droll Troll), Yonkers, NY
> Stop Corruption in Congress & Send the Ultimate Message:
> Absolutely Vote, but NOT for a Democrat or a Republican.
> Ending Corruption in Congress is the *Single Best Way*
> to Materially Improve Your Family's Life.
> entropic3.14decay at optonline2.718 dot net; remove pi and e to reply--ie,
> all d'numbuhs
> "Proctologically Violated©®" <[email protected]> wrote in
> message news:iWs2h.187$[email protected]..
> > CR *prevents* loss of muscle mass?? How so?
> >
> > From the little I've read/heard, one claim stuck in my mind:
> >
> > That CR works across *all* species, in every specie tested, including
> > spiders! wow....
> >
> > The question then is, how restricted is restricted?
> >
> > It's not, as one poster stated, cal in < cal out-- that's the condition
> > for
> > weight *loss*, which is not a long-term steady-state condition.
> > CR *is* steady state, corresonding to a weight less than "normal".
> > But again, how much less?
> >
> > Beyond life extension, the best rationale for CR is that it, well, saves
> > money!
> >
> > And the other point raised is a good one:
> > Finding research that's not total bull****.
> > Partial bull****, ok, but not total.
> > ------
> > Mr. P.V.'d (formerly Droll Troll), Yonkers, NY
> > Stop Corruption in Congress & Send the Ultimate Message:
> > Absolutely Vote, but NOT for a Democrat or a Republican.
> > Ending Corruption in Congress is the *Single Best Way*
> > to Materially Improve Your Family's Life.
> >
> > entropic3.14decay at optonline2.718 dot net; remove pi and e to reply--ie,
> > all d'numbuhs
> >
> > "DZ" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected] ..
> >> Doug Freyburger <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>> NYC XYZ wrote:
> >>>> What makes a diet "calorie-restricted"??
> >>>
> >>> And how do you map rat results to human results? If they even DO
> >>> map.
> >>
> >> Whether they map convincingly inversely depends on the degree a person
> >> who's looking at the evidence enjoys food . It's just the rule, like
> >> Newton laws. But here go the monkeys -
> >>
> >> http://www.technologyreview.com/read...572&ch=biotech
> >>
> >> Interestingly, in monkeys, CR is preventing the loss of muscle mass,
> >> just like it does in aging rats and mice.
> >>
> >> Oh, to be a monkey!
> >
> >
> >
>
The Scientist online mag suggested today that lowering the core
temperature of mice .5 celcius resulted in a 15% increase in life span.
The suggestion was the mechanism for calorie restriction working was
lowered core temperature. If so it would be interesting to see if people
(who live in more regulated environments) have a corresponding core
temperature reduction.

--
Keith

[Proctologically Violated©®]

Except the body will not allow a lowered core temp--unless hypothermia is
OK, regardless of ambient temp.
A 5 deg C core temp change is a drop of 9.5 deg F--well into hypothermia.
I'm sure those mice weren't very perky or peppy.
--
------
Mr. P.V.'d (formerly Droll Troll), Yonkers, NY

Stop Corruption in Congress & Send the Ultimate Message:
Absolutely Vote, but NOT for a Democrat or a Republican.
Ending Corruption in Congress is the *Single Best Way*
to Materially Improve Your Family's Life.
The Solution is so simple--and inexpensive!

entropic3.14decay at optonline2.718 dot net; remove pi and e to reply--ie,
all d'numbuhs

"Hobbes" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]..
> In article <VJt2h.37$[email protected]>,
> "Proctologically Violated©®" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> Oh yeah, I seem to remember reading sumpn bout BW 20-30% below Met Life
>> tables, BMI, or whatever std is in vogue, as "CR".
>> --
>> ------
>> Mr. P.V.'d (formerly Droll Troll), Yonkers, NY
>> Stop Corruption in Congress & Send the Ultimate Message:
>> Absolutely Vote, but NOT for a Democrat or a Republican.
>> Ending Corruption in Congress is the *Single Best Way*
>> to Materially Improve Your Family's Life.
>> entropic3.14decay at optonline2.718 dot net; remove pi and e to
>> reply--ie,
>> all d'numbuhs
>> "Proctologically Violated©®" <[email protected]> wrote
>> in
>> message news:iWs2h.187$[email protected]..
>> > CR *prevents* loss of muscle mass?? How so?
>> >
>> > From the little I've read/heard, one claim stuck in my mind:
>> >
>> > That CR works across *all* species, in every specie tested, including
>> > spiders! wow....
>> >
>> > The question then is, how restricted is restricted?
>> >
>> > It's not, as one poster stated, cal in < cal out-- that's the condition
>> > for
>> > weight *loss*, which is not a long-term steady-state condition.
>> > CR *is* steady state, corresonding to a weight less than "normal".
>> > But again, how much less?
>> >
>> > Beyond life extension, the best rationale for CR is that it, well,
>> > saves
>> > money!
>> >
>> > And the other point raised is a good one:
>> > Finding research that's not total bull****.
>> > Partial bull****, ok, but not total.
>> > ------
>> > Mr. P.V.'d (formerly Droll Troll), Yonkers, NY
>> > Stop Corruption in Congress & Send the Ultimate Message:
>> > Absolutely Vote, but NOT for a Democrat or a Republican.
>> > Ending Corruption in Congress is the *Single Best Way*
>> > to Materially Improve Your Family's Life.
>> >
>> > entropic3.14decay at optonline2.718 dot net; remove pi and e to
>> > reply--ie,
>> > all d'numbuhs
>> >
>> > "DZ" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> > news:[email protected] ..
>> >> Doug Freyburger <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >>> NYC XYZ wrote:
>> >>>> What makes a diet "calorie-restricted"??
>> >>>
>> >>> And how do you map rat results to human results? If they even DO
>> >>> map.
>> >>
>> >> Whether they map convincingly inversely depends on the degree a person
>> >> who's looking at the evidence enjoys food . It's just the rule, like
>> >> Newton laws. But here go the monkeys -
>> >>
>> >> http://www.technologyreview.com/read...572&ch=biotech
>> >>
>> >> Interestingly, in monkeys, CR is preventing the loss of muscle mass,
>> >> just like it does in aging rats and mice.
>> >>
>> >> Oh, to be a monkey!
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
> The Scientist online mag suggested today that lowering the core
> temperature of mice .5 celcius resulted in a 15% increase in life span.
> The suggestion was the mechanism for calorie restriction working was
> lowered core temperature. If so it would be interesting to see if people
> (who live in more regulated environments) have a corresponding core
> temperature reduction.
>
> --
> Keith

[DZ]

Hobbes <[email protected]> wrote:
> The Scientist online mag suggested today that lowering the core
> temperature of mice .5 celcius resulted in a 15% increase in life span.
> The suggestion was the mechanism for calorie restriction working was
> lowered core temperature. If so it would be interesting to see if people
> (who live in more regulated environments) have a corresponding core
> temperature reduction.

