Interesting article to read all the way through:

[blogs.scientificamerican.com]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/25/2012 02:48PM by kola.

good article. thanks


results of my 5 week study of calories/hunger:

- i have tended to eat when not truly hungry, cooked or raw,
so i paid more attention to eating only when hungry

- discovered (once again) FREEDOM from thinking about food
and eating too often

- first day, and many other days, did not eat until afternoon

- did not go hungry

- projected weight loss based on recommended caloric intake = 9.4 pounds
- actual weight loss = 1/2 of projected loss
(bodyweight and food intake measures not precise,
so nothing conclusive can be drawn from this)

actual food intake as a percent of recommended calories

- week 1 = 38%
- week 2 = 42%
- week 3 = 44%
- week 4 = 49%
- week 5 = 74%


- desire to eat was influenced by hydration, in other words, tempted to eat when thirsty

unfortunately, grew bored by tracking intake so it is unknown whether intake will continue at 74% or rise, or fall.

strength measured during week 3
17 pullups
50 pushups
one arm dumbbell "clean and press" 45% of bodyweight


(food log is avail if interested)

fresh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> good article. thanks
>
>
> results of my 5 week study of calories/hunger:
>
> - i have tended to eat when not truly hungry,
> cooked or raw,
> so i paid more attention to eating only when
> hungry
>
> - discovered (once again) FREEDOM from thinking
> about food
> and eating too often
>
> - first day, and many other days, did not eat
> until afternoon
>
> - did not go hungry
>
> - projected weight loss based on recommended
> caloric intake = 9.4 pounds
> - actual weight loss = 1/2 of projected loss
> (bodyweight and food intake measures not precise,
>
> so nothing conclusive can be drawn from this)
>
> actual food intake as a percent of recommended
> calories
>
> - week 1 = 38%
> - week 2 = 42%
> - week 3 = 44%
> - week 4 = 49%
> - week 5 = 74%
>
>
> - desire to eat was influenced by hydration, in
> other words, tempted to eat when thirsty
>
> unfortunately, grew bored by tracking intake so it
> is unknown whether intake will continue at 74% or
> rise, or fall.
>
> strength measured during week 3
> 17 pullups
> 50 pushups
> one arm dumbbell "clean and press" 45% of
> bodyweight
>
>
> (food log is avail if interested)


I feel the same way when I track my food and really eat with intention and mindfullness, I realize I am not as hungry. Interestingly enough, the less I eat, the less I am hungry. There are several days that I do not even start eating until 2.

For instance, today I did hot yoga and then step class. 2 small plums. Then I had some broccoli and kale, and I think one red pepper. Then, lunch at 2. It was a salad with tons of veggies ( no dressing)

Another pepper at 5. Then at 8, salad with veggies and some nuts. And... I had spirulina raw dehydrated flax crackers.

Not sure what my caloric intake was, but I am guessing around 800. Oh, sorry, I then had another orange pepper when I came home from the library. Weird, I almost had to force myself to eat.

fresh--->i have tended to eat when not truly hungry, cooked or raw,


man, they way you've posted here over the years one would have thought you were all raw. You certainly gave that impression.

Thankfully I never believe anyone when they say or imply that they're are all raw so I am never fooled.

Just a very small amount of non raw and non vegan over past 20 years.

All raw for majority of time and for long periods of time

some other considerations...

would you prefer that posters here indicate their % raw on every post?

or that only if people are 100% for 30 years can they speak in a certain way about principles and ideas?

had you considered that RAW is not the only factor in health?

or that one can be ALL RAW and not healthy?

michelemm Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
>
> I feel the same way when I track my food and
> really eat with intention and mindfullness, I
> realize I am not as hungry. Interestingly enough,
> the less I eat, the less I am hungry. There are
> several days that I do not even start eating until
> 2.
>

good. we seem to have this 3 meals a day mentality
that is based on dehydration and addictiveness...

> For instance, today I did hot yoga and then step
> class. 2 small plums. Then I had some broccoli and
> kale, and I think one red pepper. Then, lunch at
> 2. It was a salad with tons of veggies ( no
> dressing)
>
> Another pepper at 5. Then at 8, salad with veggies
> and some nuts. And... I had spirulina raw
> dehydrated flax crackers.
>
> Not sure what my caloric intake was, but I am
> guessing around 800. Oh, sorry, I then had another
> orange pepper when I came home from the library.
> Weird, I almost had to force myself to eat.

which is what some imply. that we force ourselves to eat to hit a calorie level.


low hunger may mean that the body is utilizing fat stores, and cleansing...

