I still don't understand, can someone please help me here.
Maybe I am slow. I don't know. Let's just say if I eat 5000 calories a day (on average) mostly from raw fruits (with the additional or leaves, nuts etc.), but use only 2500 calories throughout the day, wouldn't that mean I gained 2500 calories? First where does the extra calories go and second doesn't that extra calories turn into fat?
I am confused. Thank you.
Permalink Reply by Adam on Hey Pk
Once again, I just don't think you have read my posts. My issue wasn't that you didn't provide references. This is a forum not a place to write articles so I don't expect references from posters. But accuracy is important. And what you said were not just typos. You have repeatedly said the same thing on every post on this subject recently. And it is not just a little bit inaccurate. It is completely misunderstood and inaccurate. This isn't about keeping language simple. The reason I try to keep information on point and accurate is precisely for the reason you are mentioned - lots of people come to this forum with varying levels of knowledge. My concern is that you are throwing around technical terms which attempt to sound like you know what you are talking about but the poitns you are making are incorrect.
You keep posting references but the references don't support your points. You aren't getting the fact that some of the key things you are saying are partially inaccurate in the way you have understood them.
As I said, I think that it is great to offer simple explanations to people. But simplicity isn't the same as wrong. If you want simplicity avoid technical physiology/nutrition terms that you don't understand. This will prevent inaccuracies. Keep points vague and simple for general understanding and this will appease some people. My concern is that you are not understanding what I am saying and keep on promoting the same thing (ie. about the nutritional composition of fruits and starches, the way they are metabolised, and the functions of key hormones vs enzymes in the body), with the general summary that starches are causing problems for people as a necessary and causal relationship, with isn't factually accurate, because you are looking at correlation and ignoring other causative factors.
Again, I appreciate we all have strengths and weaknesses. My post wasnt intended to say you shouldnt post, or that your posts are not appreciated. You should and they are. This was intended to help you. There is an expectation that on a forum most people will not have high levels of knowledge. That includes the forum moderators. That is ok. Forums are about mutual learning so it is ok to be willing to share learning. And to be humble - acknowledging when there are gaps in our learning and being diligent and commited to paying attention from those, no matter who we are in the forum, and makjing a conscientious effort to ensure we offer the most factually accurate information possible.
Once again, I have no issue with not making things personal. Making things personal means it is about you as a person, not about you something that you say, believe or do. It is about core person, not behaviour (ie. focusing on something as though it cannot be changed, rather than something that is easily changable). This isn't about you as a person. It is about the information you are sharing and your understanding about certain topics.
If you re-read my post you will see that it isn't personal at all, It is on point and on topic, directly challenging points that you have misunderstood. Similarly, my response to peters post was not personal, it was about what he said and was on point and on topic. It was just very challenging and clearly ruffled some feathers because it challenges fundamental and erroneous beliefs and practices by this forums moderators.
If you think this forum will be better off without my contributions and challenges, if you don't like seeking the truth, questioning beliefs and believe that you all have perfect knowledge then I will happily leave. I am here for mutual learning, and humility (ie. the capacity to acknowledge our own strengths and areas for development, and the capacity to suspend our own pride in order to prioritise truth) is a prerequisite to learning. If you are too scared to admit you are wrong, or you don't understand something, then you cannot learn.
This movement will fail if we attempt to bury our heads in the sand and perpetuate factually inaccurate information and ignore things that are important. I am trying to help, but I don't think the forum moderators and some key members refuse to interpret my challenges about this issue that seems to come up every few months, as helpful. Because there is a refusal to question beliefs. I believe such a movement will be not only doomed but also dangerous.
As herbert shelton always said "let us have the truth, though the heavens may fall."
Take care
Adam x
Take care
Adam x
Permalink Reply by PK on @Adam,
At this point, I agree to disagree. I continue to maintain my views that starch based diets can cause blood sugar, insulin problems, and weight gain in some sensitive individuals. Now that does not mean everyone will have problems. Just like not everyone who eats meat gets cancer. But the risks are increased.
And for people who are eating grains and starches and are having issues such as blood sugar imbalances, insulin issues, weight gain, hyper and hypoglycemia, Celiac, Crohns, ulcerative colitis, arthritis, inabilities to heal from degenerative conditions and cancer, brain disorders, skin disorders, and other toxic and chronic detoxing symptoms, I will continue to discourage the consumption of starches, grains, beans, and tubers.
