41 replies to this topic

[ozmonster]

There seems to be a major misconception, that you are maintaining the CRON lifestyle merely by restricting calories and supplementing.


THAT IS NOT ALL.

YOU MUST have a limited amount of body fat of below 5%.

Until you reach 5%, you are not CRON because you restrict calories ... you are merely on your way. Think of yourself as an apprentice.

Good luck.

Edited by ozmonster, 12 December 2009 - 02:02 AM.

[maxwatt]

There seems to be a major misconception, that you are maintaining the CRON lifestyle merely by restricting calories and supplementing.


THAT IS NOT ALL.

YOU MUST have a limited amount of body fat of below 5%.

Until you reach 5%, you are not CRON because you restrict calories ... you are merely on your way. Think of yourself as an apprentice.

Good luck.

Are there any studies that back this up in some way, or at least lend support to your premise?

[ozmonster]

Are there any studies that back this up in some way, or at least lend support to your premise?

I do not know of any directly on point. However, it is common sense my friend.

It matters little that you no longer stuff double cheeseburgers down your throat when you have a 6 month supply wrapped around your waist.

[niner]

Are there any studies that back this up in some way, or at least lend support to your premise?

I do not know of any directly on point. However, it is common sense my friend.

It matters little that you no longer stuff double cheeseburgers down your throat when you have a 6 month supply wrapped around your waist.

It might seem like common sense, but human biology is incredibly complex and sometimes what seems simple or obvious isn't the way you think it is. Older people, or females of any age, generally have higher BF% than young males. The best way to look at this would be to find some CRON practitioners at a variety of body fat percentages, and look at gene expression and other biologic and metabolic markers to see if they are showing the normal signatures of being in a CR state. I have a feeling that there is nothing magic about 5%. If someone was 50% body fat, then you might have a point.

[ozmonster]

It might seem like common sense, but human biology is incredibly complex and sometimes what seems simple or obvious isn't the way you think it is.

Really? Wow, thanks for the brilliant insight professor.

You obviously have not read any of my previous threads or you would not have foolishly jumped to a determination about my understanding. Now, I admit this thread does not give you much to go on.

Common sense is NOT what LEAD me to my conclusion. lol.

I have a feeling that there is nothing magic about 5%.

It might seem like your "feeling" is adequate, but human biology is incredibly complex and sometimes what seems simple or obvious isn't the way you think it is.



My conclusion is the result of extensive analysis of all the available relevant science COUPLED with my REAL LIFE experience as a hardcore sub-5% body fat CRON dieter for almost 2 years.

Edited by ozmonster, 12 December 2009 - 03:37 AM.

[niner]

My conclusion is the result of extensive analysis of all the available relevant science COUPLED with my REAL LIFE experience as a hardcore sub-5% body fat CRON dieter for almost 2 years.

Yet you just told us that you know of NO relevant science. So you're asking us to go on your personal anecdotal experience? Maybe you are sub-5% body fat because you are a young male.

[ozmonster]

My conclusion is the result of extensive analysis of all the available relevant science COUPLED with my REAL LIFE experience as a hardcore sub-5% body fat CRON dieter for almost 2 years.

Yet you just told us that you know of NO relevant science. So you're asking us to go on your personal anecdotal experience? Maybe you are sub-5% body fat because you are a young male.

No I told you I knew of no relevant studies on point. The science is clear, I just haven't broken it down for you. I am not young.

Let us just start off slow, simple and general.

a gram of fat is 10 calories. an ounce of fat is 280 calories. a pound of fat is 4,480 calories.

5% body fat of a 200 lb. man is 10 lbs.

10lbs is 44,480 calories.

Are you with me so far?

If calorie restriction is your goal, all sources of calories need to be restricted. This includes calories ingested & calories stored. 5% is a generous threshold, IMO.

[immortali457]

5% bodyfat is fat dude.....you need to aim for around 1%

[niner]

My conclusion is the result of extensive analysis of all the available relevant science COUPLED with my REAL LIFE experience as a hardcore sub-5% body fat CRON dieter for almost 2 years.

Yet you just told us that you know of NO relevant science. So you're asking us to go on your personal anecdotal experience? Maybe you are sub-5% body fat because you are a young male.