The article did not suggest that it is THE mechanism, e.g. the comment
by Guarente there implies it might only be one, far from most
important aspect:

"... you can isolate one of the seemingly small aspects of the many
physiological effects of caloric restriction and still get an effect
on lifespan, although not as much as with real caloric
restriction. This suggests each of the effects caloric restriction has
may contribute incrementally."

[TP]

"TC" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected] ps.com...

>
> It isn't rocket science. Trust me, it isn't rocket science. Rocket
> science has actually succeeded and has actually placed a man on the
> moon and probes on Mars. <<<snip>>>
> TC
>

Dude, we never went to the moon.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...the+moon&hl=en

[DZ]

Proctologically Violated:
> Except the body will not allow a lowered core temp--unless hypothermia is
> OK, regardless of ambient temp.
> A 5 deg C core temp change is a drop of 9.5 deg F--well into hypothermia.
> I'm sure those mice weren't very perky or peppy.
>
>> In article <VJt2h.37$5e5...@newsfe08.lga>,
>> "Proctologically Violated:
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Oh yeah, I seem to remember reading sumpn bout BW 20-30% below Met Life
>>> tables, BMI, or whatever std is in vogue, as "CR".
>>> --
>>> ------
>>> Mr. P.V.'d (formerly Droll Troll), Yonkers, NY
>>> Stop Corruption in Congress & Send the Ultimate Message:
>>> Absolutely Vote, but NOT for a Democrat or a Republican.
>>> Ending Corruption in Congress is the *Single Best Way*
>>> to Materially Improve Your Family's Life.
>>> entropic3.14decay at optonline2.718 dot net; remove pi and e to
>>> reply--ie,
>>> all d'numbuhs
>>> "Proctologically Violated:
>>> > CR *prevents* loss of muscle mass?? How so?
>>
>>> > From the little I've read/heard, one claim stuck in my mind:
>>
>>> > That CR works across *all* species, in every specie tested, including
>>> > spiders! wow....
>>
>>> > The question then is, how restricted is restricted?
>>
>>> > It's not, as one poster stated, cal in < cal out-- that's the condition
>>> > for weight *loss*, which is not a long-term steady-state condition.
>>> > CR *is* steady state, corresonding to a weight less than "normal".
>>> > But again, how much less?
>>
>>> > Beyond life extension, the best rationale for CR is that it, well,
>>> > saves money!
>>
>>> > And the other point raised is a good one:
>>> > Finding research that's not total bull****.
>>> > Partial bull****, ok, but not total.
>>> > ------
>>> > Mr. P.V.'d (formerly Droll Troll), Yonkers, NY
>>> > Stop Corruption in Congress & Send the Ultimate Message:
>>> > Absolutely Vote, but NOT for a Democrat or a Republican.
>>> > Ending Corruption in Congress is the *Single Best Way*
>>> > to Materially Improve Your Family's Life.
>>
>>> > entropic3.14decay at optonline2.718 dot net; remove pi and e to
>>> > reply--ie,
>>> > all d'numbuhs
>>
>>> > "DZ" wrote:
>>> >> Doug Freyburger <dfrey...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> >>> NYC XYZ wrote:
>>> >>>> What makes a diet "calorie-restricted"??
>>
>>> >>> And how do you map rat results to human results? If they even DO
>>> >>> map.
>>
>>> >> Whether they map convincingly inversely depends on the degree a person
>>> >> who's looking at the evidence enjoys food . It's just the rule, like
>>> >> Newton laws. But here go the monkeys -
>>
>>> >> http://www.technologyreview.com/read...572&ch=biotech
>>
>>> >> Interestingly, in monkeys, CR is preventing the loss of muscle mass,
>>> >> just like it does in aging rats and mice.
>>
>>> >> Oh, to be a monkey!
>>
>> The Scientist online mag suggested today that lowering the core
>> temperature of mice .5 celcius resulted in a 15% increase in life span.
>> The suggestion was the mechanism for calorie restriction working was
>> lowered core temperature. If so it would be interesting to see if people
>> (who live in more regulated environments) have a corresponding core
>> temperature reduction.
>>
>> --
>> Keith

This quickly turns into something like playing piano pieces by
Karlheinz Stockhausen. But unlike those mice... boy, they ARE peppy!

[Charles]

On Thu, 02 Nov 2006 16:11:16 -0600, Hobbes <[email protected]>
wrote:

