
The Calorie Paradox of Raw Veganism (1999) - skilled
http://www.beyondveg.com/billings-t/cal-par/calorie-paradox1a.shtml
======
zwaps
I think the most important info is in the second chapter: Humans and mountain
gorillas (say) do not have the same digestive system. We are not herbivores,
and we do not have the capacity to extract nutrients only from raw vegetables
and leafs. Instead, our digestive system can be classified either as omnivore
or faunavore with adaptation to eating plants. Even the apes who east mostly
plants will eat meat and insects if they can.

For that reason, I do not see veganism as something that fits to human nature
as such. It may be, however, possible to do this in a healthy manner, and the
motivation may instead be that it is better for the environment.

But I think the argument can not be, that we are somehow meant to be vegans.

~~~
cageface
Humans are physically much closer to herbivores than true omnivores and, of
course, carnivores. If anything we're opportunistic primates that evolved to
take advantage of calories where we found them.

But I'm not sure these arguments are really that relevant to the present. We
have radically reshaped nature to suit our needs and that includes everything
we eat, both animal and vegetable. These appeals to nature generally ignore
the fact that the things we ate over the millennia don't exist now.

~~~
zwaps
Hm, the article in the op states the opposite - we are much closer to
omnivores than herbivores. Who is right?

~~~
SEJeff
Well how many herbivores have a set of canine teeth meant for ripping? All
homo sapiens do. Most herbivores that have incisors tend to have small ones
(deer only have incisors on the bottom and press them against the hard upper
palate to rip vegetation). Virtually no herbivore has sharp incisors (compared
to a lion or homo sapien). Many herbivores have overdeveloped incisors that
are used for defense such as an elephant's tusks

Herbivores tend to use premolars and molars to grind and crush vegetation.
Carnivores use sharp incisors to cut food and canines to tear food (like flesh
from bones). There is no need for a herbivore to ever have canines. Homo
Sapiens have both, but our premolars and molars are less pronounced than
herbivores.

It is logical and seems to be scientifically accurate to deduce Homo Sapiens
are evolved to be Omnivores.

~~~
marci
There's at least the Gelada:

"Why These Vegetarian Monkeys Have Sharp Predator Teeth"
([https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aC6iYj_EBjY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aC6iYj_EBjY))

"Geladas are the only primates that are primarily graminivores and grazers –
grass blades make up to 90% of their diet. They eat both the blades and the
seeds of grasses. When both blades and seeds are available, geladas prefer the
seeds. They eat flowers, rhizomes and roots when available,[12][13] using
their hands to dig for the latter two. They consume herbs, small plants,
fruits, creepers, bushes and thistles.[12][13] Insects can be eaten, but only
rarely and only if they can easily be obtained."
([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gelada#Range_and_ecology](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gelada#Range_and_ecology))

edit: and hippos

edit: and flying foxes (frugivores)

------
hprotagonist
I think the "raw" requirement is the real gotcha here.

You can get _plenty_ of calories from rice and beans. For millenia, the bulk
of humanity has lived on really plain foods with little meat (though in some
places like europe, north africa, and the middle east, quite a bit of cheese).

Extracting nutrients from uncooked foods is a lot less biochemically efficient
for our digestive system, though, and it's going to be the rate-limiting step.
If you rule out rice, oatmeal, porridges, bread, tofu, etc... you are likely
to be in a mode of basically permanent caloric defect.

A great example is maize. Raw corn is not going to keep you alive for very
long. Masa, though, sustains entire civilizations, and it only works because
you cook off the meal in high-pH water.

~~~
Symmetry
_Homo erectus_ 's ability to use cooking to liberate more nutrients from their
food was probably a critical factor in the evolution of the huge brains we
_homo sapiens_ are able to support.

~~~
richcollins
You can get plenty of calories from raw animal fats. Cooking does help a lot
with plants though. Also helps with infectious agents in meat and plants.

------
Legogris
> avocados, nuts, dried fruit, and sweet fruit juices

I know many on a vegan diet and many on raw food. High nut consumption is
definitely a thing. What is this "party line" being talked about here? Feels
like a straw man kind of.

> An alternative is a diet of nuts (fats) and sweet fruit (sugar). Such a diet
> may work better than a diet of avocados and sweet fruits. However, such a
> diet violates the strict form of the raw "party line" that one should
> sharply limit nut consumption.