No I told you I knew of no relevant studies on point. The science is clear, I just haven't broken it down for you. I am not young.

Let us just start off slow, simple and general.

a gram of fat is 10 calories. an ounce of fat is 280 calories. a pound of fat is 4,480 calories.

5% body fat of a 200 lb. man is 10 lbs.

10lbs is 44,480 calories.

Are you with me so far?

If calorie restriction is your goal, all sources of calories need to be restricted. This includes calories ingested & calories stored. 5% is a generous threshold, IMO.

You act young, or maybe it's just your bad manners.

A gram of fat is 9 calories. an ounce of fat is 255 calories. a pound of fat is 4086 calories.

Are you with me so far?

[FNC]

May I take this time to remind posters of the Posting Guidelines as outlined in the Immortality Institute Constitution and Mission
http://imminst.org/mission

Posting Guidelines

The following guidelines are here to promote constructive and thought provoking discussion. Please consider these guidelines carefully when participating in forum discussions.

Please Be Courteous
Please Be Informative
Please Be Relevant
Please Be Accessible

Forum posts and topics which fail to adhere to these guidelines are subject to moderation as granted by the ImmInst User Agreement.

Courteous

* Be polite when replying to others.
* Avoid using derogatory language.
* Maintain a constructive attitude.
* Attack ideas and not people.

Informative

* Be informative and clear when posting.
* Before creating a new topic, check to see if the topic hasn't already been created elsewhere.

Relevant

* Avoid making duplicate posts.
* Post topics under the appropriate forums.
* Keep follow-up posts on topic.
* Avoid posting advertisements or Spam.

Accessible

* Be sure that the posted text is readable.
* Use emoticons/smiles sparingly.
* Post pictures when relevant by not excessively.

Please keep all replies respectful and constructive, as opposed to personal attacks on posters.

[ozmonster]

You act young, or maybe it's just your bad manners.

I apologize for offending you, I just have no patience for ignorant small minded posters like yourself.

A gram of fat is 9 calories. an ounce of fat is 255 calories. a pound of fat is 4086 calories.

Actually, a gram of fat is 37.8 kilojoules or 9.03 calories. I rounded to 10 to make the other calculations easy. If you noticed, however, I premised the calculations with "Let us just start off slow, simple and general".

Are you with me so far?

Never was. I just read some of your comments to a previous thread of mine and, interestingly, I similarly concluded you were intellectually challenged. Read a book or something.

[ozmonster]

5% bodyfat is fat dude.

I agree.

you need to aim for around 1%

1% is too lean IMO. 3% is ideal.

[maxwatt]

Some of the markers of CRON are less TNFa, C-reactive protein and TGFb. This adds up to decreased inflammation and decreased insulin resistance. I do not think 5% is a magic number, and 7 to 8% is I think more typical of CRON practitioners where these changes can be and have been measured. Less than that, and we see an increase in mortality due to disease, perhaps due to insufficient reserves to deal with stress. The location of fat seems to make a difference: visceral fat is worse than fat elsewhere fo insulin resistance. Then too we have the problem of measuring body fat. I once asked my doctor how to determine one's body fat percentage, and he said the only certain method was destructive autopsy. Any volunteers?

[ozmonster]

Some of the markers of CRON are less TNFa, C-reactive protein and TGFb. This adds up to decreased inflammation and decreased insulin resistance. I do not think 5% is a magic number, and 7 to 8% is I think more typical of CRON practitioners where these changes can be and have been measured. Less than that, and we see an increase in mortality due to disease, perhaps due to insufficient reserves to deal with stress. The location of fat seems to make a difference: visceral fat is worse than fat elsewhere fo insulin resistance. Then too we have the problem of measuring body fat. I once asked my doctor how to determine one's body fat percentage, and he said the only certain method was destructive autopsy. Any volunteers?

I don't think 5% is the magic number, I think it is the maximum. the range is 2% to 5% IMO.

The reason I think this is because a huge part of CRON for me is maximizing mental and physical performance. Some call this state FLOW. At 3% body fat and a strict adherence to my CRON 40/30/30 regiment, I am in Flow almost all my waking hours without fatigue. As I move away from 3%, this state is reduced. And above 5%, it is very illusive. You are right, tho, there are not a lot of reserves so it is very important we stay disciplined.