>In article <VJt2h.37$[email protected]>,
> "Proctologically Violated©®" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> Oh yeah, I seem to remember reading sumpn bout BW 20-30% below Met Life
>> tables, BMI, or whatever std is in vogue, as "CR".
>> --
>> ------
>> Mr. P.V.'d (formerly Droll Troll), Yonkers, NY
>> Stop Corruption in Congress & Send the Ultimate Message:
>> Absolutely Vote, but NOT for a Democrat or a Republican.
>> Ending Corruption in Congress is the *Single Best Way*
>> to Materially Improve Your Family's Life.
>> entropic3.14decay at optonline2.718 dot net; remove pi and e to reply--ie,
>> all d'numbuhs
>> "Proctologically Violated©®" <[email protected]> wrote in
>> message news:iWs2h.187$[email protected]..
>> > CR *prevents* loss of muscle mass?? How so?
>> >
>> > From the little I've read/heard, one claim stuck in my mind:
>> >
>> > That CR works across *all* species, in every specie tested, including
>> > spiders! wow....
>> >
>> > The question then is, how restricted is restricted?
>> >
>> > It's not, as one poster stated, cal in < cal out-- that's the condition
>> > for
>> > weight *loss*, which is not a long-term steady-state condition.
>> > CR *is* steady state, corresonding to a weight less than "normal".
>> > But again, how much less?
>> >
>> > Beyond life extension, the best rationale for CR is that it, well, saves
>> > money!
>> >
>> > And the other point raised is a good one:
>> > Finding research that's not total bull****.
>> > Partial bull****, ok, but not total.
>> > ------
>> > Mr. P.V.'d (formerly Droll Troll), Yonkers, NY
>> > Stop Corruption in Congress & Send the Ultimate Message:
>> > Absolutely Vote, but NOT for a Democrat or a Republican.
>> > Ending Corruption in Congress is the *Single Best Way*
>> > to Materially Improve Your Family's Life.
>> >
>> > entropic3.14decay at optonline2.718 dot net; remove pi and e to reply--ie,
>> > all d'numbuhs
>> >
>> > "DZ" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> > news:[email protected] ..
>> >> Doug Freyburger <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >>> NYC XYZ wrote:
>> >>>> What makes a diet "calorie-restricted"??
>> >>>
>> >>> And how do you map rat results to human results? If they even DO
>> >>> map.
>> >>
>> >> Whether they map convincingly inversely depends on the degree a person
>> >> who's looking at the evidence enjoys food . It's just the rule, like
>> >> Newton laws. But here go the monkeys -
>> >>
>> >> http://www.technologyreview.com/read...572&ch=biotech
>> >>
>> >> Interestingly, in monkeys, CR is preventing the loss of muscle mass,
>> >> just like it does in aging rats and mice.
>> >>
>> >> Oh, to be a monkey!
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>The Scientist online mag suggested today that lowering the core
>temperature of mice .5 celcius resulted in a 15% increase in life span.

Recent scientific findings suggest the same kind of benefits from
drinking red wine - in moderation of course!

However, a corollary of this little snippet is that if you drink
immoderately, you die younger but you don't really give a ****!

;o)

[Shute]

On 1 Nov 2006 10:52:02 -0800, "TC" <[email protected]> wrote:

>These "restricted calorie" studies are pure crap. The control groups
>are usually fed un-natural pelletized manufactured crap for food . Then
>when they feed the test group less of the crap food, they live longer
>than the control group. Then they attribute it to restricted calories.
>Hey, the less poison you eat the longer you will live. It is that
>simple. It has nothing to do with calories.
>
>TC

I have seen stats on life span. They said to subtract the same number
of years if you where either rich or poor. The basis being that both
eat crappy food but for different reasons. The poor eat processed
garbage. And the rich eat trendy garbage. The people in the middle
pick the best diets.

[Doug Freese]

"TC" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected] ps.com...
>
> [email protected] wrote:
>> On 1 Nov 2006 19:09:26 -0800, "TC" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >Doug Freese wrote:
>> >> "TC" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> >> news:[email protected] oups.com...
>> >> > These "restricted calorie" studies are pure crap. The control
>> >> > groups
>> >> > are usually fed un-natural pelletized manufactured crap for
>> >> > food . Then
>> >> > when they feed the test group less of the crap food, they live
>> >> > longer
>> >> > than the control group. Then they attribute it to restricted
>> >> > calories.
>> >> > Hey, the less poison you eat the longer you will live. It is
>> >> > that
>> >> > simple. It has nothing to do with calories.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> How can anyone have an intelligent dissussion with TC when he
>> >> see's
>> >> ghosts and goblins 252 days of year.
>> >>
>> >> -DF
>> >
>> >Have you read any of the studies discussed? I have.
>> >
>> >TC
>>
>> Reading and understanding are two different things.
>
> It isn't rocket science. Trust me, it isn't rocket science.

We agree, it isn't rocket science. Eat too much you get fat. Eat
balanced, avoid simple sugars and overly processed food and by all
means, exercise and you will be healthy and not fat. Very simple indeed!

< Food science has only succeeded in giving us
> the highest rates of obesity and diet related chronic disease in world
> history, which is diametrically opposite to their stated goals.

To many calories has caused the obesity.

>
> I suggest you start reading these nutrition studies closely and with
> an, at least, mildly critical eye. You will get an education on what
> garbage science really is.

And there is a boogie man hiding behind very tree.

-DF

[Del Cecchi]

That was a 0.5 degree temperature reduction. 5 degrees and you die of
hypothermia. Starvation probably affects core temp. in people as well.
Do you want to live longer cold and starving?