fresh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> michelemm Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> >
> >
> > I feel the same way when I track my food and
> > really eat with intention and mindfullness, I
> > realize I am not as hungry. Interestingly
> enough,
> > the less I eat, the less I am hungry. There are
> > several days that I do not even start eating
> until
> > 2.
> >
>
> good. we seem to have this 3 meals a day
> mentality
> that is based on dehydration and addictiveness...
>
> > For instance, today I did hot yoga and then
> step
> > class. 2 small plums. Then I had some broccoli
> and
> > kale, and I think one red pepper. Then, lunch
> at
> > 2. It was a salad with tons of veggies ( no
> > dressing)
> >
> > Another pepper at 5. Then at 8, salad with
> veggies
> > and some nuts. And... I had spirulina raw
> > dehydrated flax crackers.
> >
> > Not sure what my caloric intake was, but I am
> > guessing around 800. Oh, sorry, I then had
> another
> > orange pepper when I came home from the
> library.
> > Weird, I almost had to force myself to eat.
>
> which is what some imply. that we force ourselves
> to eat to hit a calorie level.
>
>
> low hunger may mean that the body is utilizing fat
> stores, and cleansing...


So this is a good thing... I actually feel better without too many calories. Just need to make sure I get enough to focus properly.

Fresh, it's just that over the years you've staunchly spoke out many times against the use of cooked foods while secretly you've been eating it. It's ok. The raw food world is rife with hypocrites.

i've posted my eating habits before.
no secret

i think i said at one point that i had eaten
99% raw for past 10 years
95% for previous 10
and 90% for previous 10
something like that.

i'm not here to win any awards for rawdom.

if i've been asked, are you all raw, and said yes,
it could have been that i had been all raw for a year or two
for example

speaking about the negatives of cooked requires one to be
raw for how long exactly?

and if i speak out against cutting down
so many trees that the environment is destroyed,
that means i can never use paper products?

you hold yourself to this standard?

why don't you define exactly how one is to speak here
and how we all need to list what we've eaten for the last X years.

Yeah because no trees or any other life forms get killed in fruit and veg production. If we eat, no matter what it is, it's more than likely that we have blood on our hands.

Fresh no one is questioning how raw you are. You could be 1% raw and no one would bother.

The issue is that you often border aggressive with how staunchly you are against cooked and animal foods, yet you have still been consuming small amounts of these foods yourself no matter how long you go between without.

That makes you a hypocrite im afraid.



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 10/31/2012 12:17PM by powerlifer.

powerlifer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Fresh no one is questioning how raw you are. You
> could be 1% raw and no one would bother.
>
> The issue is that you often border aggressive with
> how staunchly you are against cooked and animal
> foods, yet you have still been consuming small
> amounts of these foods yourself no matter how long
> you go between without.
>
> That makes you a hypocrite im afraid.

i don't claim 100% because of small amts of things
that i have had like

a taste of a smoothie made with pasteurized juice
a raw item using cashews
dehydrated snacks
a raw snack that had maple syrup in it
years ago i would sometimes have raw or cooked fish
or potatoes.

the amounts and items were trivial

now
following your stated logic, my food intake doesn't matter.

well if it doesn't matter, then why do you mention
my opinions being contingent upon my intake ?

the fact is that you personally require that anyone
that states a strong opinion regarding cooked or animal foods
must have not eaten any of those foods for X number of years.
and you only hold this opinion because disagree with
my "staunch" opposition.

finally my position on animal products and cooked is not
that people eat them are bad or wrong

it is that when people make claims that all raw is unsustainable or unhealthy
or that cooked is better
or that animal products are required
i counter those claims.

Well there must be some reason you are reverting back to including small amounts of cooked and animal foods so why is this ?.

Why strongly present yourself as someone who is making a fully raw diet work when you are obviously not if you are consuming any of the above. Just another person promoting a diet they don't fully follow themselves.

I hold very little faith that anyone is as raw as they claim on the forums/internet. I just found out the other day that another strong advocator of an all raw diet, also has been including cooked foods and raw goats milk. Yet they make out that an all raw vegan diet can work no problem.

Either your vegan or your not. You can't be both if you are eating animal foods no matter how infrequent. You are topping your b12 levels back up when you have some cooked fish, then its no wonder that you can go a few more years again with no dietary B12. I question the validity of this diet once again.



Edited 8 time(s). Last edit at 10/31/2012 03:06PM by powerlifer.