Is there a source for that this is considered a violation by many?

Anecdotally, I know a guy who sustains pretty much exclusively on nuts and
fruits grown where he lives (commune in Spain, they have nut trees) for 6
months a year (he's traveling the rest) and claims he never felt better and
aims at keeping at it.

~~~
mcv
Yeah, I don't know much about raw food veganism, but I thought fruit and nuts
were rather important parts of it. Also because you can eat them without
killing the plant.

The main reason to limit fruit and nuts is because they might be too high in
calories. Obviously that limiting is not something you should take too far.
Maybe the author misunderstood and cut fruits and nuts out completely?

------
blunte
The author lets their bias against veganism show with statements like this:

"Further, a significant amount of willpower is required to resist the frequent
sugar cravings, which often leads to food (and self) obsessions (very common
in fruitarianism)."

Did I miss the study where it was found that fruitarians are often self-
obsessed? I would venture a guess that most _people_ are self-obsessed,
regardless of their diet.

~~~
skohan
I have a hard time believing that fruititarianism could be healthy in any way.
It seems like getting almost all of your energy from fructose and hardly any
fat and protein (two of the 3 core macronutrients) could not possibly work. It
makes me think of an article I read in the past 6 months about how zoo animals
are having metabolic damage because the fruit we grow commercially is so high
in sugar it's no longer healthy.

And this is purely anecdotal, but I watched a youtube video about a guy who
went raw fruititarian for a few months, and his before and after photos were
not inspiring. He lost some weight, but his skin and hair seemed fragile, and
he seemed kind of lethargic and spacey in his after video.

~~~
blunte
Oh I don't doubt that fruitarianism is a less than optimal diet, but I don't
know that it's fair to claim that fruitarians are generally self-obsessed (at
least compared to practioners of other diets and fitness regimes).

~~~
monocasa
It's not that it's "less than optimal", it kills you. It's what killed Steve
Jobs for instance.

~~~
blunte
Well by definition, something that kills you is less than optimal (unless
death is your goal).

~~~
monocasa
Less than optimal has the connotation of being sufficient, but requiring more
resources than strictly necessary.

~~~
blunte
My original post was about the author's bias, not about fruitarianism. My
"less than optimal" comment was a gentle, intentionally non-confrontational
effort to return the focus on bias rather than the specific diet. Clearly my
effort failed.

------
miles_matthias
Need to point out something no one in the comments has: this is a 20 year old
article.

------
11235813213455
In one week, I can eat more than 20 kg of raw fruits (currently peaches,
apricots, tomatoes; in other seasons: clementines, persimmons, ..), and
another 5-6 kg of steamed vegetables (leafy onions, carrots, round eggplant,
peppers). Sometimes, I add some full-grain rice or fish or honey.

The result is a lot of energy (except sometimes 1-2 hrs of digestion), no cold
or other common illness, and a low BMI (body-mass index) indeed (I'm around
18), because it's not only low-calorie, but the fibers give a feeling of
satiety for a long time

~~~
devinhelton
_and a low BMI (body-mass index) indeed (I 'm around 18)_

A BMI that low is not a good thing. It is evidence against your diet being
optimal. Mortality rates are actually higher when BMI is below 20
([https://www.bmj.com/content/353/bmj.i2156](https://www.bmj.com/content/353/bmj.i2156)
[https://www.bmj.com/content/bmj/353/bmj.i2156/F3.large.jpg](https://www.bmj.com/content/bmj/353/bmj.i2156/F3.large.jpg)
\-- although causality is not established). And from a common sense or
aesthetic perspective, such a low BMI almost certainly means you lack ideal
muscle mass.

~~~
11235813213455
Thanks for the warning, I'm around 60kg, 1.82m high. I do a lot of bike, and
I'm sort of thin, for example I can join my thumb and any other finger around
my wrist. You could consider someone like Hicham El Guerrouj (58/1.76 __2 ==
18.7), that 18.5 limit is not really one for some morphologies

~~~
devinhelton
Super-star athletes aren't really good examples to learn from. They often have
to do unhealthy and extreme things to their body in order to achieve absolute
peak performance at one specific task. NFL linemen and sumo wrestlers are
unhealthily overweight. Boxers and wrestlers have unhealthy levels of body fat
and hydration in order to squeeze into the lowest possible weight class. And
long distance runners avoid developing any upper body muscle, because every
pound of additional weight costs seconds on their time. That's not something a
normal person should do.