Agree on visceral fat. Only way I know of to reduce that is to reduce entire percentage.

good point on body fat measurement. all we can do there is approximate

[kismet]

Oh, Ozmonster is at it again! (unfortunately our last "discussion" was eerily similar to what is going on here) 

I don't think 5% is the magic number, I think it is the maximum. the range is 2% to 5% IMO.

No, you're most probably dead at 2-3%.

The reason I think this is because a huge part of CRON for me is maximizing mental and physical performance.

Tough luck, CR is about trading fitness for longevity (esp. physical and reproductive fitness, not so much mental).

The issue has been discussed and resolved. Oz you're most probably wrong. Give it a rest until you can provide evidence. If you continue trolling I suggest people use their ignore function, I certainly will and it may be the best solution for all. 

Edited by kismet, 12 December 2009 - 02:44 PM.

[Luna]

I am not sure below 5% body fat is even possible for a woman without being in health danger O_o

[Michael]

There seems to be a major misconception, that you are maintaining the CRON lifestyle merely by restricting calories and supplementing.

That would indeed be a major misconception, albeit not for the reason you suggest. Supplements have nothing, per se, to do with CR.

OTOH:

YOU MUST have a limited amount of body fat of below 5%.

Until you reach 5%, you are not CRON because you restrict calories ... you are merely on your way. Think of yourself as an apprentice.

Are there any studies that back this up in some way, or at least lend support to your premise?

I do not know of any directly on point. However, it is common sense my friend.

In fact, there ARE such studies, of course (it being an obvious, commonsensical thing to think -- and therefore, to actually investigate scientifically, rather than making assumptions based on nothing more reliable than intuition, let alone dogmatically expounding with no evidence whatsoever and in self-proclaimed ignorance). They in fact find that there is almost no relationship between body fat and CR benefits.

You would know this if you had bothered to dig into the scientific literature, or even by just looking on the Imminst boards, as Kismet just noted. (That post links here, which is a useful update to an earlier post; unfortunately, that link is broken, so it's missing the review of the most impressive studies showing that CR life extension is not caused by low body fat).

The most remarkable counterexample to your intuition is the ob/ob (now Lep^ob) mouse, which (as noted in that post) stores most of its energy as fat, building up little lean mass at all. Compared to its much leaner parent strain,it lives exactly as long on CR when fed the same number of Calories, even though it maintains a grossly obese body composition even when its Calories are shaved way down (1) (sorry if this comes out hard to read):

Group ***|| Food Intake (g) || Body Wt || % Fat || Av'g LS || Max LS
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
AL B6**********3*************30******22*****171****976
CR B6**********2*************20******13*****810***1287
AL ob/ob*******4.2************59******67*****526****776
CR ob/ob********2************28*******48****823****1307

At the last CR Society Conference (which, I was disappointed to see, none of you guys attended! Kick yourselves smartly!), Jim Nelson of the Nathan shock Aging Center at the University of Texas Health Sciences University presented yet more data on this, from a recent study on comparisons of strain responses to CR; Steven Spindler also has unpublished data coming out (he tells me) soon.

Please learn to subject your intuitions to the test of actual, empirical investigation. At the very least, please learn not to make an ass of yourself by making dogmatic assertions without it.

-Michael

1: Harrison DE, Archer JR, Astle CM.
Effects of food restriction on aging: separation of food intake and adiposity. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1984 Mar;81(6):1835-8.
PMID: 6608731; UI: 84170397

Edited by Michael, 12 December 2009 - 05:07 PM.

[niner]

I'm waiting for ozmonster to tell kismet and Michael what idiots they are...

[ozmonster]

Kismet & Michael:

That is great that you think you have solved this issue. Seems to me you are both way too caught up in the details and can't see the big picture. ramble on into Huxley's nightmare.

If you ever do wake up and really want to know what CR is, get back to me. I can't be bothered trying to help the ungrateful. At some point you may want to pull your head out of your textbook and actually apply some of that science you are learning.

My purpose for posting this is to communicate what has worked for me in the hopes others can help themselves. As we get more and more sophisticated with our diets and we progress on CR, we actually become the best studies for our own individual physiology.