Can we see a picture of you so that we can feast our eyes upon the external, bodily expression of your optimal health?

fresh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> powerlifer Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Fresh no one is questioning how raw you are.
> You
> > could be 1% raw and no one would bother.
> >
> > The issue is that you often border aggressive
> with
> > how staunchly you are against cooked and animal
> > foods, yet you have still been consuming small
> > amounts of these foods yourself no matter how
> long
> > you go between without.
> >
> > That makes you a hypocrite im afraid.
>
> i don't claim 100% because of small amts of
> things
> that i have had like
>
> a taste of a smoothie made with pasteurized juice
> a raw item using cashews
> dehydrated snacks
> a raw snack that had maple syrup in it
> years ago i would sometimes have raw or cooked
> fish
> or potatoes.
>
> the amounts and items were trivial
>
> now
> following your stated logic, my food intake
> doesn't matter.
>
> well if it doesn't matter, then why do you
> mention
> my opinions being contingent upon my intake ?
>
> the fact is that you personally require that
> anyone
> that states a strong opinion regarding cooked or
> animal foods
> must have not eaten any of those foods for X
> number of years.
> and you only hold this opinion because disagree
> with
> my "staunch" opposition.
>
> finally my position on animal products and cooked
> is not
> that people eat them are bad or wrong
>
> it is that when people make claims that all raw is
> unsustainable or unhealthy
> or that cooked is better
> or that animal products are required
> i counter those claims.

"small" amounts ! Indeed, fresh, indeed.

<<<I question the validity of this diet once again.>>>

Chris,

I addressed your MISTAKES [ [www.rawfoodsupport.com] ] and I would love to hear your Rebuttal and please show me my Flaws.

John Rose Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> <<>>
>
> Chris,
>
> I addressed your MISTAKES [
> [www.rawfoodsupport.com]
> ge=2 ] and I would love to hear your Rebuttal and
> please show me my Flaws.

John,

I already addressed your flaws in the thread, so much so that i would just be repeating myself again, but because you asked its only fair i reply. Its all in the eyes of how you perceive these things and you have built a whole science it seems with ripple effects around your justification of needing lab made supplements just to make your diet nutritionally complete.

There is nothing for me to address im afraid. The bottom line is no matter how you want to decorate it, your diet isn't nutritionally complete without supplements. This to me doesn't seem natural or healthy, infact im not sure how i ever thought it was a good idea myself in the first place. Bottom line is newbies need to be told in the beginning that that a raw vegan diet isn't safe without supplementation of B12.



Edited 6 time(s). Last edit at 10/31/2012 05:08PM by powerlifer.

i cannot respond to you powerlifer as you distort everything.



HH
>Can we see a picture of you so that we can feast our eyes upon the external, >bodily expression of your optimal health?

NGU
>"small" amounts ! Indeed, fresh, indeed.

regarding the two above, if you are thinking that your obnoxious attitude will elicit some type of response, you are mistaken.

fresh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> i cannot respond to you powerlifer as you distort
> everything.

Its a shame you feel this way. I will share a quote.

"You are never dedicated to something you have complete confidence in. No one is fanatically shouting that the sun is going to rise tomorrow. They know it's going to rise tomorrow. When people are fanatically dedicated to political or religious faiths or any other kinds of dogmas or goals, it's always because these dogmas or goals are in doubt."



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/31/2012 07:50PM by powerlifer.

Great quote, Chris. Who's the source?

powerlifer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> fresh Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > i cannot respond to you powerlifer as you
> distort
> > everything.
>
> Its a shame you feel this way. I will share a
> quote.
>
> "You are never dedicated to something you have
> complete confidence in. No one is fanatically
> shouting that the sun is going to rise tomorrow.
> They know it's going to rise tomorrow. When people
> are fanatically dedicated to political or
> religious faiths or any other kinds of dogmas or
> goals, it's always because these dogmas or goals
> are in doubt."

<<<I already addressed your flaws in the thread>>>

Chris,

You have NEVER addressed any Flaws in my Logic. NEVER! NEVER! NEVER! NEVER!

All that you have done is use 1 Piece from 1 Puzzle to discount 1 Piece from another Puzzle. Don’t you understand that there are 2 Groups of Needs and you are using a Subsequent Need from the Group based on the Ripple Effect to Negate an Essential Need from the Group based on the Law of Cause & Effect.

Let me illustrate my point one more time…

Let’s go back to the Law of Cause & Effect and look at the first 3 of our 12 Essential Needs - Air, Water & Food.

