More about Clarence Bass
2001-09-02 01:10 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
archershipsHaving an e-mail discussion with someone about Clarence Bass. Here's
part of my end of the conversation:
CRAN = Calorie Restriction with Adequate Nutrition
Correspondent suggested that Bass's high carbohydrate diet was not
optimal for weight loss, and had little scientific backing.
Thanks for the detailed response! I think that Bass's views are more
nuanced than you suggest. For example, he advocates always eating
some protein and fat with each meal to better achieve the satiety you
mention. He also recommends a "volumetric" diet, in which low-caloric
density foods (high in fiber and water) are substituted for
high-caloric density foods. Low-caloric density foods tend to contain
complex carbohydrates, hence his recommendation. Note, that he would
probably recommend avoiding a lot of pretzels or bagels (traditionally
considered "good" diet foods due to their low fat content) because of
their high energy density.
According to a nutritional analysis of his diet:
complex carbs 58% Protein 29% Fat 12% (Saturated 3%, Polyunsaturated
4%, monounsaturated 4%) simple sugar 1%. daily fiber intake: 58 grams
I also don't think that "...all of the empirical evidence seem to
contradict Bass's claims..." For example, he references Barbara
Rolls' work:
See also this paper:
That said, I agree with you that high-protein isocaloric diets may
also lead to weight loss. My principal concerns with a high protein
and/or high fat diet would be the 1) increased risk of heart disease
and cancer 2) increased risk of kidney disease 3) increased risk of
osteoporosis. For example, according to John McDougall
"....By the eighth decade of life people in affluent societies
commonly lose about 30 percent of their kidney function (J Gerentol
31:155, 1976). This loss is believed to be secondary to overwork of
the kidneys caused by the amount of protein typically consumed on the
American diet, 12% to 15% protein (N Engl J Med 307:652, 1982). The
Zone diet recommends 30% protein, and even more protein is found in
other high-protein diets. Low protein diets (4% to 8%) are used
routinely to treat patients with liver and kidney failure....."
See http://www.drmcdougall.com/debate.html for more information.
I'd love to any references you may have on the benefits of a high fat,
high protein diet.
I agree with you that much of Bass's success at keeping the weight off
is due in large part to his life-long vigorous exercise regimen (and I
think he would be the first to agree.) That said, I think that his
diet, though not restricted in the CRAN sense of the word (he eats
about 2500 kcal per day), is important to his long-term weight loss.
For example, he doesn't keep sweets/fats in the house, he eats at the
same time, he never skips a meal, and he only puts out what he plans
to eat. He measures his weight frequently (daily, if I recall
correctly) and cuts back on his food consumption if he notices his
weight increasing.
I also agree with you that CRAN (or CRON, if you prefer) is the most
well supported intervention to increase maximum lifespan. Clarence
Bass is interesting because, even though he doesn't practice CRAN, he
does extremely well on several biomarkers of aging. His scores on the
following measures matched those of a healthy 30 year-old:
muscle and skeletal health: bone density two standard deviations above
the norm, cardiovascular health: 99th percentile on treadmill test,
"huge" coronary arteries
I don't have information for these dimensions, but I'm betting he
would score well on these measures as well:
glucose regulation immune system endocrine system oxidative stress
brain function
Will he live as long as he would've on a CRAN diet? I don't know.
The number of individuals I've met who practice CRAN is quite small;
however, here's the list:
Roy Walford [other names deleted for privacy reasons]
All are quite intelligent, knowledgeable, and well-disciplined. From
what I know of their diets, they appear to eat an adequate amount of
vitamins and nutrients. However, all of these individuals are
extremely thin--at least one has taken to sitting on an inner tube,
because so much fat was gone from his buttocks that sitting became
painful. None has much muscle mass. Walford appeared frail and weak
when I last saw him two years ago--he had difficulty getting to a
standing position from a stool. (Of course, he might have been much
worse had he not been practicing CRAN).
Will the people I know on CRAN increase their maximum lifespan more
than Bass? Perhaps. The n is much too small to make anything but
educated guesses. However, I bet that Bass would do better on most
biomarkers than any of the CRAN-following individuals at comparable
ages.
> They probably aren't going to be > body builders, though -- but
> which would you rather have, a buff body or > an extra twenty years
> of healthy life?
I don't think that it's an either/or proposition. I think that a buff
body contributes to a longer, healthier life.