Your fat mouse so-called counterexample was interesting Michael when applied to laboratory evolved rodents but was unremarkable when applied to human physiology.

And Niner, so far, you are the only idiot. the others are merely misguided.

For anyone who wants help tweaking their CR regiment and can jump over my abrasive demeanor, check at this and let me know if you have questions.

http://www.imminst.o...o...c=30249&hl=

[ozmonster]

CR is about trading fitness for longevity (esp. physical and reproductive fitness, not so much mental).

This has got to be the biggest load of shit I have read in a long time. I can't believe people actually listen to anything you say.

Fitness is THE KEY to longevity.

[lunarsolarpower]

The reason I think this is because a huge part of CRON for me is maximizing mental and physical performance. Some call this state FLOW. At 3% body fat and a strict adherence to my CRON 40/30/30 regiment, I am in Flow almost all my waking hours without fatigue. As I move away from 3%, this state is reduced. And above 5%, it is very illusive.

I think I've heard of this flow concept described a couple different ways. The first was in this movie and the other, which is more likely your source, was described as a Ghrelin high.

[ozmonster]

The reason I think this is because a huge part of CRON for me is maximizing mental and physical performance. Some call this state FLOW. At 3% body fat and a strict adherence to my CRON 40/30/30 regiment, I am in Flow almost all my waking hours without fatigue. As I move away from 3%, this state is reduced. And above 5%, it is very illusive.

I think I've heard of this flow concept described a couple different ways. The first was in this movie and the other, which is more likely your source, was described as a Ghrelin high.

Ya the concept has been around for awhile. Michael Jordan used to talk about being in "the zone". I first heard it termed Flow in this talk

http://www.ted.com/t...yi_on_flow.html.

Thank you for the Ghrelin High study. I had not seen it yet. It seems to explain scientifically what I have been experiencing.

[Skötkonung]

5% bodyfat is fat dude.

I agree.

you need to aim for around 1%

1% is too lean IMO. 3% is ideal.

3%, correct me if I'm wrong, is the lowest your body can rightfully go without starting to alter the function of organs. That does not seem like a safe place to maintain body composition. For some of you throwing around the single digit numbers, I thought I might provide some perspective. The following are examples of 3% body fat temporarily exhibited on bodybuilders during competition.

 very_vascular_bb.jpg   39.39KB   51 downloads

 040.jpg   111.23KB   41 downloads
Munzer died from complications of bodybuilding.

 Rich_Gaspari_003.jpg   40.64KB   44 downloads

I haven't seen too many CR animals or people demonstrating this low level body fat. I fail to see how it could look healthy on someone with an average to below average level of musculature.It doesn't even look good on these bodybuilders.

EDIT
I posted additional source information below.

Edited by Skotkonung, 13 December 2009 - 05:28 AM.

[Skötkonung]

There seems to be a major misconception, that you are maintaining the CRON lifestyle merely by restricting calories and supplementing.


THAT IS NOT ALL.

YOU MUST have a limited amount of body fat of below 5%.

Until you reach 5%, you are not CRON because you restrict calories ... you are merely on your way. Think of yourself as an apprentice.

Good luck.

It would be more instructive if you had substantiated such claims with links to peer reviewed research.

I'm sure you are familiar with Dr Fontana, at least if you have followed any of the CR conferences. He found that moderate calorie restriction may be harmful in specific patient populations, such as lean persons who have minimal amounts of body fat.

Study: Aging, adiposity, and calorie restriction.
"CONTEXT: Excessive calorie intake and subsequent obesity increases the risk of developing chronic disease and decreases life expectancy. In rodent models, calorie restriction with adequate nutrient intake decreases the risk of developing chronic disease and extends maximum life span. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the physiological and clinical implications of calorie restriction with adequate nutrient intake. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: Search of PubMed (1966-December 2006) using terms encompassing various aspects of calorie restriction, dietary restriction, aging, longevity, life span, adiposity, and obesity; hand search of journals that focus on obesity, geriatrics, or aging; and search of reference lists of pertinent research and review articles and books. Reviewed reports (both basic science and clinical) included epidemiologic studies, case-control studies, and randomized controlled trials, with quality of data assessed by taking into account publication in a peer-reviewed journal, number of animals or individuals studied, objectivity of measurements, and techniques used to minimize bias. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: It is not known whether calorie restriction extends maximum life span or life expectancy in lean humans. However, calorie restriction in adult men and women causes many of the same metabolic adaptations that occur in calorie-restricted rodents and monkeys, including decreased metabolic, hormonal, and inflammatory risk factors for diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and possibly cancer. Excessive calorie restriction causes malnutrition and has adverse clinical effects. CONCLUSIONS: Calorie restriction in adult men and women causes beneficial metabolic, hormonal, and functional changes, but the precise amount of calorie intake or body fat mass associated with optimal health and maximum longevity in humans is not known. In addition, it is possible that even moderate calorie restriction may be harmful in specific patient populations, such as lean persons who have minimal amounts of body fat."

