Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I'm certainly trying to! I'm finding that the Body Cardio doesn't reliably capture my heart rate or PWV. Hopefully I'll have more data soon...
  2. Starlight

    Plants: Eusocial Ferns; Are they "sentient"?

    Neither am I aware of any such study or suggestions (from scientists)! Thanks for your response 🙂
  3. Starlight

    Plants: Eusocial Ferns; Are they "sentient"?

    The article doesn't at all seem to suggest or imply plant sentience: "An assumed requirement for eusocial colonial living is behavioral coordination, because it allows different individuals to work together. But ferns are plants, not animals, which so often coordinate their behaviors. Seeing eusocial living in plants “seems to indicate to me that this type of transition in the evolution of complexity doesn’t require a brain,” Burns says." They've found a fascinating example of plants coordinating behaviors, which shouldn't be very surprising given that plants are living things. Human and nonhuman animals have physiological characteristics, as well as emotional lives, that make the experience of being wounded or killed different than the experience a plant may undergo. I find it troubling when people assert that being vegan is foolish because we eat plants (living things) or because, when we harvest plants, we may inadvertently harm some animals. Veganism seeks to do the least harm. If you kill an animal to consume their body you are certain of the harm you are doing unto that animal. When you eat a plant - having endeavored not to harm the land and community with your farming practices, and not to inadvertently harm animals during harvest - you are preventing, insofar as you are able, harm to others. We can employ this same logic when we buy food from the store or from local farmers; we can be discerning and thoughtful about our consumption. Your argument, Saul, if indeed you are serious, is akin to people throwing up their hands and saying, "there's no ethical consumption under Capitalism" and thereby excusing themselves from any responsibility for their own actions. This point of view is illogical and unkind. Just because it is difficult to act ethically in a marketplace not of our own making does not mean that we are excused from trying to make the best, and most ethically sound, decisions possible given the information and choices available to us.
  4. Starlight


    Thank you!
  5. Starlight


    Hi Ron, would you be able to share a screenshot of a typical day of meals? I'm vegan and am doing pretty well meeting most targets but definitely don't get 100% RDAs of everything all of the time. I usually come up as low in vitamins D, E, some B vitamins (though I do use a vitamin B supplement to compensate), and various minerals. I also use a vitamin D supplement occasionally, or get appropriate sun exposure. Just looking for some new ideas!
  6. Starlight

    Any good salad dressing recipes?

    I love this salad dressing! A little goes a long way. I use it sparingly, along with the juice from a lime
  7. Starlight


    Without supplementation, do people here typically meet most all micro and macro RDAs in Cronometer?
  8. Starlight

    Mailing List?

    Hi everyone, Is there still an active mailing list? Is it only for paying members? If not, how can I be added/add myself to the list? Thanks!
  9. Awesome, thank you! Ah, perhaps what I should have said is "maintaining an amount of muscle mass that is commensurate with an active lifestyle AND the lower BMI one achieves through CR". Since as you say any bulking up would necessarily entail additional calories
  10. I have been curious about this, too. Thank you for the threads, Dean! Would it be fair to summarize the point you were making therein, with regard to 'net vs 'absolute' calories, as being that the CR response is triggered when there is a calorie shortfall relative to an organism's caloric needs, and that caloric needs increase with physical activity? And so even if you consume a greater number of calories when exercising (and gaining muscle) than you would at rest, the needs of the body have increased alongside the increase in physical activity, and if you increase calorie intake (though not in excess of the requirement brought on by the activity) the CR response would persist? I am curious to know more about the lower body temperature element of CR, that was also mentioned in the thread that Dean posted... If the CR response is triggered by a calorie shortfall, why is being exposed to lower temperatures so important? Is it simply because organisms are more active in response to the cold and expend more calories as a result. I'm sure the information is all here somewhere, I just haven't come across the explanation yet - there's a lot of content to review! 🙂
  11. Starlight

    Puzzling over approach and calorie paramaters

    Hi everyone, thank you for the responses and the welcome! I'll certainly continue to read through the forum posts, and check out the links you've shared.
  12. I'm new to CRON and a few questions have come up as I've been orienting myself to this different way of thinking about calories and nutrition. I'm hoping some of you practiced people could help me get my bearings. So, a few things: 1. According to the general guidelines out there, "normal" calorie intake for me would be around 2000/day (moderately active). A suggestion I saw online somewhere was that for CR you should reduce your calories by 1/4 to 1/3, so that would put me at 1500/day to 1333/day 2. On the site here it says that you take your "baseline" weight, which for me is about 160 lbs, and you reduce calories to support a weight that is 15% below that, which for me would be 136lbs 3 Using Cronometer, I set my starting weight (166lbs) and my goal weight (136 lbs) and today my recommended intake is 1603 calories. If I go down in weight, Cronometer suggests a lower number of calories, which in my mind makes sense because as the days go on I'll be slowly restricting calories more, and my weight will be less as a result and therefor closer to the "goal" weight that is 15% below my baseline weight. What confuses me is that if I mess around with Cronometer and set my weight as 136 and say to maintain that weight it gives me a 1600 calorie budget... which is higher than the 1333-1500 calories per day range that I mentioned above. Can anyone offer an explanation as to why? It seems odd to me that I might go through the process of slowly restricting my calories (and losing weight gradually) only to then jump back up to a higher, less restricted number of calories. Should I forget about the weight factor all together and just restrict my calories slowly (I'm more comfortable with a gradual change) and when I reach lets say 1400 calories just stick there? For what it's worth, I think I would have to get down to 130 lbs before my BMI was low enough for concern. Please note: I am not interested in CRON because of the weight loss aspect and do not therefor have a goal of being any particular weight. I recognize, however, that CR will entail some weight loss and am trying to take that into consideration to make sure that it happens gradually and that I'm understanding and considering the whole process. I'd love any helpful comments on the information I've given here, guidelines/ranges for CR that are sensible (and especially let me know if the above guidelines are not sensible!), to hear how have other's gone about transitioning to CR