"Proctologically Violated©®" <[email protected]> wrote
in message news:Idu2h.220$[email protected]..
> Except the body will not allow a lowered core temp--unless hypothermia
> is OK, regardless of ambient temp.
> A 5 deg C core temp change is a drop of 9.5 deg F--well into
> hypothermia.
> I'm sure those mice weren't very perky or peppy.
> --
> ------
> Mr. P.V.'d (formerly Droll Troll), Yonkers, NY
>
> Stop Corruption in Congress & Send the Ultimate Message:
> Absolutely Vote, but NOT for a Democrat or a Republican.
> Ending Corruption in Congress is the *Single Best Way*
> to Materially Improve Your Family's Life.
> The Solution is so simple--and inexpensive!
>
> entropic3.14decay at optonline2.718 dot net; remove pi and e to
> reply--ie, all d'numbuhs
>
> "Hobbes" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]..
>> In article <VJt2h.37$[email protected]>,
>> "Proctologically Violated©®" <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Oh yeah, I seem to remember reading sumpn bout BW 20-30% below Met
>>> Life
>>> tables, BMI, or whatever std is in vogue, as "CR".
>>> --
>>> ------
>>> Mr. P.V.'d (formerly Droll Troll), Yonkers, NY
>>> Stop Corruption in Congress & Send the Ultimate Message:
>>> Absolutely Vote, but NOT for a Democrat or a Republican.
>>> Ending Corruption in Congress is the *Single Best Way*
>>> to Materially Improve Your Family's Life.
>>> entropic3.14decay at optonline2.718 dot net; remove pi and e to
>>> reply--ie,
>>> all d'numbuhs
>>> "Proctologically Violated©®" <[email protected]>
>>> wrote in
>>> message news:iWs2h.187$[email protected]..
>>> > CR *prevents* loss of muscle mass?? How so?
>>> >
>>> > From the little I've read/heard, one claim stuck in my mind:
>>> >
>>> > That CR works across *all* species, in every specie tested,
>>> > including
>>> > spiders! wow....
>>> >
>>> > The question then is, how restricted is restricted?
>>> >
>>> > It's not, as one poster stated, cal in < cal out-- that's the
>>> > condition
>>> > for
>>> > weight *loss*, which is not a long-term steady-state condition.
>>> > CR *is* steady state, corresonding to a weight less than "normal".
>>> > But again, how much less?
>>> >
>>> > Beyond life extension, the best rationale for CR is that it, well,
>>> > saves
>>> > money!
>>> >
>>> > And the other point raised is a good one:
>>> > Finding research that's not total bull****.
>>> > Partial bull****, ok, but not total.
>>> > ------
>>> > Mr. P.V.'d (formerly Droll Troll), Yonkers, NY
>>> > Stop Corruption in Congress & Send the Ultimate Message:
>>> > Absolutely Vote, but NOT for a Democrat or a Republican.
>>> > Ending Corruption in Congress is the *Single Best Way*
>>> > to Materially Improve Your Family's Life.
>>> >
>>> > entropic3.14decay at optonline2.718 dot net; remove pi and e to
>>> > reply--ie,
>>> > all d'numbuhs
>>> >
>>> > "DZ" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> > news:[email protected] ..
>>> >> Doug Freyburger <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> >>> NYC XYZ wrote:
>>> >>>> What makes a diet "calorie-restricted"??
>>> >>>
>>> >>> And how do you map rat results to human results? If they even DO
>>> >>> map.
>>> >>
>>> >> Whether they map convincingly inversely depends on the degree a
>>> >> person
>>> >> who's looking at the evidence enjoys food . It's just the rule,
>>> >> like
>>> >> Newton laws. But here go the monkeys -
>>> >>
>>> >> http://www.technologyreview.com/read...572&ch=biotech
>>> >>
>>> >> Interestingly, in monkeys, CR is preventing the loss of muscle
>>> >> mass,
>>> >> just like it does in aging rats and mice.
>>> >>
>>> >> Oh, to be a monkey!
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>>
>> The Scientist online mag suggested today that lowering the core
>> temperature of mice .5 celcius resulted in a 15% increase in life
>> span.
>> The suggestion was the mechanism for calorie restriction working was
>> lowered core temperature. If so it would be interesting to see if
>> people
>> (who live in more regulated environments) have a corresponding core
>> temperature reduction.
>>
>> --
>> Keith
>
>

[TC]

Doug Freese wrote:
> "TC" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected] ps.com...
> >
> > [email protected] wrote:
> >> On 1 Nov 2006 19:09:26 -0800, "TC" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >Doug Freese wrote:
> >> >> "TC" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >> >> news:[email protected] oups.com...
> >> >> > These "restricted calorie" studies are pure crap. The control
> >> >> > groups
> >> >> > are usually fed un-natural pelletized manufactured crap for
> >> >> > food . Then
> >> >> > when they feed the test group less of the crap food, they live
> >> >> > longer
> >> >> > than the control group. Then they attribute it to restricted
> >> >> > calories.
> >> >> > Hey, the less poison you eat the longer you will live. It is
> >> >> > that
> >> >> > simple. It has nothing to do with calories.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> How can anyone have an intelligent dissussion with TC when he
> >> >> see's
> >> >> ghosts and goblins 252 days of year.
> >> >>
> >> >> -DF
> >> >
> >> >Have you read any of the studies discussed? I have.
> >> >
> >> >TC
> >>
> >> Reading and understanding are two different things.
> >
> > It isn't rocket science. Trust me, it isn't rocket science.
>
> We agree, it isn't rocket science. Eat too much you get fat. Eat
> balanced, avoid simple sugars and overly processed food and by all
> means, exercise and you will be healthy and not fat. Very simple indeed!
>
> < Food science has only succeeded in giving us
> > the highest rates of obesity and diet related chronic disease in world
> > history, which is diametrically opposite to their stated goals.
>
> To many calories has caused the obesity.
>
> >
> > I suggest you start reading these nutrition studies closely and with
> > an, at least, mildly critical eye. You will get an education on what
> > garbage science really is.
>
> And there is a boogie man hiding behind very tree.
>
> -DF

Since 1970, we've increased carb consumption by 12% and reduced fat
consumtion by 10%. That was supposed to result in less calories and
less obesity. The opposite has happened. And I've not seen any evidence
that our levels of exercise has changed much since then either.

So your whole idea of this problem being a *strictly* a matter of
calories is kinda hard for you to support. Especially in the face of a
number of studies that showed that low carbing worked better than low
calorie even when low-carbers ate as many as 300 calories more per day
than the low fatters. The low carbers continued to lose weight eating
more calories than the low-calorie dieters.

Calories are NOT a reliable predictor of weight loss or weight gain.
And I don't care if it is the dieters fault that they can't accurately
count calories or whether the it is because the fundamental scientific
concept of calories is false, or anything in between, the fact remaiins
that more than 95% of low calories diets fail. And many many people who
do not exercise can still maintain their weight with diet alone and
many many people who exercise their asses off, day after day, still
cannot attain their goal weights.

Diet has a much much stonger impact on weight control than exercise
ever will. And the aspect of diet that impacts weigh the most is the
quality of the diet and not the quantity.

TC

[Proctologically Violated©®]

1. God enjoys making us suffer--for a wide variety of reasons
2. CR (and exercise, for most) makes us exquisitely miserable
3. Ergo God will keeps the CR'g/exercising rabble around longer, for the
show.
<ta-daaaa>
4. I will live forever, CR or not.
--
------
Mr. P.V.'d (formerly Droll Troll), Yonkers, NY

Stop Corruption in Congress & Send the Ultimate Message:
Absolutely Vote, but NOT for a Democrat or a Republican.
Ending Corruption in Congress is the *Single Best Way*
to Materially Improve Your Family's Life.
The Solution is so simple--and inexpensive!

entropic3.14decay at optonline2.718 dot net; remove pi and e to reply--ie,
all d'numbuhs

"DZ" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]..
> Hobbes <[email protected]> wrote:
>> The Scientist online mag suggested today that lowering the core
>> temperature of mice .5 celcius resulted in a 15% increase in life span.
>> The suggestion was the mechanism for calorie restriction working was
>> lowered core temperature. If so it would be interesting to see if people
>> (who live in more regulated environments) have a corresponding core
>> temperature reduction.
>
> The article did not suggest that it is THE mechanism, e.g. the comment
> by Guarente there implies it might only be one, far from most
> important aspect:
>
> "... you can isolate one of the seemingly small aspects of the many
> physiological effects of caloric restriction and still get an effect
> on lifespan, although not as much as with real caloric
> restriction. This suggests each of the effects caloric restriction has
> may contribute incrementally."