> I don't imagine the low-cal lab rats that lived 20% longer were the
> studliest lab rats either...
True, the rats on CRAN were smaller. However, the descriptions I've seen all mentioned their good health (clear eyes, clean, silky fur, high activity levels, high sexual response) compared to their cohorts. The people I know on CRAN don't appear to be much healthier relative to their cohorts. (Admittedly, most began CRAN late in life, so it may only have a subtle effect).
part of my end of the conversation:
CRAN = Calorie Restriction with Adequate Nutrition
Correspondent suggested that Bass's high carbohydrate diet was not
optimal for weight loss, and had little scientific backing.
Thanks for the detailed response! I think that Bass's views are more
nuanced than you suggest. For example, he advocates always eating
some protein and fat with each meal to better achieve the satiety you
mention. He also recommends a "volumetric" diet, in which low-caloric
density foods (high in fiber and water) are substituted for
high-caloric density foods. Low-caloric density foods tend to contain
complex carbohydrates, hence his recommendation. Note, that he would
probably recommend avoiding a lot of pretzels or bagels (traditionally
considered "good" diet foods due to their low fat content) because of
their high energy density.
According to a nutritional analysis of his diet:
complex carbs 58% Protein 29% Fat 12% (Saturated 3%, Polyunsaturated
4%, monounsaturated 4%) simple sugar 1%. daily fiber intake: 58 grams
I also don't think that "...all of the empirical evidence seem to
contradict Bass's claims..." For example, he references Barbara
Rolls' work:
Eur J Clin Nutr 1999 Apr;53:S166-S173
Intake of fat and carbohydrate: role of energy density. Rolls
BJ, Bell EA.
Nutrition Department, Pennsylvania State University, University
Park 16802, USA.
In this review, we consider two hypotheses which could explain
why high-fat foods are overeaten. The first hypothesis is that
fat is overeaten because it affects satiety and satiation less
than carbohydrate. In several studies which have evaluated the
effects of fat on satiety and satiation, fat differed little
from carbohydrate when both the palatability and energy density
of the test foods were matched. Therefore it is unlikely that
the effects of fat on satiety or satiation provide the primary
explanation for why it is overeaten. The second hypothesis is
that the high energy density of fat facilitates its
overconsumption. Support for this view comes from recent
studies in which energy density significantly influenced intake
when both the macronutrient content and palatability of the test
foods were matched. For example, when individuals were fed diets
varying in energy density and could eat as much food as they
liked, they ate the same amount of food (by weight) so energy
intake varied directly with energy density. Furthermore, when
participants consumed foods of low energy density, they felt
satisfied, despite reductions in energy intake. These findings
show that energy density is a key determinant of energy intake
in that cognitive, behavioral, and sensory cues related to the
volume or weight of food consumed can interact with or override
physiological cues associated with food intake.
J Am Diet Assoc 1998 Apr;98(4):408-413
See also this paper:
Persons successful at long-term weight loss and
maintenance continue to consume a low-energy, low-fat diet.
Shick SM, Wing RR, Klem ML, McGuire MT, Hill JO, Seagle H.
Department of Epidemiology, University of Pittsburgh School of
Medicine, PA 15213, USA.
OBJECTIVES: To describe the dietary intakes of persons who
successfully maintained weight loss and to determine if
differences exist between those who lost weight on their own vs
those who received assistance with weight loss (eg, participated
in a commercial or self-help program or were seen individually by
a dietitian). Intakes of selected nutrients were also compared
with data from the third National Health and Nutrition
Examination Survey (NHANES III) and the 1989 Recommended Dietary
Allowances (RDAs). SUBJECTS: Subjects were 355 women and 83 men,
aged 18 years or older, primarily white, who had maintained a
weight loss of at least 13.6 kg for at least 1 year, and were the
initial enrollees in the ongoing National Weight Control
Registry. On average, the participants had lost 30 kg and
maintained the weight loss for 5.1 years. METHODS: A
cross-sectional study in which subjects in the registry completed
demographic and weight history questionnaires as well as the
Health Habits and History Questionnaire developed by Block et
al. Subjects' dietary intake data were compared with that of
similarly aged men and women in the NHANES III cohort and to the
RDAs. Adequacy of the diet was assessed by comparing the intake
of selected nutrients (iron; calcium; and vitamins C, A, and E)
in subjects who lost weight on their own or with
assistance. RESULTS: Successful maintainers of weight loss
reported continued consumption of a low-energy and low-fat
diet. Women in the registry reported eating an average of 1,306
kcal/day (24.3% of energy from fat); men reported consuming 1,685
kcal (23.5% of energy from fat). Subjects in the registry
reported consuming less energy and a lower percentage of energy
from fat than NHANES III subjects did. Subjects who lost weight
on their own did not differ from those who lost weight with
assistance in regards to energy intake, percent of energy from
fat, or intake of selected nutrients (iron; calcium; and vitamins
C, A, and E). In addition, subjects who lost weight on their own
and those who lost weight with assistance met the RDAs for
calcium and vitamins C, A, and E for persons aged 25 years or
older. APPLICATIONS: Because continued consumption of a low-fat,
low-energy diet may be necessary for long-term weight control,
persons who have successfully lost weight should be encouraged to
maintain such a diet.
