WY from your pics you are in the range. As are most of the people here. The rest are on their way.

arugula Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> WY from your pics you are in the range. As are
> most of the people here. The rest are on their
> way.
Sorry about that pic at 'Pictures of You'. I
feel better than I look. I don't know what came over me to
post it.
I just computed my BMI to be 18.9. Here's an easy converter....WY

[www.nhlbisupport.com]

:veggiefreak:
You wrote:

Quote

Does she talk about fasting vs dry fasting in depthly - giving reasons as to why we "shouldn't" consume water during the fast?

and:

Quote

Posted by: cy (IP Logged)
Date: March 19, 2008 11:02PM

I did 37 hours dry fasting Sunday 2 pm through Tuesday 7 am and that was wonderful!!!I was great and I was thinking on continuing,but...I decided to wait a bit for the next time.I'll do 3 days dry fasting the next time.This is the fasting for me.I could never do more than 3 days water fasting,and I was always hungry,nervous...but dry fasting is for me.I've never felt so good in my life,so calm,so in peace,I didn't have hunger nor thirsty.I'm looking forward to do my 3 days,and my 7 day also dry fasting,and maybe in the future 14 day dry fasting (though 14 days would be with an expert in it)

Those two give a couple of clues as to why not drinking may be of some benefit to people doing it.

My thoughts on material: water/any liquid that we put in/ingest causes our stomach/ some digestive processes to be started/fired on.
When our stomach senses ANY foreign objects in water it triggers some digestive/neutralizing processes.. Like: releasing leukocytes to kill any bacteria/virus/parasites..in WATER..

So constipated, or maladjusted stomaches, may still be releasing/reacting with wrong amounts of digestive acids to the real needs, because it got learned throughout many years having to ALWAYS Deal with concentrated proteins, fats, complex, cooked Carbs, in wrong amounts, quantity, quality, and combination..

When those acids are released in to great amount, as for the needs(of digesting any "proteins- microscopic pieces of bacterias.." found in water..
Water leaves stomach, and to much acid is left wanting to digest/being ready for what it got used to digesting throughout the years, causing over acidification of stomach, depleting our bones/teeth of calcium needed to neutralize stomach acids, nervousness, stomach pains, and increased need to drink water.

It has been already noted, that dry fast can be very dangerous for someone "not clean enough...".

But, i can imagine, especially after some experiences of my own, that dry fast does calm your stomach, nerves, and several other factors.
yet the same goal/effect, result, can be achieved without of dangers of "being not clean enough" by adjusting those "OTHER factors" FIRST, and therefore achieving PEACE of stomach in a SAFER WAY.

Certainly many of us had done many programs/trials, and Dry fast may be best / as to characters of those of us choosing to experiment with it.

I am sure many of us can and will use it as a tool to learn something important.

As to my opinion on "fast metabolism", "Aging"..
sometimes opposite conditions can create/seem to appear as one symptom..
yet often it is just a different name for already existing conditions/prerequisites of certain symptoms.

"fast metabolism", or loosing weight too quickly CAN BE "Stooped", or "regulated", THROUGH a discipline of "dry fast".
At such event NO Mistake can be made of eating wrong food, at the wrong time, at a wrong order, with wrong ingredients.

IF stress of making mistakes is greater then stress of eating wrong combination of foods, than first one may be/is, even more exhausting, and destroying, than eating the wrong combination and being peaceful about it, and relaxed.,

Stress causes so many negative conditions, and symptoms, and physical, and chemical reactions in our body, that if one would know all that beforehand, than no dry fast would be needed.

I Believe it is as a tool :GREAT, but as a way of achieving Balance just by using it 100%, may be good/healthy for a very few..Conscious People.

I think taking risk, is not a way to decrease stress in our life/ is not a way of achieving peace.

It's like trying to get a sun tan in 1 week, as a way to make up 6 , or 4 months of winter "lack of sunshine/ and deficiency of D Vitamin..
chance is You may get burn, instead of bringing Vitamin D to a proper levels.
possibly when burned, one will have to wait several weeks more before burned skin will stop hurting.. prolonging ones body, "time of Vitamin D/sunlight/tan 'deficiency'"

Finding most limiting factor and removing it from our "perfect Health" program, we're trying to find out for ourselves , is possibly the BEST Solution and quickest route to achieve balance, though it may not seem like it at first sight.

Certainly it is a way to experience Peace, as i Found it , just so after my 36 hour dry fast.. i noticed, that i could achieve same peace if i make a couple of fine tunings as to time, and type of food to eat, or rather time and how does MY BODY SIGNAL its' needs of.. Rest, or physical activity, and that i by mistake(of living to fast) used to give it more food, thinking it was hungry.

