30 Bananas a Day!

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.

Views: 4350

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I know I discussed this before and people said it is burned off as dietary thermogenesis. But I do not get what this is, I tried looking it up online, but it gives some scientific definition, and I don't know what the hell they are saying.

http://www.ehow.com/facts_7565219_dietary-thermogenesis.html

Obviously a good amount (i forget off hand how much the average person stores exactly) of calories are stored as glycogen. Chances are if you only go through 2500 calories a day, you will only have an appetite to eat around that range of calories. How are you measuring how many calories you are going through? I think it is hard to accurately measure how much you are going through when simply thinking burns calories.

Good point AA. Its like your body guiding you to walk off a cliff cos your feet are tired of walking.

Aint gonna happen.

Eat more fruit than your body can handle? lol! 

I remember Heather M would be sneaking chicken burgers and schnitzels and blaming fruit for getting 'fat' yet she is still fat today on her low carb paleo primal fad diet.

Natural foods create a slim body. Just like we don't see fat dear or spiders or tuna. Eat right and your body eventually becomes a natural slim composition with out any starvation, caffeine etc.

one website says:

When you eat more calories than you use, the rest is stored as fat and you gain weight. To lose weight, you simply need to use more calories than you eat so your body is free to call upon other energy sources – such as stored fat.

http://www.sparkpeople.com/resource/reference_calorie.asp

Is this because most people eat too many calories from animal fats?

@Michael,

As I mentioned before, throw away the confusing calorie models and equations.  As most dieters will tell your, calorie equations just do not work partly based on the persons metabolism and digestive health at the given time, and partly based on the kind of food eaten.  

On low fat starch based diets such as grains, beans, and potatoes, starches can only be broken down into glucose leading to elevated glucose levels and high insulin levels.  Then the fat storage properties of insulin go to work storing the excesses as fat.  This is why Mcdougallars are recommended to calorie restrict to around 1800 a day.  Excess insulin levels can lead to degenerative conditions and premature aging as well.  

On high fat diets, fats sludge up the blood stream and again, inhibit the absorption of calories, carbs, and vitamins and minerals triggering conditions such as candida, diabetes, and fat gain.  

On a ripe fruit based diet high in fructose and simple sugars, insulin is not required in breaking down these elements, and only a little insulin is used in transporting energy to cells.  The body will take what it needs from fructose and manufacture glucose as needed as well as some other elements.  The rest passes into the intestines and gut flora feed on it and may be a part of our b12 supply.  

So, good news is, on a low fat fruit diet, the body will take what it needs, and do what it needs to do, and the rest will pass through.  On a low fat diet, there is better absorption and assimilation of nutrients leading to healthier tissues and denser bones, muscles, and body tissues.  

Now, to avoid deficiencies such as calcium, we recommend 2500 cals for females and 3000 cals for males.  

Peace, PK

Hey PK

With all due respect, I would once again like to comment on your points that really need revision - there are some points you are making that you have misunderstood. I say this not to be overtly or unnecessarily critical but to help encourage you to go back to study a little more about nutrition and physiology as there are some gaping holes in what you are saying, and some clear errors in logic and comprehension of the subject.

I appreciate that the subject isn't always that clear to people, especially since there are often confusing and contradictory books available as sources of information in the popular culture. However the fundamentals of physiology and nutrition remain the same, ie. the foundations. The details just get added and refined over time. Blood glucose metabolism, adiposity, blood glucoses role in pathophysiology and insulin regulation and activity are all subjects which we know an awful lot about. What you are saying is in direct contradiction to even basic physiology. So if you are going to offer your opinion on here as though you know what you are talking about, especially since you are a moderator, it is important that you understand what you are saying to a sufficient degree.

I want you to be clear about something really essential: Insulin does not break anything down - it is not an enzyme. Insulin is a hormone which acts as a transporter for glucose, into the cells from the bloodstream. Insulin is not responsible for the digestion (ie. the breakdown) of starch - starch is already broken down to glucose before it is absorbed into the bloodstream. Hence insulin shouldn't even be coming into contact with starch. Ever. The only way that would be possible is if there was significant damage to the integrity of the gut lining, such that undigested starch was able to pass through.

