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!
While all these articles deal with SAD diets and we wouldn't agree with many of the conclusions made, I think they all attest to some of the problems with the "calories in, calories out" theory. Wish someone would look at specifically lfrv diets though!
Thanks for these links!
Reminds me that some friends of mine doing the 'weight watchers' program said that fruit and vegetables do not count in their calorie load for the day, they can eat all they want! Interesting, eh? Oh and it's in the article too!
Weight Watchers, recognizing the differences in how our bodies react to calories—and nudging dieters to eat more whole foods—revamped its points system late last year to make fresh fruits and most vegetables “free.” Eat all you want, the WW plan says. In general, foods higher in fiber and protein were assigned fewer points, and processed foods were given more.
We gotta remember that Herbert wrote great stuff for his time no doubt AND he was not raw or vegan so to use him today to deal with our challenges is like taking child raising advice from someone that worked as a nurse in a child's ward vs a FULL TIME PARENT.
Who changed the title of this post and why?
I had originally title this thread "Theories about why more calories are needed on LFRV" and when I woke up this morning it's been changed to "Why are we lighter on the same cals from LFRV vs SAD?"
I don't like that fact that someone changed the title of my post without advising or consulting me. It smacks of censorship and white washing and I don't like it.
Hi Audrey I agree could you change the title back this changes the whole meaning of the thread. Good thread by the way.
I'm sorry, but I think you are missing the mark. I really don't think the answer is water retention. That wouldn't explain why we need more calories on raw.
I think you're on to something with "When you eat cooked food it's already partially metabolized and the components broken down through the cooking process, at least to some degree so cooked food is metabolized easier and with less effort from our digestive systems.'
I'm not saying that its better to eat cooked.. it's not and I can't anyway... I'm just trying to understand this issue.
I think this may be the sort of thing you are after, from http://jn.nutrition.org/content/29/1/81.full.pdf
Both corn starch and glucose are completely "digestible" but their total heats of combustion per unit weight differ by 15%. For 100 gm. of these substances the total heats of combustion are 429.71 and 373.69Cal., respectively. The first stage of the metabolism of starch is its hydrolysis, and part of the difference in total heat of combustion between starch and glucose is represented in heat of hydrolysis amounting to about 14.48 Cal. for 100 gm. of corn starch. If some of this hydrolysis takes place in cooking the food the corresponding heat of hydrolysis is completely lost. Ordinarily most of the hydrolysis takes place in the gastro-intestinal tract and this provides body heat which would appear in any total calorimetrie measurement. But this energy is not "available" for any other purpose. It is clear that no single factor for the calculation of carbohydrate calories may be applied to both starch and glucose without significant error, and even if two different factors are used it is necessary to specify the destination of the calories for rigid accuracy.
I've been LFRV for 8 years so it should have returned to normal by now don't you think? LOL.. thats not the problem... the problem is that I cant seem to force myself to eat more than 1800 calories per day without discomfort..
If I only ate when I was hungry I'd only be getting like 1000-1200 calories per day.. so your advice does not apply to everyone. :-)