[Proctologically Violated©®]

Can you really have confidence in those 10%, 12% stats??
These fukn people will write *anything* they goddamm want for a story.
And, if these stats are really from primary sources, ie, unadulterated
gummint stats, how can you be sure THOSE are even accurate?
After all, look at the fukn sociopaths IN gummint!
--
------
Mr. P.V.'d (formerly Droll Troll), Yonkers, NY

Stop Corruption in Congress & Send the Ultimate Message:
Absolutely Vote, but NOT for a Democrat or a Republican.
Ending Corruption in Congress is the *Single Best Way*
to Materially Improve Your Family's Life.
The Solution is so simple--and inexpensive!

entropic3.14decay at optonline2.718 dot net; remove pi and e to reply--ie,
all d'numbuhs

"TC" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected] oups.com...
>
> Doug Freese wrote:
>> "TC" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected] ps.com...
>> >
>> > [email protected] wrote:
>> >> On 1 Nov 2006 19:09:26 -0800, "TC" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >Doug Freese wrote:
>> >> >> "TC" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> >> >> news:[email protected] oups.com...
>> >> >> > These "restricted calorie" studies are pure crap. The control
>> >> >> > groups
>> >> >> > are usually fed un-natural pelletized manufactured crap for
>> >> >> > food . Then
>> >> >> > when they feed the test group less of the crap food, they live
>> >> >> > longer
>> >> >> > than the control group. Then they attribute it to restricted
>> >> >> > calories.
>> >> >> > Hey, the less poison you eat the longer you will live. It is
>> >> >> > that
>> >> >> > simple. It has nothing to do with calories.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> How can anyone have an intelligent dissussion with TC when he
>> >> >> see's
>> >> >> ghosts and goblins 252 days of year.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> -DF
>> >> >
>> >> >Have you read any of the studies discussed? I have.
>> >> >
>> >> >TC
>> >>
>> >> Reading and understanding are two different things.
>> >
>> > It isn't rocket science. Trust me, it isn't rocket science.
>>
>> We agree, it isn't rocket science. Eat too much you get fat. Eat
>> balanced, avoid simple sugars and overly processed food and by all
>> means, exercise and you will be healthy and not fat. Very simple indeed!
>>
>> < Food science has only succeeded in giving us
>> > the highest rates of obesity and diet related chronic disease in world
>> > history, which is diametrically opposite to their stated goals.
>>
>> To many calories has caused the obesity.
>>
>> >
>> > I suggest you start reading these nutrition studies closely and with
>> > an, at least, mildly critical eye. You will get an education on what
>> > garbage science really is.
>>
>> And there is a boogie man hiding behind very tree.
>>
>> -DF
>
> Since 1970, we've increased carb consumption by 12% and reduced fat
> consumtion by 10%. That was supposed to result in less calories and
> less obesity. The opposite has happened. And I've not seen any evidence
> that our levels of exercise has changed much since then either.
>
> So your whole idea of this problem being a *strictly* a matter of
> calories is kinda hard for you to support. Especially in the face of a
> number of studies that showed that low carbing worked better than low
> calorie even when low-carbers ate as many as 300 calories more per day
> than the low fatters. The low carbers continued to lose weight eating
> more calories than the low-calorie dieters.
>
> Calories are NOT a reliable predictor of weight loss or weight gain.
> And I don't care if it is the dieters fault that they can't accurately
> count calories or whether the it is because the fundamental scientific
> concept of calories is false, or anything in between, the fact remaiins
> that more than 95% of low calories diets fail. And many many people who
> do not exercise can still maintain their weight with diet alone and
> many many people who exercise their asses off, day after day, still
> cannot attain their goal weights.
>
> Diet has a much much stonger impact on weight control than exercise
> ever will. And the aspect of diet that impacts weigh the most is the
> quality of the diet and not the quantity.
>
> TC
>

[JT@nowhere.com]

On 3 Nov 2006 07:10:15 -0800, "TC" <tunderbar@hotmail.com> wrote:

>
>Doug Freese wrote:
>> "TC" <tunderbar@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1162478773.691500.54850@m7g2000cwm.googlegrou ps.com...
>> >
>> > JT@nowhere.com wrote:
>> >> On 1 Nov 2006 19:09:26 -0800, "TC" <tunderbar@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >Doug Freese wrote:
>> >> >> "TC" <tunderbar@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> >> >> news:1162407122.321227.207990@f16g2000cwb.googlegr oups.com...
>> >> >> > These "restricted calorie" studies are pure crap. The control
>> >> >> > groups
>> >> >> > are usually fed un-natural pelletized manufactured crap for
>> >> >> > food . Then
>> >> >> > when they feed the test group less of the crap food, they live
>> >> >> > longer
>> >> >> > than the control group. Then they attribute it to restricted
>> >> >> > calories.
>> >> >> > Hey, the less poison you eat the longer you will live. It is
>> >> >> > that
>> >> >> > simple. It has nothing to do with calories.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> How can anyone have an intelligent dissussion with TC when he
>> >> >> see's
>> >> >> ghosts and goblins 252 days of year.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> -DF
>> >> >
>> >> >Have you read any of the studies discussed? I have.
>> >> >
>> >> >TC
>> >>
>> >> Reading and understanding are two different things.
>> >
>> > It isn't rocket science. Trust me, it isn't rocket science.
>>
>> We agree, it isn't rocket science. Eat too much you get fat. Eat
>> balanced, avoid simple sugars and overly processed food and by all
>> means, exercise and you will be healthy and not fat. Very simple indeed!
>>
>> < Food science has only succeeded in giving us
>> > the highest rates of obesity and diet related chronic disease in world
>> > history, which is diametrically opposite to their stated goals.
>>
>> To many calories has caused the obesity.
>>
>> >
>> > I suggest you start reading these nutrition studies closely and with
>> > an, at least, mildly critical eye. You will get an education on what
>> > garbage science really is.
>>
>> And there is a boogie man hiding behind very tree.
>>
>> -DF
>
>Since 1970, we've increased carb consumption by 12% and reduced fat
>consumtion by 10%. That was supposed to result in less calories and
>less obesity. The opposite has happened. And I've not seen any evidence
>that our levels of exercise has changed much since then either.