Starch is a generalised term - not all starches are the same. You need to read Dr Neal Barnards book on reversing diabetes - with a starch based diet. Not because it is a nutrition course in itself, but because it is a direct challenge to your belief that starches are the cause of blood glucose dysregulation. There is a reason that McDougall, Esselstyn, Barnard, Furhman, Goldhamer etc. all get good results on a starch based diet in reversing chronic degenerative diseases, including diabetes and other conditions associated with impaired blood glucose metabolism - starch alone is not responsible for high blood glucose levels. This is an error that many people make, especially those obsessed with low carb diets, assuming that carbohydrates = blood glucose.

The main reference you have been basing your recent recommendations has been a book about low-carb anti-grain nutrition. I haven't read that book, so I can only assume from what you have said that either the author has no idea what they are talking about, or you have completely misunderstood what author was talking about. In either case, your understanding needs to be reviewed in order for you to make sense what you are saying and advising to others.

To be really clear - different starches contain different sugars and in different quantities. Ie. many contain some fructose and some glucose. Starch is just lots of sugars chained together, which get broken down to simple sugars - like glucose - in the body before they are absorbed. Similarly, fruits do not contain just fructose. They contain glucose, fructose and sucrose (which is 50% glucose, 50% fructose). Every fruit contains different amounts of these sugars. If you go on nutritiondata.com, you can see a more comprehensive breakdown of the sugars in different foods to see for yourself. Fruits are high glucose foods.

The glycaemic index and load scales give a reference point for how likely a food is to increase blood sugar levels, given a certain portion. And the amount to which this is likely to occur. Higher GL foods increase blood sugar more rapidly. There is also an insulin index, which measures not blood glucose but insulin response. this is because many people assumed that the glycaemic index would be correlated with insulin response. But it isn't necessarily the case. Because high protien foods do not produce much of a glycaemic response, and yet many produce a high insulinaemic response.

If you look at the glyaemic index/load charts and the insulin index charts, you will see very clearly that there is a big variance in terms of the response on both blood glucose and insulin to different starches. They cannot be grouped together as though the body responds the same. Even the same type of starch presented in different ways produces different responses. Pasta produces a different response to bread which has a different response to many whole grain breakfast cereals made from wheat. All of these are made from wheat, yet produce a different response. Similarly, brown rice has a different response to wheat, which has a different response to pulses. Different pulses have markedly different responses to each other, and potatoes again produce different responses. Sweet potatoes again produce a completely different response to white potatoes. They are all different.

Similarly, fruits also produce different responses. And based on your logic, if we are looking purely at the glycaemic and insulin response to foods immediately after eating, and looking at the glucose content of a meal, then fruits would actually be a worse choice - on average - compared to many starches. So clearly your rationale and explanation needs revision because it is littered with confusing and contradictory elements that would be easily open to criticism by anyone with even a rudimentary nutrition knowledge outside of this forum. This is not good for promoting an accurate and consistent message.

Chronically high blood sugar levels are indeed associated with many degenerative diseases, but insulin is only correlated with them. Insulin is an anti-inflammatory hormone and has many beneficial properties.

Insulin resistance is the main concern regarding chronically elevated blood glucose and insulin levels - ie. the prevention of insulin from doing its job properly. This may be due to a high fat diet, a high protien diet, an inadequately low protein diet, a very high GL diet (usually in combination with one or more of the other factors just mentioend), a vitamin or mineral deficient diet (or low body availablity of these nutrients), high stress hormone levels, low thyroid hormone levels, toxic metals and many other factors.

As regards a low fat fruit diet and the body taking what it needs and letting the rest pass through, there is no evidence for this. There has been no research on low fat fruit diets, so you are just making up this statement as though it is a fact. Aside from the fact that everyone has different digestive capacities, Fructose is absorbed by passive transport (ie. it just gets absorbed through the gut really easy without any assistance). There is a reason why some people do gain weight on this diet - because glucose and fructose are absorbed ad libitum - and if they cannot be used, they are stored as glycogen and adipose tissue, once glycogen reserves exceed 500g.

