Lifespan, Caloric Intake, and Weight on the frame
- Thread starter Tom Treutlein
- Start date
I
imported_dkm1987
Guest
Yea, so was I 
NOT
NOT
I
imported_dkm1987
Guest
A tad bit of a difference
OneMoreRep
New Member
Losing muscle mass and gaining fat should be your main concern... GAINING muscle mass is great
Crap, reading all this suddenly de-motivated me A LOT. I'm only 140lbs now, and I was just about to go on a hardcore bulking diet (at least 20x BW calories with my metabolism), but I don't want this to greatly shorten my life span . I also have a very small bone structure.
If all this is true, isn't it the corny 160lb fitness people that will have our asses in the end?
This really sucks...
. I also have a very small bone structure.If all this is true, isn't it the corny 160lb fitness people that will have our asses in the end?
This really sucks...
OneMoreRep
New Member
More muscle may tax your system. but the greatest problem in north america right now is that people are LAZY. and they EAT TOO MUCH CRAP!
Well, the way I figure it is that being more muscular and being in the search for more makes me happy. I live a better life when Im happy. Maybe loads of muscle is not ideal for an extremely long life span but neither are the people that eat enormous amounts of saturated fatty foods, smoke, etc. I will try to make the best out of my life while I still have it because I don't know how long it will be, and I do the best I can to live a healthy life through diet/exercise, no smoking or drugs. Having more muscle and less life doesn't cross my mind too much, but I also don't weigh 270#'s or anything. Some bodybuidlers or fitness enthusiast eat better than most americans anyway, so if having a little less life span comes with the territory then Im okay with that. I can't imagine it being a huge problem until the weight really climbs though.
I weigh 250 as of right now, 13% bodyfat. Cholesterol is good (160...63 HDL, ~97 LDL), blood pressure is good (110/70), resting heart rate good (62-64), no signs of insulin resistance, so seem healthy for the most part. My downfall is achy joints. I am 6'1" and have small bones (ankles, knees, wrists). My joints take a beating if I run too much or jump much at all. Can't play basketball without feeling like I was pulverized with a stick! So, while my blood work may come back saying being big is not affecting me, my joints are telling me otherwise. Does this mean I will try to lose weight....HECK NO!!!!
Regardless this is what the research says. You could further point out that you actually dying early from your size is either 100% or 0%. Life expectancy is a aggregate of many, many stats not just weight. Case study: How many 80 year old 250 pound people do you see?[b said:
I've been planing to do some research regarding caloric restriction(CR). I've come up with a hypothesis that the longevity effects of CR may in fact be an artifact of the methodolgy.
Essentially in CR studies, what is done is that the base rodent food pellets (rat chow) have a certain standardized percentage of calories from fat, protien, and a carbohydrate, and a specified amount of assorted vitamins and minerals (micronutrients). When a caloric retriction study is done, a rat chow with the same amount of micronutrients, but a reduced amount of fat, protient, or carb is created.
Now this seems reasonable, however, in my opinion it is actually a huge design flaw. What is actually happening is they are varying a number of variables, not just calories from the specified nutrient source, but of significant importance the volumentric micronutrient density. This is extremely important because micronutrient absorbtion is via surface area contact (ie the stomach and intestines), so the higher volumetric density should increase total micronutrient absorbtion.
Also of importance is that macronutrient absorption efficiency during caloric restriction is greatly improved, thus it seems far from clear to me that it is the caloric restriction that is responsible instead of being an artifact of improved micronutrition.
Now then, there have been micronutrient studies of longevity (many caloric restriction studies also have a group that has just a micronutrient change), but they've almost universally been just a single antioxidant.
The problem with this, is that if the longevity improvement is rate limited by different nutrients at different parts of the metabolism (which seems extremely likely), then single nutrient studys are going to only have limited effect.
I do recall a study that compared caloric restriction to unrestricted feeding on a 'mediteranean diet' which is a diet that is rich in a variety of micronutrients. The result as I recall was that the mediteranean diet was as effective in increasing longevity as the caloric restriction.
I have some experimental designs to examine my idea (ie replace the reduced caloric bulk with a digestively inert substance of equal bulk). But I haven't gotten around to doing it yet.
So right now, you should take the idea with a grain of salt, but realize that the CR hypothesis is by no means a fait accompli.
Tom M.
LetterRip
Essentially in CR studies, what is done is that the base rodent food pellets (rat chow) have a certain standardized percentage of calories from fat, protien, and a carbohydrate, and a specified amount of assorted vitamins and minerals (micronutrients). When a caloric retriction study is done, a rat chow with the same amount of micronutrients, but a reduced amount of fat, protient, or carb is created.
Now this seems reasonable, however, in my opinion it is actually a huge design flaw. What is actually happening is they are varying a number of variables, not just calories from the specified nutrient source, but of significant importance the volumentric micronutrient density. This is extremely important because micronutrient absorbtion is via surface area contact (ie the stomach and intestines), so the higher volumetric density should increase total micronutrient absorbtion.
Also of importance is that macronutrient absorption efficiency during caloric restriction is greatly improved, thus it seems far from clear to me that it is the caloric restriction that is responsible instead of being an artifact of improved micronutrition.
Now then, there have been micronutrient studies of longevity (many caloric restriction studies also have a group that has just a micronutrient change), but they've almost universally been just a single antioxidant.
The problem with this, is that if the longevity improvement is rate limited by different nutrients at different parts of the metabolism (which seems extremely likely), then single nutrient studys are going to only have limited effect.
I do recall a study that compared caloric restriction to unrestricted feeding on a 'mediteranean diet' which is a diet that is rich in a variety of micronutrients. The result as I recall was that the mediteranean diet was as effective in increasing longevity as the caloric restriction.
I have some experimental designs to examine my idea (ie replace the reduced caloric bulk with a digestively inert substance of equal bulk). But I haven't gotten around to doing it yet.
So right now, you should take the idea with a grain of salt, but realize that the CR hypothesis is by no means a fait accompli.
Tom M.
LetterRip
I think part of the problem is with eating large amounts of cooked foods, that is, cooked above 118 degrees. Cooking kills the enzymes in the food and the body then has to resort to using it's own limited supplies of enzymes to digest the food. I can't remember the Dr.'s name who initially did the studies though.
The idea is that when the enzymes run out, you expire.
The idea is that when the enzymes run out, you expire.