The important thing is the amount of calories. Even if fat makes up a
smaller percentage of the diet the total amount of fat consumed has
still increased due to the increase in total calories consumed.
>
>So your whole idea of this problem being a *strictly* a matter of
>calories is kinda hard for you to support. Especially in the face of a
>number of studies that showed that low carbing worked better than low
>calorie even when low-carbers ate as many as 300 calories more per day
>than the low fatters.

Low carb is bull**** and does not work. It also promotes less
physical activity.

>The low carbers continued to lose weight eating
>more calories than the low-calorie dieters.

Really? Someone who is 6' weighs 350 pounds just has to low carb and
not watch calories or exercise and they will eventually weigh between
150-170 pounds?? LOL!
>
>Calories are NOT a reliable predictor of weight loss or weight gain.

So if we reduce carb consumption by 12 % and increase fat consumtpion
by 10% everyone will go back to 1970 norms? Yawn

>And I don't care if it is the dieters fault that they can't accurately
>count calories or whether the it is because the fundamental scientific
>concept of calories is false,

You do realize there aret people in Africa who eat mostly a grain diet
who are starving and consume very few calories are very thin? Is this
where you go back to your bull**** response to this by saying they are
losing weight because grains provide no nutrition?

> or anything in between, the fact remaiins
>that more than 95% of low calories diets fail.

I don't eat a low calorie diet as I just exercise which is a lot
easier.

> And many many people who
>do not exercise can still maintain their weight with diet alone and
>many many people who exercise their asses off, day after day, still
>cannot attain their goal weights.
>
Everyone has a different metabolism but it does not change the
underlying truth. Reading books is still the best way to learn though
not everyone is going to comprehend or remember at the same level.

>Diet has a much much stonger impact on weight control than exercise
>ever will.

Well it is true that you can consume calories a lot easier and quicker
than they can be burned off. However exercise should be done for
health and appearance unless you think flabbiness, cottage cheese, etc
is a good thing.

> And the aspect of diet that impacts weigh the most is the
>quality of the diet and not the quantity.
>
No actually its calories. 8 glasses of water a day is healthy while
180 glasses is not. You can have too much of a good thing and there
is no reason to consume more food once nutrition and energy
requirements are met. Consuming anything more than is required
whether it is beef, poptarts, milk, etc is going to be added to you
ever expanding waist. Though I suppose if one insists on overeating
than it would be better to eat nutritous foods/real foods as opposed
to overeating on poptarts.

[Doug Freese]

"TC" <tunderbar@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1162566615.409465.145270@i42g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...
> Since 1970, we've increased carb consumption by 12% and reduced fat
> consumtion by 10%.

I don't trust you numbers so a legit web page will do and please not by
your pal weston. I completely agree that we eat too many carbs but I
also think we eat to much fat also. As for the carbs they are soda, and
pounds of simple carbs, the ones we both agree are bad, like ice-cream,
candy and cake. It isn't from eating too much grain,corn or even soy.


> That was supposed to result in less calories and less obesity.

A bgus statement and where you go out to lunch. We eat TOO MANY calories
regardless of carb or fat. It';s total pigdom and not to realize this
means you have your head in the sand or some other dark place.


> The opposite has happened. And I've not seen any evidence
> that our levels of exercise has changed much since then either.

The number of people exercising has increased but sad to say not as many
should. Wanna bet those people that have taken up steady exercise are
by far thinner and healthier then those that try only try food ?




> So your whole idea of this problem being a *strictly* a matter of
> calories is kinda hard for you to support.

It is not ansd everytime they take N people and put them in an
environment where every calorie counted they ALL lose weight. It's when
people have to after the fact, count their calories when it gets gray.


> Diet has a much much stonger impact on weight control than exercise
> ever will. And the aspect of diet that impacts weigh the most is the
> quality of the diet and not the quantity.

You keep saying the same crap over and over. Do you think if you keep
repeating it, it become true? I have chopped off a segment of the
population such as runners, biker, hikers, etc comprising millions of
people that flat out defy your asinine premises that your keep
repeating.

If you're bored Sunday tune into the NYC marathon and look at the 40+
thousand people and have been chomping down primarily CARBS for at
least three months in prep for this race and count the fat runners.
According to your physiology they should all be obese or very fat from
turning into GI freaks throwing down Snicker Bars by the dozens from the
GI blast. There are thousands of very fast and healthy vegans in that
race and psst, they get almost all their calories from those evil carbs.


You really need understand basic physiology and then you may have a
health epiphany. You need to come out of cave and see the light of day.
Confess you just trolling otherwise no one will play with you.

-DF

[TC]

Doug Freese wrote:
> "TC" <tunderbar@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1162566615.409465.145270@i42g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...
> > Since 1970, we've increased carb consumption by 12% and reduced fat
> > consumtion by 10%.
>
> I don't trust you numbers so a legit web page will do and please not by
> your pal weston. I completely agree that we eat too many carbs but I
> also think we eat to much fat also. As for the carbs they are soda, and
> pounds of simple carbs, the ones we both agree are bad, like ice-cream,
> candy and cake. It isn't from eating too much grain,corn or even soy.
>
>
> > That was supposed to result in less calories and less obesity.
>
> A bgus statement and where you go out to lunch. We eat TOO MANY calories
> regardless of carb or fat. It';s total pigdom and not to realize this
> means you have your head in the sand or some other dark place.
>
>
> > The opposite has happened. And I've not seen any evidence
> > that our levels of exercise has changed much since then either.
>
> The number of people exercising has increased but sad to say not as many
> should. Wanna bet those people that have taken up steady exercise are
> by far thinner and healthier then those that try only try food ?
>
>
>
>
> > So your whole idea of this problem being a *strictly* a matter of
> > calories is kinda hard for you to support.
>
> It is not ansd everytime they take N people and put them in an
> environment where every calorie counted they ALL lose weight. It's when
> people have to after the fact, count their calories when it gets gray.
>
>
> > Diet has a much much stonger impact on weight control than exercise
> > ever will. And the aspect of diet that impacts weigh the most is the
> > quality of the diet and not the quantity.
>
> You keep saying the same crap over and over. Do you think if you keep
> repeating it, it become true? I have chopped off a segment of the
> population such as runners, biker, hikers, etc comprising millions of
> people that flat out defy your asinine premises that your keep
> repeating.
>
> If you're bored Sunday tune into the NYC marathon and look at the 40+
> thousand people and have been chomping down primarily CARBS for at
> least three months in prep for this race and count the fat runners.
> According to your physiology they should all be obese or very fat from
> turning into GI freaks throwing down Snicker Bars by the dozens from the
> GI blast. There are thousands of very fast and healthy vegans in that
> race and psst, they get almost all their calories from those evil carbs.
>
>
> You really need understand basic physiology and then you may have a
> health epiphany. You need to come out of cave and see the light of day.
> Confess you just trolling otherwise no one will play with you.
>
> -DF

Is that all you have? Watch a marathon. Watch a 5k or a 10k. Is that
all?