Now let’s say that we don’t Satisfy our Need for Clean Air and as I’ve mentioned, if we don’t Satisfy any of our Essential Needs, we create an Additional Temporary Need. For example, if we Smoke Cigarettes, we may Damage our Lungs and may have an Additional Temporary Need for Pure Oxygen. Based on your Logic or Lack of Logic, this person will no longer have a Need for Clean Air because he now has this Additional Temporary Need for Pure Oxygen. This example using Clean Air and Smoking Cigarettes is exactly the same thing as Natural Food and Eating Foods we’re Not Biologically Adapted to Eat. Smoking Cigarettes and Eating Foods we’re Not Biologically Adapted to Eat can DAMAGE OUR BODY and now, we might have an Additional Temporary Need for Pure Oxygen or B12 or DHA. Our Need for Pure Oxygen or B12 or DHA does NOT mean we should Ignore the Laws of Nature and Not Breathe Clean Air or Eat Natural Food.

Once again, the Key here is if we had NEVER made any Mistakes and Satisfied all of our Essential Needs, we would Never have these 2 Additional Temporary Needs based on the Ripple Effect, just like those Norwegians who made Mistakes and ate Unnatural Food for millennia and now can no longer make any DHA or just like anyone who Smokes Cigarettes and now has a Need for Pure Oxygen.

YOU CANNOT USE A MISTAKE AS AN EXCUSE TO KEEP MAKING A MISTAKE!!!

<<<your diet isn't nutritionally complete without supplements>>>

You have absolutely NO SENSE OF LOGIC!

WE HAVE 2 GROUPS OF NEEDS!!!

CONDITIONS HAVE CHANGED!!!

Subsequent Needs do NOT Negate Essential Needs.

HH Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Great quote, Chris. Who's the source?

Im not sure of the source HH im afraid. I came across it when i was learning about where Bruce Lee derived his philosophies on dogma and tradition.

Bruce was very good at presenting several different philosophies into a format that people like me could understand in laymen terms. He was also miles ahead of his time in regards to dogma and how much tradition bound our ability to evolve.

Bruce Lee in this day and age would have been just as good in my opinion. Sure he is physically not there in regards to MMA fighters, but Bruce was miles ahead in terms of keeping up to date with science, the current fitness training and an open honest critical mind on any topic.



Edited 6 time(s). Last edit at 10/31/2012 08:44PM by powerlifer.

Im low cal. Ive been eating fruit for so long and am so fit that my body only needs 2 bananas a day.

Im pretty much breatharian too. Same with Freelee.

We run double marathons on half a banana each if the sun is at the right angle for sun gazing. Often we just eat the skin and throw away the banana cos we don't even need that much cals.

My raw anorexic friend that lives on 800 cals a day, Id say he is overeating for sure. He is 43kg and 6ft tall.

powerlifer

after reading the above ...i will address this....

referring to JR>your diet isn't nutritionally complete without supplements. This to me doesn't seem natural or healthy

- the diet that you refer to may be incomplete only because we are not in nature, where b12 would be likely available, as it is for other animals.

[www.veganhealth.org]


since you are unwilling to admit this...

- if instead we take your position that b12 is only available from animal foods and/or most of us are not living in nature we are left with the following image :

you, ranting and raving about b12 and the vegan diet and how it is not natural or healthy. first of all you would need to define natural. only if we include cooking as "natural" is YOUR diet natural or healthy. we could also say that EVERYthing is natural.

in case you had not noticed, virtually everyone does say that vegans need to concern themselves with b12.

my position, as shown by ample reports, is that many many meat eaters also have b12 problems. so unless you are willing to proclaim that a person should eat a mixed diet and NEVER concern themselves with B12, then you are being illogical and biased.

my position is that ALL people should be concerned about b12 and monitor themselves and take appropriate actions when necessary.


will you not stop flogging this b12 thing until everyone on the planet says in unison, b12 is an issue? not gonna happen.

EVEN IF the vegan diet can be considered not "natural",
Natural is only one of the facets that we should use when talking about health.

When we include all the facets, among them,
fresh, raw, whole, organic, digestible, effects on the body, water content, etc, etc, veganism fits the bill best EVEN WITH B12 supplements, FOR ME, because "natural" is only one of the factors to attend to.

In addition, I have NEVER stated or implied that my diet was proof of raw veganism from the perspective of B12. my diet shows me that what i am doing is working for me with respect to every other nutrient due to my senses and blood tests.

Fresh, i don't think ive ever seen a post from you acknowledging that a raw vegan diet needs B12 supplements in order to be safe. You constantly make out that all you need to eat is raw foods to make the diet work, as do many others.

But then the magic raw diet wouldn't seem as attractive if people knew they had to supplement essential nutrients in order for it to work.

Its good that you've finally acknowledged it though, and maybe when newbies ask for advice in the future you will let them know this is the case.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 11/01/2012 04:08PM by powerlifer.