Humans do not need a lot of food... - Page 2

SillyFencer · #16 20th Jul 12, 08:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tribesman

How does that work?!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Goat1

Yeah I don't get that. So you can eat loads of raw fruit, veg, nuts, red meat etc. and still starve?

Basically, we have been cooking food for so long that we can no longer digest enough raw food to extract the desired calories from them.

Goat1 · #17 20th Jul 12, 08:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SillyFencer

Basically, we have been cooking food for so long that we can no longer digest enough raw food to extract the desired calories from them.

Interesting. Where'd you read about that?

What about those on a 'fruitarian' diet?

spuggygirl · #18 20th Jul 12, 08:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SillyFencer

One thing that I found interesting is that you can eat as much raw food as you want and anything you want. No matter how much raw food you eat, you'll still starve to death if you eat no cooked food.

I'm not sure I believe that - there's a huge raw foodist movement out there and I don't believe they're dropping off from starvation, or cheating and eating a huge barbecued steak every evening

I believe, though, that the whole calories in v calories out is over-simplistic. It is, I think, based on the third law (?) of thermodynamics and the actual law is something along the lines of, in a closed system energy can not be created or disappear (excuse my flawed description - i'm not a scientist so anyone please feel free to correct). However the human body is far from a closed system.

If you ate 500 calories less than you needed, every day forever would you lose weight until you became weightless? No, of course not. The human body is a sophisticated machine and adapts. Yes, eventually you'll starve to death, but IMO that's more to do with lack of nutrients.

I'm not saying that you can eat anything you like and not gain weight, but I believe that hormones are more important....insulin, cortisol as well as the sex hormones.

Personally, I've cut calories and counted calories and not lost weight. When I stopped dieting and started eating a diet higher in protein and fat, lower in starchy carbs and stopped depriving myself, that's when I started losing weight. Different for everyone, but that's what happened with me.

SillyFencer · #19 20th Jul 12, 08:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Goat1

Interesting. Where'd you read about that?

What about those on a 'fruitarian' diet?

I think it was Horizon that I seen it on.

Tribesman · #20 20th Jul 12, 08:49 AM

I think that stomach acid will still do the job required of it.

Goat1 · #21 20th Jul 12, 08:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spuggygirl

I'm not sure I believe that - there's a huge raw foodist movement out there and I don't believe they're dropping off from starvation, or cheating and eating a huge barbecued steak every evening

I believe, though, that the whole calories in v calories out is over-simplistic. It is, I think, based on the third law (?) of thermodynamics and the actual law is something along the lines of, in a closed system energy can not be created or disappear (excuse my flawed description - i'm not a scientist so anyone please feel free to correct). However the human body is far from a closed system.

If you ate 500 calories less than you needed, every day forever would you lose weight until you became weightless? No, of course not. The human body is a sophisticated machine and adapts. Yes, eventually you'll starve to death, but IMO that's more to do with lack of nutrients.

I'm not saying that you can eat anything you like and not gain weight, but I believe that hormones are more important....insulin, cortisol as well as the sex hormones.

Personally, I've cut calories and counted calories and not lost weight. When I stopped dieting and started eating a diet higher in protein and fat, lower in starchy carbs and stopped depriving myself, that's when I started losing weight. Different for everyone, but that's what happened with me.

Good point. However, I think the '2000 for women', '2500 for men', 3500cals to lose 1lb' etc. are estimates based on the masses, in a population of 70 million people there are bound to be some exceptions who have more complex issues. However, I should imagine that for the vast, vast majority it probably is a case of cals in v cals out to a sensible extent. I hate to bring up the concentration camp analogy but.... All that said, I'm no scientist and have no knowledge re the thermodynamics and body being a closed system etc. issue.

RottenRhon · #22 20th Jul 12, 08:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SillyFencer

One thing that I found interesting is that you can eat as much raw food as you want and anything you want. No matter how much raw food you eat, you'll still starve to death if you eat no cooked food.

What?!

RottenRhon · #23 20th Jul 12, 09:00 AM

ah sorry, I didnt see all the other posts.

Bollinger · #24 20th Jul 12, 09:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SillyFencer

One thing that I found interesting is that you can eat as much raw food as you want and anything you want. No matter how much raw food you eat, you'll still starve to death if you eat no cooked food.

This is completely untrue. You definitely burn more calories eating raw food (it's why we no longer have big sticky out bellies that we used to - we don't need to eat as much cooked food to get the same net energy) but to say you'd starve to death is misleading and ridiculous.

Paulrun · #25 20th Jul 12, 03:00 PM

I keep my body on the verge of starvation, only have around 1000cals a day, maybe more if I'm I feel I really need it, but try to avoid going over my allowance. After a while I got used to it and the body adapts to whatever one does.

Goat1 · #26 20th Jul 12, 03:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paulrun

I keep my body on the verge of starvation, only have around 1000cals a day, maybe more if I'm I feel I really need it, but try to avoid going over my allowance. After a while I got used to it and the body adapts to whatever one does.

Crikey, you're obese!

Why do you do that? Aesthetic reasons, or athletic performance reasons?

Paulrun · #27 20th Jul 12, 03:11 PM

Bit of both. Do a bit of watersports, as well as running, so from sounding vain, like to look "fit" and also be in good shape. Seems to work, as it's not hard to impress the girls...

Goat1 · #28 20th Jul 12, 03:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paulrun

Bit of both. Do a bit of watersports, as well as running, so from sounding vain, like to look "fit" and also be in good shape. Seems to work, as it's not hard to impress the girls...

Heh, fair enough. Girls not digging the muscular look these days?!

Bollinger · #29 20th Jul 12, 03:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paulrun

Bit of both. Do a bit of watersports, as well as running, so from sounding vain, like to look "fit" and also be in good shape. Seems to work, as it's not hard to impress the girls...

You say you keep yourself on the side of starvation and that's how you look to me. You've certainly got no fat on you and have some tone but in my opinion, you don't look fit - just emaciated.

dk_know · #30 20th Jul 12, 03:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paulrun

I keep my body on the verge of starvation, only have around 1000cals a day, maybe more if I'm I feel I really need it, but try to avoid going over my allowance. After a while I got used to it and the body adapts to whatever one does.

I'm always careful how I ask these questions because people can be sensitive over their weight - at both ends of the spectrum...

In your picture, are you pulling your stomach in, or is that how it looks? You are very, very slim. If you're happy with that fair enough, but I dot think you need to worry about watching your calorie intake!

Do you do any strength work with weights?