Re: absorption of high fiber foods

[Guest guest]

Recently there was an exchange of posts about whether high fiber foods

actually deliver the

nominal calories specified, or whether the high fiber content somehow

lessens the calories.

I have long thought the latter, in fact, i once mainained that if a person

truly follows an all

raw foods diet, even paying no attention to calorie count will deliver a

CR - like or near

effect, because it is just hard to add up calories that way. Cooking foods

certainly does make

hard to digest foods more usable; it compacts them also, so more can be

taken in, and in many

foods it enhances the flavor by releasing it. Eating tuber and root foods,

for example, is " almost "

impossible in the raw food: many if not most potatoes, including SP, just

don't taste appetizing

at all - which rules them out as a staple. I find yams (so-called) to be

consistently decent tasting

in raw, but still, how many of these can you put away? What a workout!

Another factor that

can affect calorie uptake is simply the food's transit time thru the tract,

and this can vary quite

a bit with the food's consistency.

Over the years i have encountered literature from the raw foods diet

proponents, or as they

call it, " unfired foods " . Like someone who just discovered The Way, these

partisans are always

super vehement about their beliefs - there just is no other way. Especially

if the particular adherent

saved themselves from some serious illness by adopting the raw foods plan.

To my mind, what

is really going on in such cases is simply a form of CL, caloric limitation

(as i prefer to call it), due

to eating more volume/ less calories, and the food less digestible and

lessened transit time all

contributing to less calorie uptake. I think the proponents' vehemence about

their beliefs is

because " it works " , but they have really no science to support it - so it's

just " cooking is bad " ,

you have to accept the results of some who improved their lives, and accept

some mystical

reasons why. I think the " why " is nothing more than calories. I do beleive

it " works " , though,

and i can forsee myself having to substitute more raw foods into my diet,

trying to get down

past this current BF plateau.

Hue

[Guest guest]

>I do beleive

> it " works " , though,

> and i can forsee myself having to substitute more raw foods into my

diet,

> trying to get down

> past this current BF plateau.

> Hue

That's what I have thought for quite a while. These raw-foodists,

like the paleo folks, have " accidentally " hit upon some benefits of

their perspective on nutrition that they did not forsee. When you

go " raw " , you also have to go " low-cal " , because the more processing

that occurs, the denser the food becomes calorically.

That said, it is an extremely unwieldly approach to nutrition, and

incapable of getting enough calories for a lot of folks. But it does

have the advantage of being somewhat more " hunger-free " than

traditional dieting.

crdude35768@...

[Guest guest]

In this article:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A28417-2002Sep17.html

the author didn't think very highly of the claims. Author is a chemist.

The author: L. Wolke (www.professorscience.com) is professor

emeritus of chemistry at the University of Pittsburgh and the author, most

recently, of " What Einstein Told His Cook: Kitchen Science Explained " (W.W.

Norton, $25.95).

on 9/23/2002 3:50 AM, crdude35768 at crdude35768@... wrote:

>> I do beleive

>> it " works " , though,

>> and i can forsee myself having to substitute more raw foods into my

> diet,

>> trying to get down

>> past this current BF plateau.

>> Hue

>

> That's what I have thought for quite a while. These raw-foodists,

> like the paleo folks, have " accidentally " hit upon some benefits of

> their perspective on nutrition that they did not forsee. When you

> go " raw " , you also have to go " low-cal " , because the more processing

> that occurs, the denser the food becomes calorically.

[Guest guest]

--- " Hue " <kargo_cult@m...> wrote:

> Recently there was an exchange of posts about whether high

> fiber foods actually deliver the nominal calories specified,

> or whether the high fiber content somehow lessens the calories.

> I have long thought the latter, in fact, i once mainained that

> if a person truly follows an all raw foods diet, even paying

> no attention to calorie count will deliver a CR - like or near

> effect, because it is just hard to add up calories that way.

There's one rather easy way to clock up calories by eating raw foods.

That's by juicing fruit - and removing as much fibre as possible.

Bananas, mangoes and nectarines are all pretty well endowed with

calories - and juicing has the power to get lots of those calories

into your system quickly and efficiently.

[Guest guest]

For those who have been following this discussion of raw foods and would like to try some unusually good recipes, there is a cookbook entitled RAW, the Uncook Book by no...(that's right just no) that offers some surprisingly delightful taste experiences. Please be advised that the recipes are complex, time consuming, and contain combinations that you would never think might work together, but every time Chele and I try one of these crazy concoctions...the results are absolutely delicious. Also, note that this guy (yes it is a guy...after seeing his picture in the book, I argued with Chele for a month before being proven wrong) uses a lot of salt and hot peppers, so sodium watchers beware, but other than that his recipes are just great! Enjoy! Dave

----- Original Message -----

From: Hue

Sent: Sunday, September 22, 2002 6:17 PM

Subject: [ ] Re: absorption of high fiber foods

Recently there was an exchange of posts about whether high fiber foodsactually deliver thenominal calories specified, or whether the high fiber content somehowlessens the calories.I have long thought the latter, in fact, i once mainained that if a persontruly follows an allraw foods diet, even paying no attention to calorie count will deliver aCR - like or neareffect, because it is just hard to add up calories that way. Cooking foodscertainly does makehard to digest foods more usable; it compacts them also, so more can betaken in, and in manyfoods it enhances the flavor by releasing it. Eating tuber and root foods,for example, is "almost"impossible in the raw food: many if not most potatoes, including SP, justdon't taste appetizingat all - which rules them out as a staple. I find yams (so-called) to beconsistently decent tastingin raw, but still, how many of these can you put away? What a workout!Another factor thatcan affect calorie uptake is simply the food's transit time thru the tract,and this can vary quitea bit with the food's consistency.Over the years i have encountered literature from the raw foods dietproponents, or as theycall it, "unfired foods". Like someone who just discovered The Way, thesepartisans are alwayssuper vehement about their beliefs - there just is no other way. Especiallyif the particular adherentsaved themselves from some serious illness by adopting the raw foods plan.To my mind, whatis really going on in such cases is simply a form of CL, caloric limitation(as i prefer to call it), dueto eating more volume/ less calories, and the food less digestible andlessened transit time allcontributing to less calorie uptake. I think the proponents' vehemence abouttheir beliefs isbecause "it works", but they have really no science to support it - so it'sjust "cooking is bad",you have to accept the results of some who improved their lives, and acceptsome mysticalreasons why. I think the "why" is nothing more than calories. I do beleiveit "works", though,and i can forsee myself having to substitute more raw foods into my diet,trying to get downpast this current BF plateau.Hue