You are an idiot of the first class. I'm done arguing with a moron.

TC

[Doug Freese]

"TC" <tunderbar@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1162590531.970699.18000@m73g2000cwd.googlegro ups.com...
> Is that all you have? Watch a marathon. Watch a 5k or a 10k. Is that
> all?

Try it for starter, you will get to see first hand what exercise and
balanced carb nutrition can do for 40+ thousand people. I guess they
are all freaks who low carb. If nothing else there is visual proof but
it assumes you know how to stand erect and not have your knuckles drag
the ground.

-DF

[TC]

Doug Freese wrote:
> "TC" <tunderbar@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1162590531.970699.18000@m73g2000cwd.googlegro ups.com...
> > Is that all you have? Watch a marathon. Watch a 5k or a 10k. Is that
> > all?
>
> Try it for starter, you will get to see first hand what exercise and
> balanced carb nutrition can do for 40+ thousand people. I guess they
> are all freaks who low carb. If nothing else there is visual proof but
> it assumes you know how to stand erect and not have your knuckles drag
> the ground.
>
> -DF

So your solution is for everyone to become marathon runners to lose
weight. Real practical.

TC

[Proctologically Violated©®]

Sarcasm noted, and there might be a moral in that thar sarcasm.
And that is, in utterly sedentary lifestyles, it might not only be even more
difficult to lose weight than people think, but perhaps not even possible
with "simple" considerations of the energy equation alone.
Not because the equation doesn't work, but because we *no longer have the
wherewithall to let it work*.
One of TCs points about overall food quality is likely also part and parcel
of not letting it work, such as things like HFCS setting in motion other
cravings, vit. deficiencies, etc.

So yeah, in a lot of cases, people might *have to marathon*, go to a prison
work camp, or the equivalent drastic measure, in order to 'make" the energy
equation work.
Of course, as soon as they stop, back will come the weight, along w/ the old
lifestyle--the two being inextricably intertwined.

Look at Oprah, w/ every g-d resource in the effing world at her 'tips:
She got down to 110 # under the """guidance""" of fidniss guru Bob Greene,
was plastered all over every glamour mag (and apparently there wadn't enuff,
so she had to make her own), and promptly gained it all back.
Made g-dGreene a Millionaire (along w/ everyone else she touches: Dr. Pill,
Billy Blankmind, and now Drs. Roizen & Oz, ekc), but I don't think she got
her money back.
The moral here:
If g-dOprah cain't do it, WHO CAN????

Ultimately, we have led ourselves to slaughter, at the hands of the
media/puppeteers.
--
------
Mr. P.V.'d (formerly Droll Troll), Yonkers, NY

Stop Corruption in Congress & Send the Ultimate Message:
Absolutely Vote, but NOT for a Democrat or a Republican.
Ending Corruption in Congress is the *Single Best Way*
to Materially Improve Your Family's Life.
The Solution is so simple--and inexpensive!

entropic3.14decay at optonline2.718 dot net; remove pi and e to reply--ie,
all d'numbuhs

"TC" <tunderbar@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1162665302.416143.215060@m73g2000cwd.googlegr oups.com...
>
> Doug Freese wrote:
>> "TC" <tunderbar@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1162590531.970699.18000@m73g2000cwd.googlegro ups.com...
>> > Is that all you have? Watch a marathon. Watch a 5k or a 10k. Is that
>> > all?
>>
>> Try it for starter, you will get to see first hand what exercise and
>> balanced carb nutrition can do for 40+ thousand people. I guess they
>> are all freaks who low carb. If nothing else there is visual proof but
>> it assumes you know how to stand erect and not have your knuckles drag
>> the ground.
>>
>> -DF
>
> So your solution is for everyone to become marathon runners to lose
> weight. Real practical.
>
> TC
>

[Doug Freyburger]

TC wrote:
> Doug Freese wrote:
>
> > Try it for starter, you will get to see first hand what exercise and
> > balanced carb nutrition can do for 40+ thousand people. I guess they
> > are all freaks who low carb. If nothing else there is visual proof but
> > it assumes you know how to stand erect and not have your knuckles drag
> > the ground.
>
> So your solution is for everyone to become marathon runners to lose
> weight. Real practical.

The whole point of the marathon is that normally conditioned
people *die* from doing it. Not just practical but a nice way to
reverse the overpopulation problem.

Marathoners tend to eat high carb? So what? Maybe it helps
them not die from doing something tuned to kill them. Show me
even one low carber marathoner and the point gets blown, though.
Guess what, it wouldn't take me long to find a low carber who did
a marathon. Plenty of low carb support boards have exercise
support sub-boards and the topic does come up. Will a low
carber end up competitive? Nope. Will a low carber who trained
patiently end up completing? Yup.

[Doug Freese]

"TC" <tunderbar@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1162665302.416143.215060@m73g2000cwd.googlegr oups.com...
> So your solution is for everyone to become marathon runners to lose
> weight. Real practical.

As usual an ignorant statement. I tend to think you have a selective
reading problem. One does not need to do marathons but just some
practical exercise. Even those that do dinky 5 an 10k races show you
that your hypothesis about low carbs yada yada is all bull ****. Have
everyone and especailly you, get off your lazy asses and the weight
will come off and self respect come back.

It seems that those that do minimal to ultra races all have one thing in
common, great heath and no weight problems. Those that try playing with
just food , end up like you paranoid as to what to eat. I guess it's
easier to say that all the MD's and PhD's that study nutrition and
exercise are all on the take then face the facts. The body craves
exercise to function and stay healthy.

