(The Calorie Paradox of Raw Veganism--continued, Part E)
REALITY CHECK #3:
Using the Paradox to Assess Credibility of "Experts" |
Calories provide a potential "truth serum" for assessing the adequacy of reported diets. If an alleged dietary "expert" is promoting his or her diet as the best, or even "perfect" diet, ask what their daily diet consists of. Try to get the "expert" to specify types and quantities of foods consumed. If clear details are provided, you may be able to use the information in the calorie table here to check their diet, and their credibility.
A few hypothetical examples will illustrate.
- An "expert" claims to live on nothing but (on average) 6-8 pieces of sweet fruit per day.
- An "expert" claims to live on nothing but 1-2 liters of green juice, plus a relatively small amount (1-2 kg) of fruit per day.
- An "expert" claims to have a diet in which cucumbers and/or tomatoes are the predominant food, with some sweet fruit, and green vegetables, and to never/rarely eat avocados, nuts, or dried fruit.
Compare: reports of calorie consumption vs. realistic requirements. Note that the above are summary descriptions; additional detail would be required for a formal assessment of "expert" #3 above. Once data on quantities are available, use the averages from the calorie table earlier in this paper to estimate the total calories consumed per day. Looking at "expert" #1, it is clear that they claim to thrive on a diet that is far below starvation levels. The only logical inference one can make here is that they are a fake. "Expert" #2 also appears (assuming the sweet fruit eaten is juicy, not dried fruit) to claim to thrive on a diet that is below the normal minimum calorie levels. Hence one suspects that "expert" #2 is an anorectic and/or a fake like #1.
As for "expert" #3, an assessment will depend on the amounts of sweet fruit that are consumed--the only apparent source of significant calories claimed in the diet. Such a diet probably does not satisfy the calorie paradox, unless #3 eats a huge amount of cucumbers and tomatoes (unlikely), or eats lots of sweet fruit (seems like a contradiction--the usual reason for eating cucumbers is to limit sweet fruit consumption).
When an "expert" claims to thrive on a diet whose calorie content is inadequate. For discussion purposes, let us assume that you have captured a so-called "expert" in the calorie paradox. What are the possible explanations here?
- Some mystical calorie source? Do they get their calories from a secret source? Is this secret source something mystical--perhaps some higher spirit? (i.e., the so-called breatharians; a reminder, by the way--there are no scientifically verified cases of breatharianism).
- Binges and "exceptions." Do they get their calories from a more conventional (and more plausible) secret source--namely binge-eating, exceptions or "cheating"? (Very common in raw veganism.) Here the "expert" is not being completely truthful about his or her diet.
- Does the "expert" claim that calories are irrelevant? Some emaciated fruitarians make this claim--needless to say, such individuals ought to be paying more attention to calories. Note also that under special circumstances, one may be able to survive on less than 2,000 calories per day--examples include those suffering from anorexia, and some CRAN ("caloric restriction with adequate nutrition") folks. However, anorexia is a mental illness with severe physical consequences (extended malnutrition, sometimes terminating in death), and caloric restriction, like any other intense regime, may promote food (and self) obsessions, and the calorie restriction movement has not established a credible scientific record (in humans) yet.
Is the "expert" really, in effect, an anorectic? It may be possible under some (unusual) conditions to live on somewhat less than 2,000 calories per day--the body, within certain limits, can adapt to low-calorie diets. The precise value of such a lower limit is of course, variable, and will depend to some degree on the individual. But that people occasionally die from starvation in anorexia proves that there is a lower limit. Also, those with anorexia/fruitarians may need less energy, as an emaciated body has less muscle and requires less energy to maintain or move. (Even at rest, muscle requires energy to maintain.) And of course, those who are sedentary will need less calories than those who are active--such sendentism often going along with restricted diets. (Just ask a range of people on such restricted diets how much exercise they are getting, and you will discover that many of them just don't do very much.)
Thus, the "experts" who wish to use this type of explanation (who are often emaciated when caught up with; or if not, often found not to be following the diet they promote) are caught in another trap: Having to admit that for their caloric needs to be so low, they will have been on such a restricted diet for long enough that their bodies have likely adapted to their low-calorie regime in much the same manner as those with chronic anorexia nervosa--not a healthy situation to be in either mentally or physically.
"Experts" who fib about their actual intake is the most rational explanation for mismatches. In my opinion, the second explanation above (not being completely honest about the diet--which usually entails rationalizing not only to others, but to oneself) is the most logical one, with the third explanation (anorexia) as a possibility also, in the more extreme cases. Many so-called "experts" are in clear denial of reality regarding the theoretical basis of their diet; it seems intuitively reasonable that they would be in denial of their own behavior ("cheating"/binge-eating) as well. Thus, in light of these considerations, the calorie paradox--when you can apply it--provides a powerful, sobering check on the credibility of some of the so-called "experts" who promote their "ideal, perfect" diets.
Lower limits on daily calorie expenditures in starvation diets. There are some interesting research results concerning lower limits on calories per day as it relates to weight loss. The results of Thomson et al., as cited and analyzed in Grande et al., of a study of 10 women on a starvation regime, found that the women, on average, lost weight equivalent to 1,480-1,970 cal/day, depending on which type of tissues one assumes the women lost. Further, some of these women were extremely sedentary during the starvation period. (Reference: Grande et al., "Body Weight, Body Composition and Calorie Status," in Modern Nutrition in Health and Disease, edited by Robert S. Goodhart and Maurice E. Shils; 6th edition, 1980, Lea & Febiger, Philadelphia.)
Grande et al. also note, p. 32, "There is great variability among outpatients in regard to body weight response to dietary change, partly because of differences in activity habits, partly because the truth about dietary intakes is not always easy to discover." The point of the latter remark--finding the truth about dietary intakes--is something that can be very difficult to ascertain when dealing with so-called "experts" who claim to thrive on extreme diets.
Physical effects of starvation diets. Hoffer (writing in Shils et al.) describes an experiment in the 1940s with young men who followed a diet of only 1,600 cal/day for 24 weeks. On average, the men in the experiment lost 23% of their body weight. (Reference: "Starvation," by John Hoffer, chapter 56 (pp. 927-949) of Modern Nutrition in Health and Disease, vol. II, 8th edition (later edition than the above paragraph reference), 1994, edited by Maurice E. Shils et al., Lea & Feibiger, Philadelphia.)
Thus, the above two research papers suggest that the figure of 2,000 cal/day as used in this paper is in all likelihood a very conservative figure as an average for active people.
(What Is Your Primary Calorie Source? / Why Raw-Fooders Eat So Much Avocado/Nuts or Overeat Sugar/Fruit)
See TABLE OF CONTENTS
Back to Frank Talk from Long-Time Insiders