Consuming sufficient calories is not adequate on a fruit based diet to prevent nutrient deficiencies. Sufficient quantity, variety and dark green leafy vegetables is necessary to enable any hope of getting enough nutrients on a consistent basis.

I hope that you receive this challenge in the spirit that it is intended - I appreciate your sentiments, but I just think that there is way too much nutritional nonsense, not only in the general world, but in the raw food movement too. There is too much of people just making things up, grossly misunderstanding things, and trying to educate others before they have learned enough about nutrition to do so. I think that everyone can offer something, and you don't have to be an expert. But if you try to go into some details or use specific terms, that have specific meanings, you need to be sure you understand what you are talking about so it is accurate. not only because people may be reading who think "these guys are nuts, they are just making stuff up", but because people may erroneously believe untruths, which will be counterproductive to them in the long run. We need to empower people through accurate information, not misinformation.

Take care

Adam x

@Adam,

As a moderator...

Please address any questions, comments or criticisms about the 30BaD guidelines and or moderation to a peacekeeper, the forums are not the place to do this.  

And regarding the deleted post.  This was carried out by another moderator because it was borderline disrespectful and personal towards Peter.  

Future posts should focus on the topic and or debating content, not the person.  

As they say, respect the thinker if not the thought. 

Peace, PK

Hey Pk

The post was not personal. It was completely on point, as my posts are always. I still have my post on my computer, I am just not happy that it was deleted as it was highly relevant.

You might be a moderator, but my post was directly relevant to everyone on this forum. If any member of this forum posts erroneous information, it should be challenged. If a post is personal (ie. irrelevant to the topic and nasty), then I could see why you might have an issue. But it wasn't at all.  If you have an issue with this, then this is about you taking something personal that is not intended to be personal. If you present information that is factually inaccurate and dangerous (a guideline of this forum is that although cooked foods are not seen as ideal, calorie restriction is worse than eating cooked carbohydrates and you are promoting starch phobia, despite the fact that most of the books recommended by this forum are based on starch diets).

Talking to you directly on the forum is not an issue of disrespect. Infact it is much more respectful to talk to you openly so that you and others have the opportunity to learn.

If you aren't happy with being challenged and prefer to have factually inaccurate information presented elsewhere then I will happily delete my account today.

Take care

Adam x

@Adam,

What you do with your account is your business.  We do not force anyone to join us, and when people feel they are no longer a fit here, we do not force them to stay.  Membership at 30BaD is at will.  

I did not delete your post.  Another Mod did who is actually out of town at the moment.

 

If you wish to continue dialogue with Peter, perhaps a repost of the material with content only, not a mod/30BaD/Peter bashing post, then you are welcome to do so.

 

As far as our books and references:  Most of the books have flaws, but we use them as tools.  

For example, The China Study is a great book to use as a tool regarding discouraging people from eating animal and dairy products, high fat  products, and high protein products.  The China Study teaches us to eat a plant based diet, but does not answer how and why.  Therefore, TCS is a reference and a tool, not the final bible.  

TCS can leave some people confused and assuming they can binge on a bag of potato chips and still lose weight.  They may gain from the starchy affects on glucose and insulin levels, the fat, and bloat from the salt.  So we move on from there.

While we do not believe in starch based diets as optimum, DR does sometimes use Dr. McDougal's book as a tool in assisting people to get over their carbohydrate phobia.  Many of our members were caught up in the low carb high fat high protein craze and come here scared to eat any kind of carb be it grains or fruit.  The Mcdougal program is also a great reference in discouraging people from eating animal products as well.   

But, again, sensitive individuals, people with insulin imbalances, people with Celiac and gluten sensitivities, may not do optimally on a starch based program.  And, people who do not balance their grain and starch based diets with fruits and greens high in vitamin C may develop scurvy.  