That said, I agree with you that high-protein isocaloric diets may
also lead to weight loss. My principal concerns with a high protein
and/or high fat diet would be the 1) increased risk of heart disease
and cancer 2) increased risk of kidney disease 3) increased risk of
osteoporosis. For example, according to John McDougall
"....By the eighth decade of life people in affluent societies
commonly lose about 30 percent of their kidney function (J Gerentol
31:155, 1976). This loss is believed to be secondary to overwork of
the kidneys caused by the amount of protein typically consumed on the
American diet, 12% to 15% protein (N Engl J Med 307:652, 1982). The
Zone diet recommends 30% protein, and even more protein is found in
other high-protein diets. Low protein diets (4% to 8%) are used
routinely to treat patients with liver and kidney failure....."
See http://www.drmcdougall.com/debate.html for more information.
I'd love to any references you may have on the benefits of a high fat,
high protein diet.
I agree with you that much of Bass's success at keeping the weight off
is due in large part to his life-long vigorous exercise regimen (and I
think he would be the first to agree.) That said, I think that his
diet, though not restricted in the CRAN sense of the word (he eats
about 2500 kcal per day), is important to his long-term weight loss.
For example, he doesn't keep sweets/fats in the house, he eats at the
same time, he never skips a meal, and he only puts out what he plans
to eat. He measures his weight frequently (daily, if I recall
correctly) and cuts back on his food consumption if he notices his
weight increasing.
I also agree with you that CRAN (or CRON, if you prefer) is the most
well supported intervention to increase maximum lifespan. Clarence
Bass is interesting because, even though he doesn't practice CRAN, he
does extremely well on several biomarkers of aging. His scores on the
following measures matched those of a healthy 30 year-old:
muscle and skeletal health: bone density two standard deviations above
the norm, cardiovascular health: 99th percentile on treadmill test,
"huge" coronary arteries
I don't have information for these dimensions, but I'm betting he
would score well on these measures as well:
glucose regulation immune system endocrine system oxidative stress
brain function
Will he live as long as he would've on a CRAN diet? I don't know.
The number of individuals I've met who practice CRAN is quite small;
however, here's the list:
Roy Walford [other names deleted for privacy reasons]
All are quite intelligent, knowledgeable, and well-disciplined. From
what I know of their diets, they appear to eat an adequate amount of
vitamins and nutrients. However, all of these individuals are
extremely thin--at least one has taken to sitting on an inner tube,
because so much fat was gone from his buttocks that sitting became
painful. None has much muscle mass. Walford appeared frail and weak
when I last saw him two years ago--he had difficulty getting to a
standing position from a stool. (Of course, he might have been much
worse had he not been practicing CRAN).
Will the people I know on CRAN increase their maximum lifespan more
than Bass? Perhaps. The n is much too small to make anything but
educated guesses. However, I bet that Bass would do better on most
biomarkers than any of the CRAN-following individuals at comparable
ages.
> They probably aren't going to be > body builders, though -- but
> which would you rather have, a buff body or > an extra twenty years
> of healthy life?
I don't think that it's an either/or proposition. I think that a buff
body contributes to a longer, healthier life.
> I don't imagine the low-cal lab rats that lived 20% longer were the
> studliest lab rats either...
True, the rats on CRAN were smaller. However, the descriptions I've seen all mentioned their good health (clear eyes, clean, silky fur, high activity levels, high sexual response) compared to their cohorts. The people I know on CRAN don't appear to be much healthier relative to their cohorts. (Admittedly, most began CRAN late in life, so it may only have a subtle effect).