I know I don't believe in inedia, even with sungazing!, but I often think that I could, or even should, live on a diet that supplies all the minerals, vitamins, protein, water, and so on that the body needs, but in very few calories. I mean like 200-400. They say people can live perfectly well on spirulina alone or bee pollen alone. Do you think it's possible to have a full, energetic, healthy life where you can go surfing and conduct symphony orchestras and look stellar, if you have "nutrition but not calories"? I keep thinking it would be an issue of mind over matter. I often think that I'd be a superachiever on THAT sort of plan, and not on a more calorie-replete one. But I was reading a fruit-based site, and it said that not getting enough calories can result in lack of energy. I think a lot of you will just say, "Duh" to that, but I know it's silly, but I say, "If energy comes from calories, I'd be most energetic on the days I binge on cooked, not the days I have just a few cucumbers (which are my better days!)."Some of you might say that energy comes from being properly hydrated, not caloried.

I don't mean to start an argument about how many calories "we" need - 1000 or 3000. What I mean to ask is, do you think calories play an important role in energy and mental and physical ability and emotional well-being, or do you think they are subsidiary and don't matter as long as other nutrtional needs are being fully met?

You are an animal, not a plant, and your cells use mitochondria as powerplants rather than chloroplasts.

Plants don't need to take in carbohydrates, proteins, or fats, they use the energy from the sun and carbon dioxide to make their ATP and to produce the compounds that we eat.

You do need to put various plant-produced molecules (proteins, carbohydrates, and fats) in your body to catabolize so they can be used to produce ATP in your mitochondria, which is what powers your cellular, tissue, and other body functions.

But it is true, this respiration process does make garbage, the more you ingest, the more garbage will be produced, and the faster your organelles, cells, tissues, organs, and entire organism will break down. But if you don't take enough in, you will eventually die, prematurely.

Nobody knows the "optimal" amount of kcals for human health but it is probably considerably less than what most people are eating and considerably more than starvation level.

The problem is that when we eat a lot less than usual, we tend to get skinny, our bones get smaller in diameter and more likely to fracture at a given stress level, and our reproductive systems might shut down and these are not good things.

So there is a happy medium, somewhere. Luigi Fontana recently wrote a paper suggesting it is not good to go below BMI 18.5. So maybe for now that would be a prudent lower limit for most people.

Not too many people will address this issue arguing that these kind of ideas are pedaled by gurus in order to sell their fractured products. Stories of monks living to 300 on goji teas don’t seem to fly here in this forum, probably for good reason. The idea that Goji or Cacao are consumed in any considerable quantity by people in their respective locations is untrue. Same of course with spirulina and bee pollen. If you think about it, Is the key to our vitality obtained from scraping the ocean bottom or bothering some buzzing death trap or scraping a field of flowers or however?

From what I’ve READ, breatherianism IS possible. I can only assume low (even extremely low) calorie diets can be sustainable based on the existing vitality of the individual in the absence of all dis-ease. I personally know of some, and just looking back into one century or so of history, people just ate much much less, and in many cases - thrived.

That being said, the anxiety over this issue is one of my major dilemmas in terms of my personal diet.

-I think that if you are very joyful....and happy.......and feel you are a highly functioning individual....then yes: your caloric intake is less important. No worries.

-David Z. Mason

I don't understand "BMI 18.5", could you give us more details please?

Proverbs 15:17 (New International Version) "Better a meal of vegetables where there is love than a fattened calf with hatred."

Minerals should be the focus.. calories should not be the main concern.

Rawgetarian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Minerals should be the focus.. calories should not
> be the main concern.

This is not true.

The fundamental need is for enough energy: calories.

The secondary need is for enough of the essential aminos and fatty acids. It is difficult to distinguish a true protein deficiency from a calorie deficiency but it does happen in some impoverished countries where the diets are exceedingly poor.

The vitamins and minerals are tertiary, because the body has some ability to compensate for temporary low levels.

Rawgetarian,

Are you speaking from your personal experience of having been mineral deficient on your raw diet, or are you just stating your opinion on the matter? If you have been mineral deficient on your raw diet, what was that like? Did you get any messages from your body that you were mineral deficient while eating a not too mineral rich raw diet?

This subject is very interesting to me. I currently think-- suspect-- that as we get more and more detoxified and healthy, we can more readily assimilate prana, at which point we need less calories. (Notice I didn't say NO calories-- the only true breatharian I have heard of is Giri Bala.) That's a hypothesis of mine, anyway, and seems to be borne out by the experience of the few successful long-time raw foodists who don't need to eat very much and do well despite not getting all the supposedly requisite nutrients.

I've also felt for many years that the raw food diet works a lot more seamlessly for people who are connected to Source-- actively doing some form of meditation and looking inward, what the ancient Taoists called turning the light around.