Read more about grain and starch based problems in this free ebook: 

IMPROVING ON PRITIKIN— YOU CAN DO BETTER Ross Horne

This book also comes to the same low fat raw fruitarian conclusions that Dr. Graham did.  

So, we only use the starch diet based data as a backup plan, and as a tool to overcome carb phobia and discourage the consumption of animal products.  

One of the best books and programs we have found is the 811 book by Dr. Graham.  But even then, some valuable data and insights may have been overlooked.  As we learn new things, we share them with our members.  The 811 book is a reference and a tool we use, but may  not be the final product before this is over.

Based on some of my personal experiences, the experiences of the 30BaD team, experiences in dealing with struggling members, and medical research, I personally have put together the following blog posts:

How to get started:

Banana Wagon Tour

To avoid deficiencies and malnutrition:

Why 2500/3000 Calories a Day

Being skinny and slim, having low body fat percentages and or bmis is not always a sign of good health.  Actually, in our experience, being on the low side of the scale is indicative of individuals developing low bone density.  We have had one teen with stage one osteoporosis, and one 38 year old with only 70% of bone density he should have and  he has crumbling teeth.  

Reasons for healthy weigh gain include volume of food, nutrient dense foods leading to rebuilding of tissues, denser bones, increased muscle mass, healthier and denser tissues and organs, and increased healthy body fat:

Healthy Weight Gain

And, last but not least, the importance of eating leafy lettuce greens due to their higher content of some minerals, their good calcium to phosphorus ratios, benefits of chlorophyll, and promotion of overall health and maintenance of healthy systems and tissues:

Benefits of Lettuce Greens

As we learn more, we will continue to share more with our members.  

At the same time, we are all just human, and may make mistakes from time to time.  This does not mean your moderators are bad or ill intentioned, or that 30BaD is bad, or that this is a bad forum.  It is just the human condition.  

Even doctors make mistakes sometimes.  

**********

You are welcome to debate content and facts with me, Peter, and anyone else.  Sometimes we will agree to disagree, sometimes one or the other may realize they are wrong and change their facts and opinions.  

However, personal attacks and or moderator bashing will not be tolerated in the forum.  

If you do not like how a moderator is handling something,  you are free to PM that person directly and or another member of the 30BaD Team.

Peace, PK

@Adam,

As your fellow 30BaD Member, 

I have read through your post, and do not have time to address each and every concern at the moment.  I do agree with many of your points such as the glycemic and insulin index values.  

My Strategy

My strategy as a member and a moderator here is to respect my audience.  We have members from all over the world with different levels of English comprehension.  On top of that, we have people coming with various medical and nutritional backgrounds.  Some, such as yourself, are very knowledgeable.  Some on the other hand do not know anything, and could easily get overwhelmed with a lot of "doctor" speak.  

So I try to find a medium of talking about people's issues in a language and way that anyone can understand who might be reading.  I usually provide official medical references, but on the day I responded to this post, I was in a hurry, and about to log off.  Therefore, I quickly put the information down without references.  However, when in doubt, people are free to ask me for references, and or google the information for themselves.  

I will respect your advice and take into consideration that things are still medically and nutritionally sound in the future, and that simplicity does not cause inaccuracies and or confusion.  

*****

Now you seem to take issue with my statements along the lines of:

On low fat starch based diets such as grains, beans, and potatoes, starches can only be broken down into glucose leading to elevated glucose levels and high insulin levels.  Then the fat storage properties of insulin go to work storing the excesses as fat.  This is why Mcdougallars are recommended to calorie restrict to around 1800 a day.  Excess insulin levels can lead to degenerative conditions and premature aging as well. 


This is the short version of explaining how complex carbohydrates get broken down into simple sugars, on a journey to maltose, and usually ending as the simple sugar glucose in the body.  Eating starches requires more work for the body and digestive system.  Eating starches also triggers insulin release from the pancreas, which is a good thing, as the blood would quickly be overwhelmed with the incoming glucose supply.  