Furthermore, a small-scale study in the US at the Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis studied the effects following a calorie-restricted diet of 10-25% less calorie intake than the average Western diet, which is over caloric. Body mass index
(BMI) was significantly lower in the calorie-restricted group when compared with the matched group; 19.6 compared with 25.9. The BMI values for the comparison group are similar to the mean BMI values for middle-aged people in the US.

All those on calorie-restricted diets experienced reductions in BMI after starting their diet. Their BMIs decreased from an average of 24 (range of 29.6 to 19.4) to an average of 19.5 (range of 22.8 to 16.5) over the course of their dieting (3–15 years). Nearly all the decrease in BMI occurred in the first year of dieting. It was found that the average total cholesterol and LDL (bad) cholesterol levels for calorie-restricted individuals were the equivalent of those found in the lowest 10% of normal people in their age group. It was found that the average HDL (good) cholesterol levels for calorie-restricted individuals were very high—in the 85th to 90th percentile range for normal middle-aged US men. These positive changes in calorie-restricted individuals were found to occur mainly in the first year of dieting.

Notably:
"The calorie-restricted group also fared much better than the control group in terms of average blood pressure (100/60 vs. 130/80 mm Hg), fasting glucose, fasting insulin (65% reduction), body mass index (19.6 ± 1.9 vs. 25.9 ± 3.2 kg/m²), body fat percentage (8.7% ± 7% vs. 24% ± 8%), C-reactive protein, carotid IMT (40% reduction), and platelet-derived growth factor AB." [source]

While maintaining a lean physique is obviously conducive to health, how lean is probably variable between the sexes, age, and specific body types. I think most people would find between 8 and 12%, especially given the low musculature of CRONies, to be sufficient for long term health. If body fat falls to low, one begins to use "essential fat." Essential fat means that level below which health and normal physiological would be negatively affected. Let's not forget that bodyfat, aside from being stored food source, is also an important regulator of metabolism and associated hormones. Controversy exists as to whether falling in a particular category of these body fat percentages is better for one's health than any other, but there seem to be enhancements in athletic performance as one nears the ideal body fat percentage range for one's particular sport. The leanest athletes typically compete at levels of about 5–8% for men or 10–15% for women. Bodybuilders will often compete at ranges even lower than these levels. Certified personal trainers will suggest to male bodybuilders that they should aim for a body fat percentage between 2–4% by contest time, however it is unclear that such levels are ever actually attained and the means to assay it are as noted below lacking in principle as 5% is generally considered a physiological minimum for human males. It might be informative for you to review the body fat guidelines and information as provided by the American Council on Exercise.

Edited by Skotkonung, 13 December 2009 - 05:25 AM.

[ozmonster]

Thank you everyone for your posts. After a day of reflection and mandatory saturday detention I have come to the realization I may have taken a wrong turn on this thread. It was pointed out to me by a broken but wise gateway that as the exchange deteriorates to ad hominem, ideas suffer ... the forum suffers. And then truth suffers.

My main purpose for participating in these forums is to share and absorb truth in order to maximize knowledge and multiply perspectives. IOW to gain and help others gain awareness.

I have realized that I only betray my purpose and expose my true identity when I run around huffing and puffing like a hairless chipanzee.

So to myself, Kismet, Niner, Michael and the rest of the community, I offer my sincere apologies and hope we can move onward with this discussion.

In the interest of getting this discussion back on track, let me offer some more explanation.