So, in a beautiful simplicity Raw Gosia Got it" ;> .. By saying:

Quote

Calorie restriction is just another name for not-overeating, and dry-fasting for drinking-when-you're-thirsty.
Gosia

I'd add to Dry-Fast not only drinking, but also eating.
It is a ART Of Not eating, when you Shouldn't, and drinking when you want to.
C.R. seems to be a natural "part" of a Dry Fast.. :-)

For Healthy people it may provide to be a exacting tool.., difficult and very dangerous to operate, but rewarding with knowledge of our true needs, and time to meditate, and get "in tune" with our true needs/ way to learn/ a language of our body/ reset wrong patterns, or maybe rather stop them for that short time.. to experience of what, and how can We FEEL IF We take care and communicate well with our bodies, selfs/ needs.

Possibly we may not know ALL ABOUT stopping digestive processes, and of how does it affect the aging processes in OUR BODY, with its' conditions",
But correcting mistakes, adjusting diet, that You will be following everyday, seems to be more practical, than going to "extreme" of dry fasting at a special place, with a special qualifies people..

I think it's just like one of the forums thread questions: raw bread / or cooked potato..?
.. it's the question of what is closer to nature..
what are You more likely to find in a wilderness.. baked potato after a fire/ or a condensed amounts of grains after: flood, and then fire/ or possibly lightning.. so as to imagine conditions at which "bread" in nature could be wondered upon, like it is possible to stumble over "burned/baked" potato.. ;-)

..makes sense? :-)

..correcting mistake is always easier, and less disturbing/ easier to implement in one's life, than completely stopping, and then starting from scratch, on unknown ground, where You DO Need energy to achieve Your Goals.

To Me "label/name" of "Calorie Restriction",
and the idea of how it sounds seems to be:
Adjust Your activities down to what the diet can give you(energy wise)..
instead, adjust Your Diet/resting patterns, to Your goals, dreams, needs/ so they will support you best in achieving YOUR Goals.

not possibilities that are left off for you by diet..

"food" is something i do between one place and the other, NOT the other way around:
Food being reason from going from place to place so i can eat and think about it all day.

Free, Open source.Healthy
F.E.A.R. is
an acronym that stands for, False Evidence Appearing Real
F.A.I.T.H. - the First Attribute IN Thoughtful
Health

rost0037 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yes, many CRON people eat processed foods like
> Quorn and whey protein, neither of which is vegan
> nor seem particularly healthy to me. But they have
> a lot of good ideas still--we can take what works
> and ignore what doesn't.
>
> This CR guy is high-raw and vegan, he eats pretty
> much the same thing at every meal and says it has
> simplified his life a lot, pretty interesting.
> [deanpomerleau.tripod.com]
> iet/meal.htm

did you see what this guy eats? holy mac daddy, that's so much food! geez. he says he spends about $30 a day, that's $900 a month on food! wow, there are three of us in this house. i better get a fantastic paying job when i go back to work man. lordy.

Yeah, coco. That's what it takes do to it really well. About $30/day for one person.

That's for rich people.

well, what the heck are the rest of us supposed to eat than? don't tell me it's steamed rice... geez.

tanawana Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> With Calorie Restriction, how do you decide how
> much is too little or not enough??

WY wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
Throw the Charts out the window.I'd say
go by how you look and feel. A Positive
frame-of-mind goes a long way. Expect your Body to become
naturally Toned as you lose (or gain) weight. Stretching
Exercises help. CR slows the metabolism, and the Body will
become more efficient on less. That's the promise anyway......WY


Don't worry, been doing this for over a decade. Charts are long gone, Lol. I'm more concerned for the new at this and their ability to truly listen or be aware of their needs. I feel it takes years to achieve this myself :O)

Well, a couple of things he's doing that strike me as exceptional:

-lots of variety, every single day, at least 40 different plants
-every vitamin and mineral, every essential amino and fatty acid is met and then some with perfect proportions
-lots of calories from greens

There is a down side, too, aside from expense. This is not an environmentally friendly diet as he is not taking advantage of or emphasizing seasonal and local foods. But from a purely health standpoint, it's hard to beat.

arugula Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> But from a purely health standpoint, it's hard to beat.
Could you provide us with a Link? I couldn't get
in with the Tripod one. I'm sure many here would be interested
in his Diet.....WY

It didn't work for me just now--if you google his name and "CR" you should find his website, with clear links to his standard diet.

rost0037 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> if you google his name and "CR" you should find his website,
> with clear links to his standard diet.
Thanks....that did it....WY
[deanpomerleau.tripod.com]

The Fruitarian One Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I usually go about 48 hrs without eating/drinking,
> I'll probaly only eat about 3 times in the
> week...I workout and do my normal duties just
> fine....

Are you serious? How much do you eat in one meal?

Arugula, can you send me the paper you were talking about? Thanks!

Greenpower

Visit my website and my blog!

[www.natureshealingsecrets.com] (closed on Sundays)

The paper is here, free.

[content.nejm.org]

but you might have to register to view it.

abstract:
N Engl J Med. 1995 Sep 14;333(11):677-85.

Body weight and mortality among women.
Manson JE, Willett WC, Stampfer MJ, Colditz GA, Hunter DJ, Hankinson SE, Hennekens CH, Speizer FE.