This is my belief based on experience and research, and this is 30BaD policy.
There are many reasons for this, and I have some blog posts coming up the pipeline, but more research and refining is needed.
Peace, PK
Permalink Reply by Adam on Hey PK
Grains are not the same as starches. I completely agree with your concerns about grains for people with inflammatory disorders and digestive disorders. I don't think grains are an ideal food. I am also not that mad about most pulses and white potatoes either. But for people with no digestive or other health concerns, they may be well tolerated. But blood sugar isn't the real issue unless they are eating a high fat/protein diet. You really need to review your understanding - you are maintaining a belief rigidly based on misunderstanding of blood sugar metabolism. These are classic errors made by paleo authors, which you seem to have adopted (despite still believing in high carb diets for fruit).
You can come to certain conclusions ok, but if your understanding of these conclusions is based in factual inaccuracies then you are just perpetuating myth and misinformation. In which case you are doing your blog readers a disservice.
As with the saying "it isn't what you eat, it is what you are able to eat, digest, absorb and assimilate that determines who you are" the same is true of research as a form of nutrition - you need to make sure that you are interpreting the research accurately.
I don't have an issue with people having concerns about starch, and preferring fruit over starch. I just think that the rationale should be factual and accurate if one is going to pass on these concerns to others. There is too much misinformation already in the nutrition world without more people adding to it. We need facts, not fiction.
Again, this isn't me being critical of you, I am trying to help you improve your understanding so that you can enhance your ability to pass on accurate information, as well as make sense of things for yourself.
Take care
Adam x
Permalink Reply by PK on @Adam,
Except in a possible few places that might have been typos, I usually say starches, grains, beans, and tubers. I am not intentionally saying they are the same thing. Or I say starches and grains.
However, for your peace of mind, I will ensure in the future to differentiate between the two. Perhaps write a paragraph describing the starch problem, and a paragraph describing the grain problem. Even in this discussion with you I am saying grains and starches.
************
Now regarding modern nutritional food fights. In modern medicine and nutrition, people are only given two points of view or two choices.
The Atkins crowd and the Paleo crowd say eat meat avoid wheat, grains, and starches. They have science to back up their claims, and much of it does check out. Their science can be used as a reference, especially for individuals who are sensitive such as Celiacs.
Then you have the wheat, grain, and starch crowd who say eat no meat. And there science too checks out in many cases.
But very few people in the nutrition world focus on the the third food group:
Produce!
A produce based diet even cooked may be a healthier option than the "eat no meat" or "eat no wheat" .
There is very little research promoting the third food group produce and or being fruitarian.
That leaves us with a conundrum. Many of the references I use and have to use are either from the wheat or meat crowds. Sometimes even the medlineplus and or pubmed articles and research are biased towards wheat and meat.
So, it may be time for a new breed of researchers to help separate the wheat from the chaff and show people they have more options, tastier options sometimes, and perhaps healthier options.
Right now, outside of some outdated Natural Hygiene literature, the only two source that come close to promoting the produce and fruit based diet are Dr. Graham in his 811 book and the books written by Ross Horne:
HEALTH & SURVIVAL IN THE 21st CENTURY
So for now, I may continue to use some references not 100% within our guidelines if they contain some valuable science. Indeed, you may have noticed in many cases I put disclaimers too like this author promotes eating meat but....
Peace, PK
Permalink Reply by DURIANRIDER on Bottom line.
Adam,as I'm in the middle of a nursing degree and we have a huge focus on anatomy and physiology, I say "well done!" For me, that was clarity in all of the right places and I applaud you. Less heresay, more science!
Permalink Reply by Peter Csere on Michael, define "use." Are you adding up all your exercise/activity and coming up with 2500? There is something called BMR and it is the amount you need to think, breathe, digest, etc. And then you add on typing, walking around the house, preparing breakfast, eating, running or lifting weights, and the other stuff we'd consider "exercise." You also add on 500 for debt stress, family stress, etc, 1000 if you have a young kid and more if breastfeeding, and 500-1000 extra if you are having your period.
You are basing your thoughts on the "calories in/calories out" model of weight loss, based on that Sparkpeople link you gave. Seeing the number of people consuming 3000-4000 calories for years and not gaining a pound, I'd suggest you rethink this model.
