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.
Grains are not the same as starches. I completely agree with your concerns about grains for people with inflammatory disorders and digestive disorders. I don't think grains are an ideal food. I am also not that mad about most pulses and white potatoes either. But for people with no digestive or other health concerns, they may be well tolerated. But blood sugar isn't the real issue unless they are eating a high fat/protein diet. You really need to review your understanding - you are maintaining a belief rigidly based on misunderstanding of blood sugar metabolism. These are classic errors made by paleo authors, which you seem to have adopted (despite still believing in high carb diets for fruit).
You can come to certain conclusions ok, but if your understanding of these conclusions is based in factual inaccuracies then you are just perpetuating myth and misinformation. In which case you are doing your blog readers a disservice.
As with the saying "it isn't what you eat, it is what you are able to eat, digest, absorb and assimilate that determines who you are" the same is true of research as a form of nutrition - you need to make sure that you are interpreting the research accurately.
I don't have an issue with people having concerns about starch, and preferring fruit over starch. I just think that the rationale should be factual and accurate if one is going to pass on these concerns to others. There is too much misinformation already in the nutrition world without more people adding to it. We need facts, not fiction.
Again, this isn't me being critical of you, I am trying to help you improve your understanding so that you can enhance your ability to pass on accurate information, as well as make sense of things for yourself.
Except in a possible few places that might have been typos, I usually say starches, grains, beans, and tubers. I am not intentionally saying they are the same thing. Or I say starches and grains.
However, for your peace of mind, I will ensure in the future to differentiate between the two. Perhaps write a paragraph describing the starch problem, and a paragraph describing the grain problem. Even in this discussion with you I am saying grains and starches.
Now regarding modern nutritional food fights. In modern medicine and nutrition, people are only given two points of view or two choices.
The Atkins crowd and the Paleo crowd say eat meat avoid wheat, grains, and starches. They have science to back up their claims, and much of it does check out. Their science can be used as a reference, especially for individuals who are sensitive such as Celiacs.
Then you have the wheat, grain, and starch crowd who say eat no meat. And there science too checks out in many cases.
But very few people in the nutrition world focus on the the third food group:
A produce based diet even cooked may be a healthier option than the "eat no meat" or "eat no wheat" .
There is very little research promoting the third food group produce and or being fruitarian.
That leaves us with a conundrum. Many of the references I use and have to use are either from the wheat or meat crowds. Sometimes even the medlineplus and or pubmed articles and research are biased towards wheat and meat.
So, it may be time for a new breed of researchers to help separate the wheat from the chaff and show people they have more options, tastier options sometimes, and perhaps healthier options.
Right now, outside of some outdated Natural Hygiene literature, the only two source that come close to promoting the produce and fruit based diet are Dr. Graham in his 811 book and the books written by Ross Horne:
So for now, I may continue to use some references not 100% within our guidelines if they contain some valuable science. Indeed, you may have noticed in many cases I put disclaimers too like this author promotes eating meat but....
Adam,as I'm in the middle of a nursing degree and we have a huge focus on anatomy and physiology, I say "well done!" For me, that was clarity in all of the right places and I applaud you. Less heresay, more science!
Those numbers are not realistic, 5000 calories of raw fruits and vegetables is very large amount of food.
Fruits ~300Cals/lbs and Veggies ~100Cals/lbs at about 80% of the calories from fruits means you would eat over 23/lbs of food.
The good thing about this lifestyle is that the food is very bulky (mostly fiber and water by volume), and your body just would not have the appetite to eat more than you use.
Even on days that I do 2 hours of cardio (burns an extra 1400 calories for me) I still have trouble getting to 3000 calories and if it wasn’t for Dates I would never reach 3000.
So the day to day calorie deficit/surplus delta is going to be a small amount and will even itself out over time... at least that’s the experience I’m having.
I'm also assuming that you are exercising regularly and getting all your nutritional needs.
How on earth you gonna eat 5000cals a day from fruit and veg if you don't need it?
Thats like sleeping when you don't need to sleep or pizz'n when you don't need to pizzle. Can't be done. If you need to eat, you need to eat. Ever seen a fat spider, fish or mouse? Exactly. They eat unlimited cals of their natural foods. Natural human foods are self limiting as they don't contain the msg, salt, adrenaline etc.
Go to a hotel that has a fruit buffet and look how many cals people eat from fruit vs the other stuff. Give a child a 1000 block o chocolate vs a 1000cal banana smoothy. Guess which one they will get thru easier?
Thats why you can literally sit on your rump and guzzle fruit smoothies and never get fat. Sure you will get sloppy from lack of movement but you won't get fat. You simply won't be able to eat the cals it takes to really bulk up the fat stores. Hey, can you think of any overweight fruity vegan crew in the long run? Me either.