Channing Laboratory, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.

BACKGROUND. The relation between body weight and overall mortality remains controversial despite considerable investigation. METHODS. We examined the association between body-mass index (defined as the weight in kilograms divided by the square of the height in meters) and both overall mortality and mortality from specific causes in a cohort of 115,195 U.S. women enrolled in the prospective Nurses' Health Study. These women were 30 to 55 years of age and free of known cardiovascular disease and cancer in 1976. During 16 years of follow-up, we documented 4726 deaths, of which 881 were from cardiovascular disease, 2586 from cancer, and 1259 from other causes. RESULTS. In analyses adjusted only for age, we observed a J-shaped relation between body-mass index and overall mortality. When women who had never smoked were examined separately, no increase in risk was observed among the leaner women, and a more direct relation between weight and mortality emerged (P for trend < 0.001). In multivariate analyses of women who had never smoked and had recently had stable weight, in which the first four years of follow-up were excluded, the relative risks of death from all causes for increasing categories of body-mass index were as follows: body-mass index < 19.0 (the reference category), relative risk = 1.0; 19.0 to 21.9, relative risk = 1.2; 22.0 to 24.9, relative risk = 1.2; 25.0 to 26.9, relative risk = 1.3; 27.0 to 28.9, relative risk = 1.6; 29.0 to 31.9, relative risk = 2.1; and > or = 32.0, relative risk = 2.2 (P for trend < 0.001). Among women with a body-mass index of 32.0 or higher who had never smoked, the relative risk of death from cardiovascular disease was 4.1 (95 percent confidence interval, 2.1 to 7.7), and that of death from cancer was 2.1 (95 percent confidence interval, 1.4 to 3.2), as compared with the risk among women with a body-mass index below 19.0. A weight gain of 10 kg (22 lb) or more since the age of 18 was associated with increased mortality in middle adulthood. CONCLUSIONS. Body weight and mortality from all causes were directly related among these middle-aged women. Lean women did not have excess mortality. The lowest mortality rate was observed among women who weighed at least 15 percent less than the U.S. average for women of similar age and among those whose weight had been stable since early adulthood.

PMID: 7637744 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

so its really 18.5 to 24.9, which is considered "normal weight" in the BMI calc. there must be a point of diminishing returns. would CR result in underweight (below 18.5) or just the low end of normal weight? the only person i know who was on a long term purposeful CR diet was a very fit elderly man, and he did not appear to be underweight, just on the low side of normal if i had to guess.

If you read the paper you can see among women who never smoked the curve is completely flat to bmi 21.9, then it slopes gently up to 25, then the slope changes more steeply at 25 and up. But that's assigning a risk of 1.0 to bmi 19 or lower and not distinguishing among what happens below 19.

There's probably an added advantage among healthy people who don't smoke and eat nutritious diets to have a slightly lower bmi, they aren't really sure where the cutoff should be but it's probably in the 18.5 range.

Below that there might be slight longevity advantage but they think the bones have diameters too small and are more likely to break under a given stressful load.

This might be picking nits. Nobody really knows how good to be much skinner regarding life extension. We aren't going to see the same dramatic extensions in lifespan that other mammals like rodents do with 40% calorie restriction because our basal metabolic rate contributes much more to our total energy needs than a mouse's. A mouse devotes more energy to reproduction, temperature regulation, and growth than we do, i.e. there is more room for "adjustments" that make big changes in total energy expenditures in the mouse than the human. And this is why we might not have as much to gain in life extension as a mouse does when we cut our calories back drastically. But we don't really know the real reasons. These are just educated guesses. There have been some naysay papers in the last few years. They are worth reading, even for those who are not skeptical.

Even if there aren't extensive gains in lifespan and much slower aging, it's still something to consider because it lowers the risks for many dreadful diseases: cancers, type II diabetes, CHD, etc. That is if you can live with the look and the slight bones.

Some of the serious cr people are betting their lives on advantages of lower bmis, say 17 or so. But I don't think it's worth going haywire over. At 18.5 I get a comments all the time. I think if I were 19.5 nobody would make a peep.

right. i guess i found it interesting that between 19 and 24.5 there was no increased risk. that's basically the healthy BMI spread (actually 18.5-24.5), and its a pretty big range, comparatively. i thought the risks would be more pronounced on the upper end, even within the healthy range. i guess that shows WHY the healthy BMI is set where it is, eh?

Well, and they have to have ranges. I would be very overweight at 24.5 (over 138 pounds and 5'3"--I've been 130 and it's not a healthy weight for me), no matter what they say or how much muscle I put on (I'd have to go on steroids to gain that much muscle!). I have a small frame (my wrist circumference to height puts me here);
someone with a bigger frame might be great there.

Would you say those electronic fat-to-muscle ratio things are more or less indicative of health than BMI?

Interestingly, on my first month of raw I went from a BMI of @19 to 16.1... and in two more months, I'm at 17.7. I'm definitely mutating... and packing nothing but goodness back on! >8)