energy first or nutrients first?

[Annieke]

Over the past few days I've been playing with the nutrient calculator, and I find that to meet all (well, most) nutrient requirements I need to eat up to 3 kgs of food a day. With eating very small meals all the time, I have no idea how to fit that much food into my day.

This example would be best nutrient wise:

[Item 1] 800g (grams) of Banana (Musa X paradisiaca), [1],
[Item 2] 1000g (grams) of Apple (Malus sylvestris), no skin, [1],
[Item 3] 200g (grams) of Avocado (Persea gratissima Gaertn.), [2],
[Item 4] 100g (grams) of Chicken egg yolk (Gallus domesticus), raw, [1],
[Item 5] 10 table spoons (150g) of Olive oil (Olea europea), [1],
[Item 6] 1 units, medium of Cucumber (Cucumis sativus), peeled, [1][2],
[Item 7] 500ml (milliliters) of Orange juice (Citrus sinensis), fresh, not pasteurized, [1][2].

But it is alot of food for one day, and provides 3500 kcal. Now I don't know if that's too much energy for me yet, but the biggest problem (I think) is that it's simply too much food.

Any ideas on what I should do? Just discard meeting nutrient requirements and focus only on the energy I need?

Weird, now that I've learned so much about nutrition, all of a sudden the numbers are very important to me. I feel like I should let go of that (I mean, who really knows how much we need of what?), but it's hard.

I have to say, I don't really like Orange juice, I added it most of all for the nutrients.

Oh, thought I should mention; I walk briskly for two to three hours a day, and I do some yoga every other day.

[dionysus]

If my thinking is correct, we (Wai-dieters) are more efficient at utilising the nutrients we put into our body and we therefore do not require the WHO guidelines on daily nutrient intake.

I don't think/know if RRM could come out and explicitly state this (for legal reasons) but this the impression i get from reading the data available in the Wai Book.

But yes, i personally do not like eating fiber. So i limit it to an avacado a day (plus fish) for nutrients.

[dionysus]

....plus my 2 litres of OJ (& 160g of OO)

[Annieke]

That's what I've been thinking as well, putting less junk in our bodies requires less nutrients to keep things balanced, or something like that.

[Oscar]

Since energy needs are individually different it's a bit hard to say, but it seems a little bit high. My guess would me more in the 2500-3000 region, but you'll have to experiment and listen to what(/how much) your body needs. Indeed numbers are only an indication, but can help to get a general idea.

[Annieke]

Yes, the energy is a bit much. I've now made a new calculation which gives me 3000 kcal, and I've decided to let the nutrients be for now. I've not left any nutrients out, but haven't bothered to get them all the way up to the RDA's.

Energy may still be too high, but I'd rather start with too much and find that I have to adjust it downwards, then to have too little. I have no intention to loose any weight (except waterweight), and even now I'm, if I were to follow the BMI, only just above being too skinny. So I'll start with this, and see how I do.

[Oscar]

Sounds like a plan.

[RRM]

If my thinking is correct, we (Wai-dieters) are more efficient at utilising the nutrients we put into our body and we therefore do not require the WHO guidelines on daily nutrient intake.
...
i personally do not like eating fiber. So i limit it to an avacado a day (plus fish) for nutrients.

Yes.
As many of you already know; if you take a look inside the bowels of people eating a normal diet, you will see a plague of undigested remainders. Much of the food we eat is very hard to break down to the required nutrients, due to damaged as the result of heat, but also because they contain many anti-nutrients and additives.
With 100% natural, easy to digest foods, what you see is what you get; whats in there is what you will use very efficiently. No crust of undigested remainders. Very little waste.
Fiber is also a factor that negatively affects digestablity.

[Brazilnuts]

Any ideas on what I should do? Just discard meeting nutrient requirements and focus only on the energy I need?

Thanks for posting this OP. I was about to do a thread on this very topic but decided to do a search first to see if anyone else had addressed this issue.

I was getting rather worried that my calcium figures were nowhere near the RDA.

And as I have written in my diet diary, I'm getting rid of the plague RMM described that coats the bowels, so my nutrients are probably absorbed better now.

I'm glad I don't have to worry about eating for an army just to get the official RDA of nutrients.

[Oscar]

Esp. the calcium recommendations are way off the scale.

[RRM]

yes indeed, based on the assumption that more calcium helps prevent bone-decalcification. Statistical data, however, show that in countries where the least calcium is consumed, bone-decalcification incidence is the lowest. In high-calcium consuming countries osteoporosis (brittle bones disease) is extremely prevalent.

[Havas]

Yes.
As many of you already know; if you take a look inside the bowels of people eating a normal diet, you will see a plague of undigested remainders. Much of the food we eat is very hard to break down to the required nutrients, due to damaged as the result of heat, but also because they contain many anti-nutrients and additives.

As someone who lived with an Ileostomy (small intestines literally sticking out of stomach, into a (see through) bag) due to Ulcerative Colitis, I have a bit of insight.

What you (or rather I) see is after all the digestion has occurred - other than some solidification / bacteria in the large intestines.

Anyway, name a food and I can tell you how well it's broken down. And to be honest, cooked foods get broken down A LOT better.

Oranges, mangoes and apples (especially apple skin, that doesn't get broken down at all -- probably cause it's wax coated?) are some "natural" foods that are broken down poorly.

But when you cook vegetables and meats (never tried with fruits) they get broken down significantly better.


Last thing, chewing your food makes a MASSIVE difference, to the point it's not believable.

With 100% natural, easy to digest foods, what you see is what you get; whats in there is what you will use very efficiently. No crust of undigested remainders. Very little waste.
Fiber is also a factor that negatively affects digestablity.

Don't agree with the rest, but fiber definitely reduces digestibility - it's very noticeable.

I don't think this really contradicts the whole acne theory, but cooking food definitely increases the bioavailability of nutrients. Whether or not this is good is a separate question - but I think it's pretty well documented.

[RRM]

And to be honest, cooked foods get broken down A LOT better.

I didnt claim the opposite.
Cooked foods get broken down more easily (not 'better') because cooking destroys the fiber, and thus makes the food easier to digest.
But, thats not where the process stops.
After the decomposition, what remains are smaller particles. And when it comes to cooked foods, more molecules (very small particles) remain that are very hard to break down.
So, the whole food is broken down faster, but in cooked foods there are more damaged molecules that are not taken up in the blood.

So, yes, with fruits more fiber remains, but is also easily excreted (stool).
With cooked foods more fiber is destroyed and broken down, but more small particles remain that cannot be digested, and eventually create a layer of residues in the bowels.

when you cook vegetables and meats (never tried with fruits) they get broken down significantly better.

NOT better.
If you put foods in the blender, they get broken down rapidly, but not BETTER (compared to the digestive tract).
What is better?
When all available nutrients are properly singled out to be absorbed.
By cooking foods, nutrients get damaged. Just because the package (fiber) is rapidly destroyed does not at all mean that the net gain of nutrients is better.
In fact, the net gain of nutrients is worse....

Last thing, chewing your food makes a MASSIVE difference, to the point it's not believable.

Of course it does.

cooking food definitely increases the bioavailability of nutrients.

That is true for unnatural foods (grains, veggies etc), indeed. Very much so. But we are not talking about unnatural foods here.
When it comes to raw, natural foods its not true (if you chew properly, indeed), as they are easy to digest and cooking destroys nutrients.
Do you think that cooking OJ would increase its bioavailability?
Or raw tuna?