
In one daily newsletter that Wendi and I subscribe to, there was a discourse recently about being right – but being right for the wrong reason. I’ve long been interested in that concept; it’s fascinating, when you really think about it — like getting credit on a test for an answer you guessed at, or knowing how to say something in another language but not knowing what it means. Along those lines, I’d like to share some personal opinion with you.
One of the common pro-raw arguments is that it’s a calorie-restrictive diet and thus healthy because it limits our caloric intake (a regimen widely associated with extended lifespans in scientific literature). If you consider that a pound of greens or veggies has about 100 calories (generally speaking) and a pound of fruit has 300-400, imagine the incredible amounts of food you could ingest daily and still be considered calorie-restricted (as compared with the recommended number of calories for your build and lifestyle)!
It’s quite a lot — especially if you were to limit the calorie-boosters that also exist within the raw paradigm — nuts, seeds, dehydrated foods, and calorie-dense foods like dates, avocados, etc. You know those plastic shoe-box sized containers of pre-washed spinach? Those contain merely one-pound! Can you imagine eating a whole box (or two!) that size in one day, and only getting 100 or 200 calories for your efforts? (Actually, this problem — recognizing that mega-quantities of greens are healthy, but pondering how to go about eating that much – is said to be the inspiration for Victoria Boutenko’s pioneering the now-ubiquitous green smoothie.)
So, yes, in one sense, raw can be a calorie-restricted regimen. But, let’s back up a bit, as I want to make two important points here:
1. Let’s not rush to conclude that healthy calorie restriction is simply a numbers game and that “a calorie is a calorie” — meaning that any calorie will suffice on a restricted diet. Consider two similar people: Person 1 eats a calorie-restricted diet of 1,500 calories per day from pure lard. Person 2 eats 1,500 calories per day of fruits and vegetables. Intuitively, you know where this is going, right?
So, the kind of calorie matters. It seems that there is a scale of “nutritiousness” out there, doesn’t it? On the “lard” end of this scale, you have calories that are not only devoid of nutrition, but that are in fact toxic! Then, somewhere in the middle, you have caloric sources that are likely … let’s say “kind of neutral.” And then over on the right side are calories that are healing, nutritious, enlivening, and uplifting. Same calories, dramatically different results. Calories have dimensions, depth! (Perhaps they have many dimensions. Maybe we should devote a post to each one we can think of!)
Here’s point number 2: I would submit that this dimension of nutritiousness is actually more important than the “scientific calorie,” this ”unit of energy-producing potential equal to this amount of heat that is contained in food and released upon oxidation by the body” (according to my American Heritage dictionary). In fact, I’ll stop just shy of asserting that counting calories as we know them now is all but useless to a raw foodist.
If nutrition is more important (which I believe), then that changes the whole game. To me, standard caloric recommendations represent a measure of how much cooked food, dead and/or highly diminished in nutritional value, the average person can tolerate. (I know that’s not technically what it means, but I’m suggesting that it’s another way to think about it.) It could also be, to some extent, that this is how many cooked calories we need in order to glean a modicum of life-sustaining nutrition — to barely scrape by nutrition-wise, in other words … whereas, if you’re eating a generally lower-calorie raw regimen, you’re easily pulling in the nutrients your body desires!
I do think standard calorie counting is useful as a very general guide. But, I have to tell you: Neither Wendi nor I ever counted or restricted calories as part of our intention to lose weight. I mean, sure, there were times when we tracked calories out of curiosity. But, we also regularly enjoyed some very rich foods during our first raw years. I’m not speaking of packaged raw foods; I’m talking about things like creamy coconut milkshakes, rich apple pies for dinner, raw brownies, enormous salads with thick dressings, and other not-very-low-cal things!
Raw in general probably will fit into most people’s definition of a calorie-restricted diet. But, I suspect that’s not what’s so magical about raw foods! So, I suppose it’s nice to be right, but it’s even more fulfilling to be right for the right reason. Maybe, in the end, finding the ultimate reason will elude our ability for understanding. (In other words, maybe I don’t fully appreciate why I’m right, either — assuming that I am.) But, I submit to you that, in delving into these other dimensions (nutrition trumping calories), you’re heading further down the path of being right for the right reason.
Recent Comments