"And in the process of trying to illuminate this fallacy, I really strove to find a way to eat a lot of calories and either stay lean or actually lose body fat. Instances where I, for example, ate 4,000 calories of raw fruits and vegetables and still lost body fat was something that I looked at as being evidence that calories are definitely NOT the only factor involved with weight loss. Or how about the example of the gorillas in captivity that DOUBLED their calorie intake and still l...? And of course everyone wonders how the raw vegans like Freelea and Durianrider manage to eat more calories than is normal for males and females of their age, height, weight, and activity levels and still look like emaciated prepubescents. Or hey! What about that Jon Gabriel guy who eats ”whatever he wants,” but always adds lots of live foods and whey protein and has lost 200 pounds? These all seem like very interesting contradictions to the calorie theory. Do they disprove it in any way? No. Because these phenomena are all very easily explained.
What about Jon Gabriel who eats lots of raw nuts and seeds, sprouts, and eats everything in a big, giant salad? With lots of protein? We absorb fewer calories from protein due to the increased cost of digestion, and fewer still from raw foods – to the point that the Giessen raw foods study done on raw foodists showed a horrifying frequency of underweight and amennorhea directly proportional to the degree in which the percentage of the food eaten was uncooked. This obviously explains away the raw vegan waifs as well, along with the known hypermetabolic effect of protein restriction and calorie-wasting ef... Big parts of the 80-10-10 Low-fat raw vegan diet. Oh the irony of calorie restriction bashing while inadvertantly restricting calories!"
Well, you can't do a study on people who are misusing a diet and then draw big conclusions from it. It's possible that this lifestyle and/or raw vegan in general draws people with ED, because it's easy to keep calories too low if you're on raw vegan.
But any diet can be misused. It's more a sad commentary on our society that so many people are eating disordered - either too much or too little.
I took a class in college that discussed how study results are taken from data samples. It's just about equal to voodoo. Seriously. I saw data that looked like nothing until it was carefully teased & manipulated to show something. Bah. Don't take any "studies" too seriously unless they involve massive amounts of data & you are shown the raw numbers. China Study is a great example of one done well. Very few studies are done this well, and many of them don't even stand up to basic scientific principles. Unless you've read it yourself & know how to check it - meh. Forget it.
Don't forget - my professor told us this - THE MAJOR GOAL OF EVERY STUDY IS TO SECURE FUNDING FOR THE NEXT STUDY. Never forget that. You'll never see a study that shows nothing, because that is bad for business. But statistically, most studies *should* show nothing.
This "study" just sounds like a lot of wild assumptions. A doughnut and raw apples are on the same level calorie wise? Yeah, I don't think so. Different foods are broken down and spend in different ways in the body. I would not compare a food that is instantaneously converted into fuel like an apple and a fatty doughnut that takes hours for just the dough to be converted into something useful.
Lots of claims an assumptions. No evidence, no numbers.