From: Harvey Newstrom (mail@HarveyNewstrom.com)
Date: Sat Apr 19 2003 - 17:22:51 MDT
Robert J. Bradbury wrote,
> On Sat, 19 Apr 2003, Harvey Newstrom wrote:
> > Calorie restriction may be the healthiest diet until you
> > cut back too far. Instead of radical elimination of a single
> > macro-nutrient, I prefer moderate levels of carbs, fats and
> proteins,
> > choosing the healthiest versions of each and avoiding the
> unhealthy versions
> > of each. This seems more reasonable in all areas and less
> radical or
> > experimental in any one particular area.
>
> I agree with almost everything Harvey said [esp. that which I snipped]
> but would comment on the above segment.
>
> The problem with this is that you end up dead, dead, dead.
There may be some confusion here due to my poor wording. I was arguing
*for* calorie restriction. I really meant that the healthiest diet seems to
be calorie restriction, cutting back as far as possible. It gets healthier
and healthier until you cut back too far and suddenly die. That is, the
least number of calories we can eat while staying alive is the best. I said
"may" because it is experimental and not completely proven, but it does seem
pretty persuasive to me.
What I was calling "radical or experimental" was not CR, but diets that
eliminate an entire food group (such as carbs or fats) and completely
changes the body chemistry. For example, the Atkins diet eliminates all
carbs but then proponents claim you can eat all the fats and protein you
want. This violates CR and PR, and may reduce longevity in the long run.
While I applaud cutting down on bad carbs, I cringe at eating a lot of bad
fats. My point was that we should try to restrict all calories across the
board and not focus on just eliminating one group. When I described my
personal diet, it was not meant to say it was best. I was confessing that I
am only moderately restricting calories compared to more extreme measures
that might be too difficult for me (especially on the road all the time).
> So -- one needs to make decisions as to whether one wants to
> believe the "theories" and act on them. If one waits for the
> "proof" it may arrive too late.
This was not my intent here. Although I am paranoid about my health, and
don't take what I consider to be unnecessary chances, I am experimenting
with myself without waiting for definitive proof. I think I have enough
evidence for my needs. I am a vegetarian (as an easy means to avoid
cholesterol, avoid saturated fats, reduce total fats, reduce complete
proteins, increase incomplete proteins, increase fiber, increase
antioxidants, increase phytochemicals, etc.). I take high doses of
life-extension nutrients and antioxidants. I take a few non-nutrient
chemicals that I think help.
-- Harvey Newstrom, CISSP, IAM, GSEC <www.HarveyNewstrom.com>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Apr 19 2003 - 17:31:50 MDT