Its a valid question but its like asking 'If I plant a mango seed won't the tree grow so big it will knock planes out of the sky?'
Sorry guys for the confusion, I don't know how many calories I actually eat in a day, but I do eat a lot of raw fruits veggies etc. i just put a figure up there to see what would happen to the extra calories, and where they go. The extra calories don't just fly into thin air.
I did calculate one time on cron-o-meter and it said I ate 2000 calories a day (including minus exercise and chores around the house). And I eat until I am full. If we should be eating unlimited calories until we are full, why does Doug Graham tell us the formula weight x 10 = basic caloric intake, this I don't understand? Where did he get this formula from?
Eat 1600cals a day from fruit if you want to eat another 1600cals from steak burgers & KFC like the 'raw brahs' ended up doing. ;)
hahaha. I love you durianrider, you are the best! I want to invite you to next years Vegan Spring Expo.
Regarding the whole PK vs. Adam sub-thread, here are my thoughts --
Whenever I see a new scientific study published, I think "Oh wow, I can't wait to see how this scientist is going to massively misinterpret his results." For example, here is another article from Mercola attacking fructose (although the scientist mentions that his results don't seem to apply to raw fruit:)
This is one of those examples of how we discover something about one aspect of our (or our pet rat's) metabolism, and then obsess over it as if it is the sole indicator of health.
The problem with focusing solely on scientific research is that it at best presents a very narrow view of some truth about our metabolism, but the "scientific" aspect of the information gives us great confidence to draw all sorts of ultra-simplified conclusions about how we should eat on a daily basis. But we don't yet have the big picture.
Researchers can only look at very minute parts of our biology at a time, and it has historically proven very difficult to draw consistent, quality nutritional recommendations based on these discoveries. The real experiment is how we all feel and perform on a particular diet, and how our blood tests look, not on how some isolated effect of fructose in the diet of a rat that some researcher may discover.
So, while I support Adam's desire for accuracy, I also understand PK's view that some kind of "narrative" needs to tend to exist to correlate the research to the reality that people seem to be doing very well on a raw food, fruit-based diet. Due to gaps in our understanding, this is often "not scientific" -- not because we want to be quacks but because we don't have the full picture from research.
I think that's why the 80/10/10 book is so powerful - because it makes a reasoned argument that is based on observation about what our "natural" food is, not trying to take a few pieces of isolated research out of context to make a point as seems to be the trend these days. We are definitely missing a framework for interpreting all of this scientific knowledge because we seem to be the only creatures on the planet who are born without innate knowledge of our natural diet.
That being said, it makes sense to be as accurate as possible, and not to over-simplify or state that something has some effect when we do not have proof that it does. Better to qualify any speculation with "I believe" as to not mislead.
ok... can someone validate if PK's statement is true.... about that eating a caloric surplus of starch will cause insulin response / weight gain? DR always states that if you can't get ripe fruit eat as much rice / beans / pasta as you care for..... but if so wouldn't this cause weight gain and other unhealthy effects? I eat mainly raw but sometimes a starch meal a week or so......so this could explain why I'm not losing any weight
I would say sensitive individuals such as myself can and will get fat eating a consistent diet of pure starches. However, I can eat a meal here and there of starch and not get fat although I might get gas and temporary bloating and heartburn.
I think DR and the 30BaD team would rather see people eat starches than starve themselves and or go after animal products. But we all say, including DR himself that they are not optimal.
A few of our athletes might use starches to carbo load before a race. In fact, some long distance swimmers like to add a little body fat by, yes, eating starches, to fuel them for the swim. Go figure.
Most active athletes like DR might burn off any excess during their training.
Based on personal experience, observation of long distance athletes, trouble shooting with members having problems here, and independent research, I have come to the conclusion that yes, some sensitive individuals can gain weight on starches.
I know this is contrary to some of the modern popular opinions written in books by some authors who are trying to appeal to the masses who buy and read their books, and or write books for people who do not want to make radical changes in their lives and only trade a beef burger for a soy burger.
I have written more on the issue here with scientific references:
Another argument that comes up is that the Japanese eat rice and potatoes and have a higher life expectancy than most of the world. Ironically, in the media, Japan is touted as a healthy country, and the USA as a sick and obese country. When the reality is, Japan only has a 5 year advantage over the USA, both countries eat similar foods only different recipes, and both countries develop and die from the same degenerative diseases. It just takes the Japanese five years longer to do it.
The Okinawa who may eat more starchy sweet potatoes than their Japanese counterparts also have higher BMIs and live about 1 year less than their Japanese counterparts.
So I like to encourage people not to focus on being less sick, but to continue to find ways to not be sick at all.
Hope this helps you.