The negative calorie theory....
ok so lets say we have 100 calories of raw broccoli and 100 calories of something SAD... They supply the same amount of energy, but the body needs to work harder to break down the broccoli...
BUT, i tought that one of the reasons about being raw was to give our bodies easy stuff to digest, like fruits and vegetables, cause digesting is a huge task for the system. But that makes no sense, cause raw food is harder to digest for the body, along with the negative calorie theory??
I'm confused.

Why spend your time confusing yourself....Who says you have to eat broccoli....there's many, many other easily digestable raw foods out there to choose from so why not focus on enjoying those???

F1

i was taking brocoli as an example...It could of been fruit too!!

In the case of broccoli which is high in fiber vs. fruits which are lower in fiber vs. SAD where all or almost all of the fiber has been removed through artificial means, it is not true that the body per se has to extend extra effort.

Bacteria in our large intestines do it for us.

They ferment the soluble fibers (soluble meaning dissolve in water) into short chain fatty acids which are marvelous for the health of the cardiovascular system.

The insoluble fibers act like whisks to sweep clean the lower GI tract. They don't get digested but pass through and make for soft and bulky stools that require no strain.

There is a saying that came from researchers noticing that people who lived in countries that weren't very "civilized" who ate extremely high fiber diets had essentially no colon cancer or CHD or overweight: the larger the stools, the smaller the hospital.

Regarding calories, it is true that you will not get as much food value out of 100 calories of broccoli compared to 100 calories of SAD food. With the broccoli, you might get a net of 80 or so. The rest is excreted. Higher fiber means there is less metabolizable energy. Nutritionists have known this for a long time but in practice with most people it doesn't matter much, if at all, because most people do not eat high fiber diets.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/22/2008 09:46PM by arugula.

"but the body needs to work harder to break down the broccoli..."

If you find broccoli difficult to digest, have some watermelon or plums or papaya or baby greens or snow peas or any other food that is easier to digest.

SAD food is not easy for me to digest so I don't eat it.

I love this food.


Lee

mira Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> i was taking brocoli as an example...It could of
> been fruit too!!

I should apologize to you...I should really just keep my nose out of your biznezz!

F1

Its not that confusing (and I agree with F1). Raw is generally better nutrition (vitamins, nutrients, protein)... .in more usable forms. Even the most fibrous or fatty raw foods....are still pretty much easier to digest than most cooked foods. So there's no down side. But if you want stuff easy to digest, there are MANY fruits and some veggies that are easy to digest. And you can always make green drinks or smoothies or whatever...if digestion is an issue.

-David Z. Mason

WWW.RawFoodFarm.com

No, i dont have digestion problems at all

But because of the negative calorie theory, alot of people say raw food is "harder to digest"...

I think Arugula pretty much answered to what i was confused about...Why does 100 calories of cake makes you fat and not 100 calories of brocooli? I understand now, the fiber...!!

Are they mistaking negative calorie food for the cleansing action of raw foods? The following excerpt says that a study was done where research subjects lost weight on a diet with the same amount of calories as their previous diet, they just substituted fruits and vegetables for their previous foods. This smacks of the simplified "calorie is everything" diet approach. What about toxins and detox?

[www.jaxtrainer.com]
Reference #1:
According to a recent study performed by Dr. Dean Ornish, M.D., of the University of California, at San Francisco, a vegetarian diet consisting mostly of fruits and vegetables, was adhered to by research subjects as an experimental study on the reversal of heart disease. As a result each of the research subjects (all suffering from heart disease), lost an average of 20 pounds without cutting calories or limiting serving sizes. In light of the fact that these subjects were 40 years and older (with relatively slowed metabolisms) and the research performed involved no prescribed exercise program, this constitutes a dramatic weight loss that could only be attributed to the consumption of various fruits and vegetables (negative calorie foods).

Reference #2:
In an article in the January, 1994 Issue of Self Magazine, contributed by Dr. Neal Barnard M.D., author of Food For Life (Harmony Books), he basically supports the concept of negative calorie foods (keep in mind there were no research studies referenced in this article to support his claims).

Let's speculate for a moment, shall we? With the above information in mind, while obviously not conclusive, let us assume the transport of these surplus digestive enzymes into the blood is a given and pick it up from there. The fact is, enzymes are responsible for the acceleration of ALL chemical reactions in the body. The acceleration of chemical reactions in the body then equates to a faster metabolism (this effect is implied by the earlier referenced studies performed by Dr. Dean Ornish, M.D.). If CONCLUSIVE this discovery would truly be a tremendous breakthrough. The greater value then, in identifying and ingesting these negative calorie foods is not in their ability to break down other existing calories in digestion at all. The true potential benefits lie in the increased enzymes produced being absorbed through the mucosa in the small intestine thus entering into the bloodstream where they can positively effect the rate of metabolism.

In building upon the above conjectures, to optimize this metabolic acceleration, these researched identified negative calorie foods should preferably be ingested in the absence of additional enzyme robbing empty calories (junk food). This would insure that an optimum amount of enzymes are produced for absorption into the bloodstream and not wasted during digestive processes on assimilating calories from foods with poor vitamin and nutrient content.



Negative Calorie Foods List
Vegetables Fruits
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
asparagus apples
beets cranberries
broccoli grapefruit
cabbage lemons
carrots mangoes
cauliflower oranges
celery pineapple
chicory raspberries
chili peppers strawberries
cucumbers tangerines
endive
garlic
lettuce
onions
papayas
spinach
turnip
zucchini

There are not really negative calorie foods. They are only foods with a net caloric value of less than what is expected. Chewing and the involuntary muscle action of the GI tract do not require appreciable calories.