However, as in some binge eaters and or over-eaters, a chronic supply of glucose into the blood stream can trigger hyperinsulinism and or hyperinsulinemia.  Eating diets that promote chronic elevated blood glucose levels and or high insulin levels may lead to a condition known as hyperinsulinemia which means the amount of insulin in the blood is higher than considered normal.  High insulin levels may contribute to low blood sugar and hypoglycemia with symptoms that may include: double or blurry vision, fast or pounding heartbeat, feeling cranky or acting aggressive, feeling nervous, headache, hunger, shaking or trembling, sleeping trouble, sweating, tingling or numbness of skin, tiredness or weakness, unclear thinking, and possible fainting, seizure, or coma.

(Ref hyperinsulinemia  hypoglycemia)

Other problems caused by grain and gluten based diets may be Celiac, Crohn's, IBS, ulcerative colitis, arthritis, calcification of arteries and tissues, and brain disorders, and these are some of the degenerative and premature aging conditions I refer too and of which are mentioned in books like Wheat Belly.  

http://gluten-free.org/hoggan/

Eating ripe fruits with simple sugars on the other hand do not trigger an initial insulin release.  The liver can also break down fructose into multiple metabolites.  If the body is in need, glucose can be manufactured from fructose as well.  There is a minimal insulin release to transport this glucose into the body's cells.  

http://www.ajcn.org/content/76/5/911.full

There is emerging evidence that fructose can enter the body's cells as well without insulin too.  

I have to look for my links, but there may be evidence that some starches, perhaps in the simpler form of maltose, do reach the liver, and insulin, while yes, is a hormone, is one of the components used in the further breakdown of those starches. Now you may be right that insulin itself does not break down, but it may facilitate and or trigger further enzyme action.  It may possibly be related to the glycogen supply.  

We have to keep in mind that insulin is a hormone with multiple roles in the body, and is not only used as a glucose to cell transport and or fat storage hormone.  

In conclusion:

We all have strengths, weaknesses, and abilities.  I will continue to try to keep things simple for everyone who might be reading to understand.  

However, your strength that is much appreciated in this forum is your ability to explain things in great detail, and many people have praised you for it.  So may be between the two of us, we can satisfy a vary diverse audience.  

As far as professionalism goes, I have recently started blogging on frequently added discussions and issues that come up here @30BaD, and those have more detailed explanations, and a lot of links to official medical sites such as medlineplus and pubmed.  

You can check out my profile for links to my blog and scroll down for links to references to get newbies started.  

PK's Profile

Peace, PK

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

@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

RSS

About

TheBananaGirl created this Ning Network.

30BaD Search

Latest Activity

Profile IconLeeanne and Eva joined 30 Bananas a Day!
17 hours ago
OrganicMark posted a status
"CNN Lays Off Staffers After Massive Ratings Drop #evolution #awakening #peace #truth #love #light #now http://bit.ly/2EsDsDd"
17 hours ago
Profile IconHeather and Ken Ebacher joined 30 Bananas a Day!
Wednesday
Eileen A. Murphy posted a status
"Just ate my first banana, today!"
Tuesday
Profile IconEileen A. Murphy and Evan Vallee joined 30 Bananas a Day!
Monday
pradtf replied to pradtf's discussion great site with nutritional research information
Monday
OrganicMark posted a status
"Housing Bubble 2.0 - Foreclosure Filings Up in 17 States - Fannie Mae Sells Off Critical Inventory #peace #truth #now http://bit.ly/2Hskhez"
May 20
Meredith is now a member of 30 Bananas a Day!
May 17
Profile IconFedor Malkin and Karmenac33 joined 30 Bananas a Day!
May 16
pradtf replied to pradtf's discussion great site with nutritional research information
May 15
Pete Braglia and ednshell are now friends
May 14
Kelly's photo was featured
May 14
Pete Braglia is now a member of 30 Bananas a Day!
May 14
ednshell posted a discussion
May 11
Windlord's photo was featured
May 11

© 2019   Created by TheBananaGirl.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service