60kg at 1.82m strikes me as really fricking thin. I'm your height, and have
considered myself a lean, athletic guy, but at 13% bodyfat I weigh 80kg.

~~~
11235813213455
Yes, but I'm a developer, why would I need more upper body muscles?

My daily activity doesn't require some more particular strength (although I
wouldn't consider myself weak either), it's more about endurance. I've enough
core strength to not have any back problem too (I avoid sitting on a chair
though, but rather lie down/stretch out in front of my laptop)

------
xvilka
I know a lot of vegans who indulge in sugary fruits and dishes. Most of my
vegan peers, in fact. At the same time it is quite possible to keep high-fat,
low-sugar vegan diet (or even plain vegan keto). It boils down to any above-
ground plant, no fruits, various nuts, and a lot of oil - olive, avocado,
coconut oil. And soy products of course. It is much healthier than consuming
tons of fruits, destroying your metabolism and teeth.

~~~
ssijak
A lot of vegetable oils is not good. Not nutritionally dense as real foods,
pretty much almost empty calories and very bad omega3/6 ratio. That partially
applies to nuts too. Small amount of nuts is probably ok, especcially walnuts.

~~~
bildung
[https://www.health.harvard.edu/newsletter_article/No-need-
to...](https://www.health.harvard.edu/newsletter_article/No-need-to-avoid-
healthy-omega-6-fats)

~~~
Passthepeas
personally I would classify this as malpractice. The inflammatory effect of
polyunsaturated oils is common knowledge at this point.

~~~
bildung
Are you sure? I thought it is basically consensus that _un_ saturated fats are
the more healthy ones. Another source: [https://www.heart.org/en/healthy-
living/healthy-eating/eat-s...](https://www.heart.org/en/healthy-
living/healthy-eating/eat-smart/fats/polyunsaturated-fats)

------
stagas
I've been having this thought, however strange it may seem, it seems to me
that the vegan movement, rightly justified by the cruelty that
industrialization brings towards animals, is probably achieving the opposite
effect of its original goal, that is, to stop killing animals for food.

The ideal solution, in my opinion, would be to brew tissue in a factory, sans
brains, just the muscular system of animals. Seems plausible, right?

The problem is to reach that state, we require research. Research needs
funding, and the only ones with an incentive to do that are companies that
deal with meat. I imagine it is way more expensive to take care of animals
than it would be to just grow muscles. But now that veganism is eating the
world, that creates an impediment to that incentive, as the demand is now
reduced and so the companies can just sustain their current production levels
instead of finding ways to optimize them and therefore funding the research
necessary.

So, in effect, veganism is causing _more_ animals to die in the macro-process
of us reaching the technological state of growing tissue in the lab.

What do you think?

~~~
acdw
Your argument reads a lot like the "millenials are killing X" meme -- you're
blaming people who've stopped engaging with a system for the continuing of
that system. Factory farming is not vegans' responsibility, just as fossil
fuel extraction is not bike-commuters' responsibility.

I agree with you that cultured meat is a much better food solution than
factory farming, and I will absolutely advocate for that. But veganism _isn
't_ causing more animals to die by reducing demand for meat -- that logically
doesn't follow.

(Also, "veganism is eating the world" is false -- it is on the rise, but less
than one per cent of Americans are vegan, at least as of 2015. As a vegan, I
still get a lot of looks and comments that prove that my lifestyle is _not_
the norm.)

------
meerita
Anyone interested in good dietary book, please read Nutitrion and Physical
Degeneration, Weston Price. Good information about the health benefits of
eating properly.

------
stevespang
It appears the author avoids the simple solution of bringing more
monosaturated oils into the diet. If raw vegetarianism forbids it, then it is
likely a failed diet plan. Leaning more and more towards "keto vegetarian", I
consume more olive oil to get those calories, and I am loosing weight still.
Eating raw walnuts is supposed to be one of the highest sources of alpha
linolenic acid, however upon visual analysis of stools you can see a large
amount of walnut remains passing through without much apparent digestion.

On the other hand, the strict keto dieters are eating meat which has excessive
cholesterol, artery clogging saturated fats and red meat has high loadings of
free iron (toxic).