Then again, I may well be wrong-- certainly have been in the past. ;-)

Sharrhan:


[www.facebook.com]

"Do you think calories are necessary?"

Yes.

But if you disagree, please send your calories to this fellow :

sharhann

<<I've also felt for many years that the raw food diet works a lot more seamlessly for people who are connected to Source-- actively doing some form of meditation and looking inward, what the ancient Taoists called turning the light around.

Then again, I may well be wrong-- certainly have been in the past. ;-)>>

then again, perhaps you are not

Arugula wrote:

"The vitamins and minerals are tertiary, because the body has some ability to compensate for temporary low levels."


It seems to me (and I say "seems" because I am no scientist) that the more nutrient rich, ie vitamin and mineral rich the diet, the less calories necessary. As one of the blank-terians pointed out, a high calorie diet is no guarantee of high energy and certainly not of good nutrition.

...and just how does the body compensate for temporary low levels of nutrients? It is my understanding that the body takes from organs and structures that need said nutrients, such as calcium being leached from the bones. This doesn't seem a very good plan.

Just experientially speaking I find that I feel better and function better on a low caloried diet. I don't count calories at all, but this translates into eating much less than most people eat. At least most people that I know anyway.


khale

<<It seems to me (and I say "seems" because I am no scientist) that the more nutrient rich, ie vitamin and mineral rich the diet, the less calories necessary. >>

Yes,this is what they are seeing in the calorie restriction studies with adequate nutrition. Animals on such diets (adequate in protein, EFAs, vitamins, and minerals, but reduced in calories) live longer. It only works to a point, though--if they restrict calories too much the animals die of starvation.

You will still need enough kcals to maintain a tolerable weight.

<<...and just how does the body compensate for temporary low levels of nutrients?>>

Such levels are very tightly regulated by the body. Plasma zinc levels, for example, will be maintained in a very small range regardless of intake for as long as possible. The excess will be eliminated, and if intakes are lower than normal, less than normal will be eliminated.

If needed, tissues will be broken down to release some, but this does not always happen, it depends on how high or low your reserves are and which particular mechanisms are being stressed.

from the NAP DRI book on zinc--
"Homeostatic regulation of zinc metabolism is achieved principally through a balance of absorption and secretion of endogenous reserves involving adaptive mechanisms programmed by dietary zinc intake (King and Keen, 1999). Zinc depletion in humans is accompanied by reduced endogenous zinc loss... derived from both pancreatic and intestinal cell secretions."

The body can adjust to lower levels of just about any nutrient with time. But eventually if the body's stores get very low, there will be problems. B12 is one example: some people can use from their body's pool for up to 20 years, but others (most?) people may run too low and start showing symptoms of clinical deficiency much sooner than that.

As with all compounds deemed essential, eventually you will die sooner than you have to if you don't secure an adequate regular source.

But, the bottom line is like this:

If you need 1500 kcal/day to survive, and 8 mg of zinc per day, you will live a lot longer on 4 mg of zinc per day with 1500 kcal than on 750 kcal and 8 mg/day of zinc.

I don't count calories. I keep track daily of protein, fat and carbs. I have a range that I stick to, evenly distributed throughout the day. At the end of the day, when I have met my protein, fat and carb needs, I have also met my own personal calorie needs.

A side note. I work out with free weights at home, so throughout the years, I've found the nutrient ratio that works for me, to keep muscle, the right amount of fat that I personally like on myself, and the right amount of carbs,
(too many make me feel unhealthy).

Most important to me, is meeting my own personal nutritional needs.

From my understanding and from what I have been reading, your body can eventually need less calories.

If you supply your body with the right nutrients then it is able to run better. Just like a car with all of it's parts in peak condition will use less gas then a car needing new parts.

I don't know. I think it's more about nutrient and quality of food rather than amount of calories... Figuring I know cooked people who can eat a whole pint of Ben&Jerry's icecream which is 1,200 calories.. And still not be "satisfied" and eat another couple thousand calories throughout the day.. But can get that satisfied, full feeling from a 300 calorie fruit smoothie. I've never even heard a cooked person say they got full from eating X amount of calories, usually a certain type of food that's filling.

Then you have to factor in your metabolism slowing down and speeding up depending on how you eat or how active you are. Any of us who have fasted knows you can easily live off of 0, 200 or 500 calories a day for weeks. I've felt the best physically and emotionally during a fast averaging about 500 calories a day.


I'm still trying to figure out what exactly I need and there doesn't seem to be a connection with calories. For some reason a huge glass or 2 of a smoothie is more filling to me than 500 calories of fruit and it was a similar experience on cooked.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/13/2007 02:26AM by LikeItOrNot.