Some people are wondering if they could have enough calories on a raw foods
diet. I must say I don't like the word "calories", it sounds meaningless to
me (this is a personal opinion), I prefer talking about "energy".
First, how can you be sure you will assimilate all (or most of) the calories
you eat. In my opinion, you will assimilate more in proportion on a raw food
diet because raw foods are better fit for humans and, thus, beter (more
Have you ever thought about the amouunt of energy required to digest foods. I
wwould be interested to know what part of our dayly energy expense is
dedicated to digest foods. One can easily assume it takes a lot more energy
to digest cooked foods (that are not really suitable for us) than raw foods,
annd especially sprouts, that are almost self-digested.
And what about the "leucocytosis" (production of white blood cells) when we
eat cooked foods, mainly animal foods. This does not happen with a raw foods
diet: energy is saved again.
Cooked foods, mainly animal foods, are full of substances that our body
consider as toxins. What energy is lost again by the whole system to get rid
of these "alien" substances.
So my guess is that we probably need a lot less energy (or calories, if you
like) on a raw food diet than on the traditional diets.
It may seems to be a paradox to speak about "saving" energy while others are
asking about "getting" energy but the final result is the amount of energy
available at the end.
Any comments or more info?
Pierre Gaumond. <[log in to unmask]>