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!
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.
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.
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!
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?"
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.
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
I know there is an answer.. I'm just trying to find it. :-)