The fat you eat is the fat you wear. The carbs you eat are a different story. A study recently posted to this forum had a group of people who were in forced ketosis for a week or so, then were over-fed carbs for a period. They had to be overfed by ~3600 calories past their "overfeeding" limit and they gained about 2 pounds after a couple weeks. This was in the 6,000-8,000 calorie range. Dietary thermogenesis is the main reason. So you can wear carbs but good luck eating enough to do that.
Some people do gain weight initially on this diet, and it's not from "too many calories" - unless it's a 110 pound girl eating 7,000 calories a day. Like that ever happens. I wish. Then I could actually tell someone they need to eat less fruit. The main reason for this is that they were previously in ketosis from either anorexia, forced calorie restriction to lose weight, or a low-carb diet such as Atkins or Paleo. The body will store anything it gets as fat after a starvation period. Drastically changing your CPF ratio from one extreme to the other, along with drastically changing your caloric intake, can have drastic effects on metabolism, such as weight gain, and these effects can last for months. However, there are absolutely no long-term 100% 811 HCRVers who are overweight/gaining weight. There are people who undereat for months, fall on and off the wagon binging on fat and salt, and then start websites like 30bananasadaysucks.com claiming "I was 100% 811 for X months and gained weight!" Then you look at their posts from months ago and see that they were constantly struggling to follow the basic guidelines. The starve-binge cycle is a great way to gain fat. If you want to gain lots of fat and blame it on this diet, go back and forth between 8000 cal days of fried tofu + coconut milk ice cream and 1500 cal days of bananas and grapes. You'll gain lots of fat that way.
Permalink Reply by Kenny F on Those numbers are not realistic, 5000 calories of raw fruits and vegetables is very large amount of food.
Fruits ~300Cals/lbs and Veggies ~100Cals/lbs at about 80% of the calories from fruits means you would eat over 23/lbs of food.
The good thing about this lifestyle is that the food is very bulky (mostly fiber and water by volume), and your body just would not have the appetite to eat more than you use.
Even on days that I do 2 hours of cardio (burns an extra 1400 calories for me) I still have trouble getting to 3000 calories and if it wasn’t for Dates I would never reach 3000.
So the day to day calorie deficit/surplus delta is going to be a small amount and will even itself out over time... at least that’s the experience I’m having.
I'm also assuming that you are exercising regularly and getting all your nutritional needs.
Permalink Reply by DURIANRIDER on How on earth you gonna eat 5000cals a day from fruit and veg if you don't need it?
Thats like sleeping when you don't need to sleep or pizz'n when you don't need to pizzle. Can't be done. If you need to eat, you need to eat. Ever seen a fat spider, fish or mouse? Exactly. They eat unlimited cals of their natural foods. Natural human foods are self limiting as they don't contain the msg, salt, adrenaline etc.
Go to a hotel that has a fruit buffet and look how many cals people eat from fruit vs the other stuff. Give a child a 1000 block o chocolate vs a 1000cal banana smoothy. Guess which one they will get thru easier?
Thats why you can literally sit on your rump and guzzle fruit smoothies and never get fat. Sure you will get sloppy from lack of movement but you won't get fat. You simply won't be able to eat the cals it takes to really bulk up the fat stores. Hey, can you think of any overweight fruity vegan crew in the long run? Me either.
Its a valid question but its like asking 'If I plant a mango seed won't the tree grow so big it will knock planes out of the sky?'
Permalink Reply by Michael Lanfield on Sorry guys for the confusion, I don't know how many calories I actually eat in a day, but I do eat a lot of raw fruits veggies etc. i just put a figure up there to see what would happen to the extra calories, and where they go. The extra calories don't just fly into thin air.
I did calculate one time on cron-o-meter and it said I ate 2000 calories a day (including minus exercise and chores around the house). And I eat until I am full. If we should be eating unlimited calories until we are full, why does Doug Graham tell us the formula weight x 10 = basic caloric intake, this I don't understand? Where did he get this formula from?
Permalink Reply by DURIANRIDER on Eat 1600cals a day from fruit if you want to eat another 1600cals from steak burgers & KFC like the 'raw brahs' ended up doing. ;)
Permalink Reply by Michael Lanfield on hahaha. I love you durianrider, you are the best! I want to invite you to next years Vegan Spring Expo.
© 2013 Created by TheBananaGirl.
Powered by