You're the only 150 IQ person that is as dumb as a rock. Meds dude, you
need some serious meds.

-DF

[TC]

Doug Freese wrote:
> "TC" <tunderbar@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1162665302.416143.215060@m73g2000cwd.googlegr oups.com...
> > So your solution is for everyone to become marathon runners to lose
> > weight. Real practical.
>
> As usual an ignorant statement. I tend to think you have a selective
> reading problem. One does not need to do marathons but just some
> practical exercise. Even those that do dinky 5 an 10k races show you
> that your hypothesis about low carbs yada yada is all bull ****. Have
> everyone and especailly you, get off your lazy asses and the weight
> will come off and self respect come back.
>
> It seems that those that do minimal to ultra races all have one thing in
> common, great heath and no weight problems. Those that try playing with
> just food , end up like you paranoid as to what to eat. I guess it's
> easier to say that all the MD's and PhD's that study nutrition and
> exercise are all on the take then face the facts. The body craves
> exercise to function and stay healthy.
>
> You're the only 150 IQ person that is as dumb as a rock. Meds dude, you
> need some serious meds.
>
> -DF

I think it is clear who exactly here is "dumb as a rock", given that
you still haven't provided as much as one iota of evidence to back up
your point of view. Put up or shut the **** up.

TC

[Proctologically Violated©®]

Note that when Oprah, w/ the help of proly 40 assistants plus Bob Greene,
went down to 110#, it was via running/training for marathons.
IIRC, she was running 75 miles per week!!!!!!!!!
Always on camera, of course.
Pity the staff....
--
------
Mr. P.V.'d (formerly Droll Troll), Yonkers, NY

Stop Corruption in Congress & Send the Ultimate Message:
Absolutely Vote, but NOT for a Democrat or a Republican.
Ending Corruption in Congress is the *Single Best Way*
to Materially Improve Your Family's Life.
The Solution is so simple--and inexpensive!

entropic3.14decay at optonline2.718 dot net; remove pi and e to reply--ie,
all d'numbuhs

"TC" <tunderbar@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1162665302.416143.215060@m73g2000cwd.googlegr oups.com...
>
> Doug Freese wrote:
>> "TC" <tunderbar@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1162590531.970699.18000@m73g2000cwd.googlegro ups.com...
>> > Is that all you have? Watch a marathon. Watch a 5k or a 10k. Is that
>> > all?
>>
>> Try it for starter, you will get to see first hand what exercise and
>> balanced carb nutrition can do for 40+ thousand people. I guess they
>> are all freaks who low carb. If nothing else there is visual proof but
>> it assumes you know how to stand erect and not have your knuckles drag
>> the ground.
>>
>> -DF
>
> So your solution is for everyone to become marathon runners to lose
> weight. Real practical.
>
> TC
>

[TC]

Proctologically Violated©® wrote:
> Note that when Oprah, w/ the help of proly 40 assistants plus Bob Greene,
> went down to 110#, it was via running/training for marathons.
> IIRC, she was running 75 miles per week!!!!!!!!!
> Always on camera, of course.
> Pity the staff....
> --
> ------
> Mr. P.V.'d (formerly Droll Troll), Yonkers, NY
>
> Stop Corruption in Congress & Send the Ultimate Message:
> Absolutely Vote, but NOT for a Democrat or a Republican.
> Ending Corruption in Congress is the *Single Best Way*
> to Materially Improve Your Family's Life.
> The Solution is so simple--and inexpensive!
>
> entropic3.14decay at optonline2.718 dot net; remove pi and e to reply--ie,
> all d'numbuhs
>
> "TC" <tunderbar@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1162665302.416143.215060@m73g2000cwd.googlegr oups.com...
> >
> > Doug Freese wrote:
> >> "TC" <tunderbar@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >> news:1162590531.970699.18000@m73g2000cwd.googlegro ups.com...
> >> > Is that all you have? Watch a marathon. Watch a 5k or a 10k. Is that
> >> > all?
> >>
> >> Try it for starter, you will get to see first hand what exercise and
> >> balanced carb nutrition can do for 40+ thousand people. I guess they
> >> are all freaks who low carb. If nothing else there is visual proof but
> >> it assumes you know how to stand erect and not have your knuckles drag
> >> the ground.
> >>
> >> -DF
> >
> > So your solution is for everyone to become marathon runners to lose
> > weight. Real practical.
> >
> > TC
> >

Oprah thinks the same way I do. Low carb and real foods.

http://www.oprah.com/health/yourbody..._350_202.jhtml

TC

[TC]

Proctologically Violated©® wrote:
> Note that when Oprah, w/ the help of proly 40 assistants plus Bob Greene,
> went down to 110#, it was via running/training for marathons.
> IIRC, she was running 75 miles per week!!!!!!!!!
> Always on camera, of course.
> Pity the staff....
> --
> ------
> Mr. P.V.'d (formerly Droll Troll), Yonkers, NY
>
> Stop Corruption in Congress & Send the Ultimate Message:
> Absolutely Vote, but NOT for a Democrat or a Republican.
> Ending Corruption in Congress is the *Single Best Way*
> to Materially Improve Your Family's Life.
> The Solution is so simple--and inexpensive!
>
> entropic3.14decay at optonline2.718 dot net; remove pi and e to reply--ie,
> all d'numbuhs
>
> "TC" <tunderbar@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1162665302.416143.215060@m73g2000cwd.googlegr oups.com...
> >
> > Doug Freese wrote:
> >> "TC" <tunderbar@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >> news:1162590531.970699.18000@m73g2000cwd.googlegro ups.com...
> >> > Is that all you have? Watch a marathon. Watch a 5k or a 10k. Is that
> >> > all?
> >>
> >> Try it for starter, you will get to see first hand what exercise and
> >> balanced carb nutrition can do for 40+ thousand people. I guess they
> >> are all freaks who low carb. If nothing else there is visual proof but
> >> it assumes you know how to stand erect and not have your knuckles drag
> >> the ground.
> >>
> >> -DF
> >
> > So your solution is for everyone to become marathon runners to lose
> > weight. Real practical.
> >
> > TC
> >

http://www.oprah.com/health/yourbody..._350_203.jhtml