Why are we lighter on the same cals from LFRV vs SAD?

Hi guys,

I haven't had time to post here much the last year or so.. I've been very busy with work and other life stuff... but I still check in from time to time.

I've been pondering something lately that I hope you all can help me with. As some of you who have been around longer might remember.. I'm always struggling to eat enough to maintain a healthy weight. It's difficult for me to eat even 2000 calories from fruit per day.. I just can't seem to get the volumme down.. even after years of being LFRV... so I've been skinny all the while and just try to deal with it...

In case anyone is wondering I can't go back to cooked vegan foods for more calories because even something as "innocent" as boiled or steamed potatoes or yams really makes me ill..any cooked food brings back my fibromyalgia pain with a vengeance and give me throat and sinus "infections" and makes me grumpy and irritable.

In my attempts to find a solution I've been reading alot about calories and it occurred to me that it seems to take way more low fat raw calories to sustain a certain weight than low fat cooked calories would take.. In a recent poll here of how many calories people eat per day I was very surprised to find out that several women my size (height and weight) eat 3000plus calories per day to maintain their (low by SAD standards) weights while mainstream calorie charts will say that only 1800-2200 calories are need to maintain that weight.

Does anyone have any theories as to why it takes more low fat raw calories to maintain a certain weight than would it would be if the same person was eating low fat cooked calories? It seems counter-intuitive to the notion that raw calories are more efficient and better assimilated by the body. If that is the case, why the heck do we need some much more of them eating raw?

Thanks so much!

0 members like this

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Dustin Tapp on May 4, 2011 at 5:56am

I believe it's as simple as don't so much need more..it's just about density. When I was eating all cooked meals I used a lot of olive oil, sometimes added sweeteners that were very condensed. When you're supplementing your cooked whole foods with denser more refined calories you will be eating lots more. Some of my dinners may have been approaching 2k calories perhaps as an example. As well as duration if you aren't limiting calories like many people grew up doing perhaps your body has adjusted and isn't storing calories in the same manner to keep on weight.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Audrey Walker on May 4, 2011 at 6:51am

No Dan, I think we do need more on raw.. I maintained a much higher weight effortlessly on less cooked calories thank I currently eat. And if you look at mainstream calorie charts, the recommended calories to maintain 120lbs on a moderately active woman my height (5ft 7in) is 1912 but on the calorie poll here women of that height and weight needed to eat 3000 plus calories to maintain that weight.

This phenomena is great for big eaters who want to lose weight but is very challenging for those of us who can't seem to stomach the large amounts of fruit required to get enough calories to maintain a healthy weight.

Thanks!

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Kaz on May 5, 2011 at 12:22am

iLuvGR33N

3kg (unwrapped) Bananas, 1lb Spinach, 1 head Celery, 4g Marmite and 1/4lb grapes make up a pretty full set of nutrients except for Vit D, iodine, Omega 3 (needs another 30%) and zinc.

Not sure about selenium; depends on your soil. Maybe a bit heavy on the oxalic acid so not for long term either, swop out the spinach for greater weight of lettuce.

It won't give you 3000 cals (2200) but will give you pretty good coverage of everything else.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Xenia on May 4, 2011 at 6:09am

that is a really good question Audrey, i can't say that i have thought about it enough to have come up with anything worthwhile to say - apart from that yes, it has passed through my mind a few times too... Have you thought to ask Dr. D on vegsource forum? I would love to hear what he has to say on the issue, as well as to hear what some other longer term than me lfrv people have to say!

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Monica Ralli on May 4, 2011 at 6:10am

Great post, and often something I ponder myself. Sadly, any real, credible studies regarding raw food vs. cooked food metabolism don't seem to exist -- most likely because there's simply ZERO financial incentive to fund them (much more profitable to develop weight loss meds, etc). Looking forward to hearing everyone's responses!

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Audrey Walker on May 4, 2011 at 6:15am

Oooops.. Some typos in that last paragraph.. it should read:

"Does anyone have any theories as to why it takes more low fat raw calories to maintain a certain weight than it would take if the same person was eating low fat cooked calories? It seems counter-intuitive to the notion that raw calories are more efficient and better assimilated by the body. If that is the case, why the heck do we need so much more of them eating raw?"

Thanks!

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Paul Newcomb on May 4, 2011 at 7:05am

I've also been wondering about this for a while. When I eat cooked foods, I need much less calories to sustain me (I could usually get by with about 2000 calories per day and feel pretty good), but with just fruit, I feel like I need to constantly eat all day long just get up to around 3000 (more when I'm training hard) to keep myself going.

Don't get me wrong, the energy levels I get with LFRV are unmatched, but it just takes so much more calories to get there (not talking in terms of volume, just calories). When I first started this diet, I figured it would be the opposite since fruits & vegetables have so much more nutrition and are better absorbed by the body. It seems counter-intuitive to me.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jacob on May 4, 2011 at 7:17am

Here is my theory of how it works with simple terms:

When all the inner organs, brain, every cell in body and mostly muscle-cells are given (finally!!!) enough fuel to fully function and given signals it needs to repair, use more fuel and excrete the byproducts at a higher pace and efficiency, the need for more raw material (fruits/carbs) are needed.

The body work at a more higher speed, higher metabolism and with a higher need.

I don't think the organs need for more calories a backed up with enough heavy proof, when switching to 100% 811rv but if the cells have more access to effective fuel, they will of course use them if the body also at the same time creates a demand for them. It's actually the other way around; the body creates a higher demand with more exercise and more requested (hunger/cravings) calories are eaten, stored as glycogen or used right away

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Paul Newcomb on May 4, 2011 at 7:37am

So do you think that the need for calories goes down the longer you're on a LFRV diet?

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Audrey Walker on May 4, 2011 at 7:50am

I know you weren't asking me but I've been LFRV for eight years and I still find it very hard to keep weight on. If I ate according to my appetite rather than trying to constantly eat more it would be even harder... so at least in my case, the answer is no.. I still apparently need more calories. :-)

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Teri L on May 4, 2011 at 10:49am

Audrey, I feel the same way, I basically HAVE to count calories to make sure I am eating enough, otherwise I drop weight very quickly. It is a struggle to keep weight on, lol, I am constantly trying to eat a lot! I've always wondered why we need so many more calories on raw too.