First let me say that I know nothing about the female physiology and how it reacts to the extremes of CRON. I should have stated that from the beginning. 5% may very well be way too lean. Maybe there is a female out there that is doing it already and we could listen to what she is experiencing.

Second, I am talking about extremes. you could call it a CRON hack. it is not plug and play. I am pushing the limits so strict discipline is essential.

So after tweaking with different variables, I believe I have found the formula. Or should I say The Formula.

Now I don't have any studies so don't ask me for any. Others have posted some that seem to offer some scientific explanations which are helpful.

What I have is the experience of testing The Formula. I am the guy who was stupid enough to try. So think of questions you would ask a guinea pig and then fire away.

When strictly adhering, I experience mental and physical optimization almost all my waking hours without fatigue. many people call this different things. Jordan called it being in the zone. Others call it Flow. but it was for many a very illusive state.

This is what I think is happening.

As my body begins to deplete its fat reserves, it switches into the first stages of starvation. Its crisis time and it needs nutrients. In this stage I believe is where Flow resides. He ventures out on occasion but lives below 5% body fat, IMHO. I believe this to be an evolutionary biological mechanism. I like to describe it to others as: "life ... intensified."

Think of that almost starving cheetah getting that last burst of energy needed to take down a giselle. Evolution almost seems to require this mechanism.

I have a hard time believing woman don't have this. In fact, it seems to me women would be similarly evolutionarily predisposed in order to care for offspring. maybe a bit more fat? I may be wrong tho.

Starvation? you may ask. well not really. this is the tightrope you must walk. It requires knowing you're daily protein requirements. It also requires supplementation (i know this may be disagreeable to some).

For a more detailed description of my regiment see the link in my previous post.

questions? comment? I promise to be nice.

Edited by ozmonster, 15 December 2009 - 03:56 AM.

[JLL]

As my body begins to deplete its fat reserves, it switches into the first stages of starvation. Its crisis time and it needs nutrients. In this stage I believe is where Flow resides. He ventures out on occasion but lives below 5% body fat, IMHO. I believe this to be an evolutionary biological mechanism. I like to describe it to others as: "life ... intensified."

Think of that almost starving cheetah getting that last burst of energy needed to take down a giselle. Evolution almost seems to require this mechanism.

I can see that last burst of energy happening, but how long can the starving cheetah keep it up? Or is it about occasionally going above 5% and then reducing back to below it to experience the flow?

[ozmonster]

I can see that last burst of energy happening, but how long can the starving cheetah keep it up? Or is it about occasionally going above 5% and then reducing back to below it to experience the flow?

He can't keep it up for long without bringing down the Giselle. And I would not be able to sustain this flow without eating. I never wait longer than 5 hours between meals. At 2.5 hours after eating, hunger begins to rear its ugly head again. I ride this feeling for a couple hours and then eat. I do occasionally drift above 5% but for me its because I haven't been as disciplined the week prior.

[rwac]

He can't keep it up for long without bringing down the Giselle.

Here's a good picture of Giselle. Any excuse will do.

Oh, you meant Gazelle ?

/spelling nazi

Attached Files

•  giselle.jpg   33.82KB   107 downloads

[Luna]

I still don't see how being a woman and having 5% or less bodyfat is even possible, what does it mean for us?

(Not that I am all that convinced in the statement of this topic!)

Edited by Luna, 16 December 2009 - 09:44 PM.

[HaloTeK]

The whole idea of this thread does not address the simple point of caloric restriction. Calories matter no matter what ending weight you are. If you are 6'5 and have and have an ultra lean 3% body fat percentage on 2400 calories a day, a person who is 4'10 with 110 pounds and 10% body fat with a diet of 1600 calories a day is absolutely experiencing less metabolic stress. These figures are not exact, I am just trying to show an example of what I'm talking about. Whatever supposed benefits come from the 1st persons CRON activities, the 2nd person is in a better position to live longer regardless of what you think about CRON.

If anything, these posts make me wanna lower my thyroid hormone so that I can keep more weight on with less calories! I don't want to be at ultra low weights -- I can't control if I am unlucky enough to get sick, and I'd like some muscle mass and fat weight to support me if I do. This doesn't mean I can eat whatever I want, or be fat, you have to keep your membranes saturated and sugar intake extremely low (to live longer).