5 replies to this topic

[Gerrans]

I took off a lot of weight three years ago and decided to maintain my subsequent weight at just below the middle of the healthy/normal BMI range. So I stay within 145-149 lbs, at 5'10" (I am 59). To do this comfortably, I usually eat between about 1500 and 1850 calories a day. Originally, I maintained this weight by eating about 2200 calories a day and cutting back now and then when my weight started creeping up. In the end, I decided to cut my daily calories to maintain this weight evenly. It is working well--I have not had to temporarily cut back calories in the last eight months, so eating is now straightforward.

*

If you told me a few years ago that I would be happy eating this amount a day, I would not have believed you. But then I was always gaining weight and having to diet. The reason I am happy at this level now is that I never seem to feel hungry. I have got to this point by identifying which foods satisfy me. I do not eat any processed food, and I eat a relatively high proportion of carbs.

But the idea of strict "calorie restriction" never appealed to me. I am not sure how that is defined but guess it would be by keeping one's weight below its natural level. Since I am around the mid-point of a healthy BMI, I presume I am not doing that. I look slim but not emaciated; I have good muscles and do not have that "big head on a thin neck" Mekon look that severe undereaters have.

All the same, despite never feeling hungry, I never fail to be surprised at how little I now eat. The secret has been to adopt a daily policy of eating one meal, one snack, and a tea. (By tea, I mean the old-fashioned custom of a light evening supp. When I grew up, that was a sandwich or two and a cake or two.) I have come to believe that one reason obesity has increased is that people now expect at least a couple of proper "meals" a day, whereas in the old days we did not. (I also think many people fail to realise they should eat less once they hit their fifties.) I like to have a big breakfast with potatoes, eggs, mushrooms, tomatoes, peppers, or whatever. At lunchtime, I have a snack of nuts and dried fruit. For tea I have a bowl of something like porridge or fruit with cream and raisins. I also take cream in my coffee and milk in my tea, which I suspect help me keep going.

I had not thought my regime counted as calorie restriction, as such, even though, by my past standards, I am restricting them. But I have seen some calorie counts on here that are not much different to mine.

Edited by Gerrans, 17 February 2014 - 10:26 PM.

[scottknl]

This whole idea of calorie restriction by default is pure nonsense. Most people will eventually have a deficiency problem that impacts their health in a negative way and anyone who isn't logging their diet and balancing proportions is simply fooling themselves. What good is living a really long life if your teeth fall out or your bones break all the time? If you're not going to do proper calorie restriction then you shouldn't do it at all. It can damage your health permanently if implemented poorly. In order to do it correctly, I recommend buying and following one of the excellent books on CR that are widely available.

If you really want to see if you are in a "calorie restricted" state, then do the medical tests before and after such a diet and you'll see a constellation of test results that really can't be duplicated by any other approach. Lower body temp, weight, blood pressure, IGF-1, "bad" cholesterol, immune system components, inflammatory markers like HSCRP, blood sugar and insulin will be accompanied by higher levels of HDL and normal levels of almost everything else. Many CR people have surprised their doctor's with these test results that leave the doctor speechless.

Starving yourself is easy. Doing it right is harder.

[Gerrans]

This whole idea of calorie restriction by default is pure nonsense. Most people will eventually have a deficiency problem that impacts their health in a negative way and anyone who isn't logging their diet and balancing proportions is simply fooling themselves. What good is living a really long life if your teeth fall out or your bones break all the time? If you're not going to do proper calorie restriction then you shouldn't do it at all. It can damage your health permanently if implemented poorly. In order to do it correctly, I recommend buying and following one of the excellent books on CR that are widely available.

If you really want to see if you are in a "calorie restricted" state, then do the medical tests before and after such a diet and you'll see a constellation of test results that really can't be duplicated by any other approach. Lower body temp, weight, blood pressure, IGF-1, "bad" cholesterol, immune system components, inflammatory markers like HSCRP, blood sugar and insulin will be accompanied by higher levels of HDL and normal levels of almost everything else. Many CR people have surprised their doctor's with these test results that leave the doctor speechless.

Starving yourself is easy. Doing it right is harder.

So are you saying that the difference between someone who is doing calorie restriction and someone the same age and size who is not doing calorie restriction but is eating the same calories is just a technical matter of doing it properly and having tests?

I should say that this was just an interested question rather than a wish to join the ranks of those who are technically calorie restricting, because I do not believe that strict calorie restriction could make much difference to my life expectancy given that I am 59. On the other hand, I think it must be healthy for me to keep my weight at just below the mid point of normal. I am sure you are right that there is a lot more to calorie restriction than just restricting calories, but, as I said, I am not hungry and I am eating a healthy diet. I feel good, but in Britain it is not normal to be given a battery of tests results by one's doctor. All I know is that my last blood test showed no problems and that my blood pressure is normal.

[bracconiere]

the CRON (and the ON should be stressed more than I've seen it here). Means Calories Restriction w/Optimum Nutrition. You get spiffy program with a spiffy database that has almost all unprocessed whole foods in it, with amino acid breakdown, vitamin content, minerals. And plan out your days food to get everything you need with fewer calories than you need.

I focus a lot more on the ON part than the CR myself.

[DR01D]

If the vast majority of your calories come from fresh fruits, nuts, vegetables with some meat your body will get the nutrition it needs. Nobody knows how much nutrition is in each individual food item because that depends on where and how it was grown.

For instance Brazil Nuts

As shown in the table below, Brazil nuts contain 26% of the RDA for magnesium, 55% of the RDA for copper, and almost 10 times the RDA for selenium. However, studies have shown that the amount of selenium contained in Brazil nuts can vary widely depending on the selenium content of the soil from which they are grown.

I believe the amount of Selenium in Brazil nuts varies by a factor of 10 or more. That's how nutrition works in the real world.

Since you can't know what is in your food it's best to eat a low calorie diet packed with healthy, natural, nutritious foods and forget about it unless you run into problems.

However if you eat a modern diet on CR you might run into significant, nutritional deficiencies over time. Modern food tastes great, it's just not designed for human consumption.

Edited by DR01D, 17 March 2014 - 02:29 AM.

[Saffron]

Ive been calorie restricted due to a poor appetite from stresses & traumas. Glad it has a plus side.

Selenium is anti heavy-metal. It has high affinity for mercury & fairly high affinity for other toxic metals.

Edited by Saffron, 20 March 2014 - 05:29 PM.