Having said that, people are constantly amazed by how much I eat (especially considered in the context of my body size), usually 4 trips to the salad bar or a super gigantic burrito. But these foods as I eat them are mostly lettuce, which is mostly water and fiber with a very low calorie density.

I am learning (the hard way) that my body easily digests any raw food and invariably has trouble digesting cooked food. I didn't realize what a problem it was until I went all raw. Great incentive for me to stay all raw!

if that theory was true..I wouldnt be a healthy weight and able to train 3 times a day!

Very interesting Lillianswan...

I have another question...How does the body react to 100 calories from, lets say coconut oil... and 100 calories of vegetables?
One is 100% fat, while the other is mostly composed of carbohydrates...

Will the body store more fat for the oil since its only fat?

According to this link, coconut oil digests like a carb! So there may be little difference? Snippits of this link:
[www.coconut-connections.com]
One of the remarkable things about coconut oil is that it can help you lose weight. Yes, there is a dietary fat that can actually help you take off unwanted pounds. Coconut oil can quite literally be called a low-fat fat. . . All fats, whether they be saturated or unsaturated, from a cow or from corn, contain the same number of calories. The MCFA (medium chain fatty acids) in coconut oil, however, are different. They contain a little less. . .

This small reduction in calories is only part of the picture. The amount of calories coconut oil contributes is in effect closer to that of carbohydrate because it is digested and processed differently than other fats. The digestive and metabolic effects are discussed below. . .

. . . MCFA, however, are digested and utilized differently. They are not packaged into lipoproteins and do not circulate in the bloodstream like other fats, but are sent directly to the liver where they are immediately converted into energy – just like a carbohydrate. So when you eat coconut oil, the body uses it immediately to make energy rather than store it as body fat. As a consequence, you can eat much more coconut oil than you can other oils before the excess is converted into fat. It has been well documented in numerous studies using both animals and humans that replacing LCFA with MCFA results in a decrease in body weight gain and a reduction in fat deposition. (3-9)

I read one of the papers claiming reduction in fat and body weight from coonut oil. It was really tiny, maybe 2-3 oz for the typical obese 250 lb subject and the effect disappeared at the 3rd week. The difference was so small it was hardly worth reporting.

Don't pay attention to those miracle claims. Coconut oil is a saturated fat that your body doesn't need. If you eat a lot of it, it will raise your LDL (the "bad" cholesterol), too, even when it is raw. A little bit won't hurt, though.

I use a tbsp of coconut meat in my salads because it tastes good.

mira Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> No, i dont have digestion problems at all
>
> But because of the negative calorie theory, alot
> of people say raw food is "harder to digest"...
>
> I think Arugula pretty much answered to what i was
> confused about...Why does 100 calories of cake
> makes you fat and not 100 calories of brocooli? I
> understand now, the fiber...!!

this is my theory: toxicity(from bad food) makes you fat not calories, your body will form fat to store and dilute the harmful residues to protect you (while unfortunately robbing you of energy for other things). Some SAD eaters will manifest obesity while others will manifest atrophied and clogged digestive system resulting in non-fatness and poor digestion ...

Therfore in a perfect world if you eat mostly fruits and vegetables theres no reason to be fat. This is just an idea??



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/24/2008 05:15PM by WorkoutMan.

Workout man, I don't entirely agree. It's calories.

F+v could make you fat if you ate enough of them. But in practice most of us get full and stop eating before that happens. And we stay full for hours so there isn't a chance of overdoing it.

If a person juices a lot it is easy to gain weight on f+v alone--a 200 glass of juice every 1.5 hours could do for us smaller people.

But it's harder with smoothies and even more difficult, maybe impossible even, with intact f+v because the fiber increases and adds to the sensation of fullness.

Then what is celulite? I was just reading about it yesterday and it seems to be trapped toxins:

[www.modeldietplan.com]
Annie avoids caffeinated beverages such as coffee to keep her long legs cellulite-free. Excess caffeine contributes to a build-up of chemicals and toxins and can cause cellulite to build up under the skin.

[en.wikipedia.org]
---- It's not a "fat" problem because lipo doesn't fix the problem:
"Liposuction, which extracts fat from under the skin, is not effective for cellulite reduction and may exacerbate the cosmetic problem."
---- It seems men get it too it's just less visible:
One plausible explanation - which also explains why very few men suffer from cellulite - is based on the composition and behavior of women's fat cells and the connective tissue that holds them in place. Very simply, a woman's connective tissue is very inflexible, so as females gain weight their fat cells expand, and tend to bulge upwards towards the surface of the skin, giving the classic orange-peel appearance of cellulite. In men, not only is there generally less fat on the thighs, but also the outer skin is thicker and thus obscures what is happening to any surplus fat below.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/26/2008 03:00PM by Lillianswan.

My personal experience... at 6 months raw, eating at least 2000 calories/day, moderately active, still getting a lot of raw fats (20%+)... 90% of my cellulite has disappeared. It plagued my backside and now it is gone. I still have a tiny bit in my hips/thighs, but its days are numbered. >8)

My wager, based on personal experience? Perhaps it was the lack of toxins (cutting fried food for me), and switching to better TYPES of fat. But I also can't say what will be true for me another 6 months from now, and what other improvements I may need to make to lose that remaining 10%.

I'm sure if I did a mono-durian for 30 days, I'd pack something on somewhere, no questions asked.

What is SAD food? Is it just regular crappy processed food? Or is that an acronym for something?

Standard American Diet (which includes the "crappy processed food".

Another thing that made me giggle was SUKD (Standard United Kingdom Diet).

The universe works in clever ways...

durians are high in fat?

mira- yes- awesome fat

hmmm... durians...

i think i'll go get one tomorrow