Chemical Calories are fattening... What is Your opinion?

[Guest guest]

I am reading a book called " The Body Restoration Plan " by Dr. Paula

Baillie-Hamilton.

 

In this book she states that we need to eliminate the " chemical

calories " to repair the body's natural slimming system. That

these " chemical calories " can inhibit weight loss and actually make

us fatter. They damage the metabolism and appetite-regulating systems

that compose the body's " Slimming system " that maintain and control

proper weight.

 

I know that we are to be eating raw and organic to have better health

and that the pesticides on foods are toxins to us.. But do you think

there is anything to what she says??

 

Flipping through the book she states that strawberries are one of the

top 12 with the fattening " chemical calories " due to the fact that it

is a fragile food crop and needs more of the pesticides and

preservatives to keep them fresh looking.. She even states that

strawberries would be more fattening then avacados..

 

I am just flipping through this book as I have just started it..but

was wondering if anyone else has anything to say about this..? Do you

think there is something to this or is it more nonsense?

Debbie

[Guest guest]

Hi Debbie..

 

I've *not* read the time, and based upon the little bit you've

offered here, probably won't! lol!

 

that said, I've interspersed some comments below.

 

 

 

rawfood , " Debbie " <aromatic_wings> wrote:

> I am reading a book called " The Body Restoration Plan " by Dr.

Paula

> Baillie-Hamilton.

>

> In this book she states that we need to eliminate the " chemical

> calories " to repair the body's natural slimming system. That

> these " chemical calories " can inhibit weight loss and actually make

> us fatter. They damage the metabolism and appetite-regulating

systems

> that compose the body's " Slimming system " that maintain and control

> proper weight.

 

no idea what a " chemical calorie " - my best guess would be that it

si something she made up (a quick Google search shows that most, if

not all, of the references to this term are from either her website,

or from her book) - she'd got something to sell: a system....a 30 day

this or that...

 

having glanced at some of her material, her basic chart states

that " ...The Chemical Calorie Food Guide (the potential amount of

chemical calories in different food types; all foods were produced

conventionally unless marked organic).. " and then the table only

lists one, that's correct one, 1, uno, fruit that was organic: it was

an apple, and it showed a rating of " very low " --- no surprise

there...all other fruits rated were grown " conventionally " , meaning

they'd used pesticides, chemical fertilizers, etc...etc...which are

all *one* of the reasons that organic foods are preferred to

conventional/chemical.

 

With all of that, he " idea " does make a little sense, if the body

can't get rid of the toxin, it may " store " it somewhere, and surrond

it with water or tissue to protect the body from the " chemicals " , and

could thus, yes, be increasing the body weight. She seems to be

taking an oblique angle attack to explaining one of the ways the body

deals with toxins.

 

We don't need her book: we already know how to eat: whole, raw,

fresh, organic or better, fruits, vegys, and a few nuts and seeds.

 

 

>

> I know that we are to be eating raw and organic to have better

health

> and that the pesticides on foods are toxins to us.. But do you

think

> there is anything to what she says??

 

no,..see above...

>

> Flipping through the book she states that strawberries are one of

the

> top 12 with the fattening " chemical calories " due to the fact that

it

> is a fragile food crop and needs more of the pesticides and

> preservatives to keep them fresh looking.. She even states that

> strawberries would be more fattening then avacados..

 

the strawberries in the chart are " conventional " - high chemical..

 

as far as strawberries would be more fattening than avocados -- only

if we're using her " chemical calorie " stuff -- create a term, create

a need, sell a product...standard model..

 

as a quick reminder, and to point out the folly of the " more

fattening " statement, note from Nurtidiary and the USDA, that

a 100 g. serving of strawberries, has 32 Cal. from fat....(with an

84%C/8%P/8%F calonutrient ratio...) and that a 100g serving of

avocado has 120 Cal from fat, with and 24/7/69 percent breakdown...

Looks to me that Avocado still has about 400% the fat that

strawberries do. Also note that the strawberry meets the 80/10/10

guideline, and the avocado does *not*.

>

> I am just flipping through this book as I have just started it..but

> was wondering if anyone else has anything to say about this..? Do

you

> think there is something to this or is it more nonsense?

 

I'd rate it mostly nonsense..

 

all the best,

 

Bob

[Guest guest]

Hi Debbie~

 

I don't *know* anything about this. My gut instinct is that it's correct.

 

Someone in this group or another that I belong to recently posted a

list of the most heavily sprayed crops, along with a list of the

" safest " sprayed foods. Strawberries was on the bad list. If our body

doesn't recognize some of the chemicals as food, then it makes total

sense that it would be stored as a toxin in the fat cells as

protection. This would definitely be more fattening than an avocado

since the avocado's fat is considered the good-for-you monounsaturated

kind of fat. (I'd also heard that the avocado's fat acts as an

emulsifier, helping to carry the *other* fat out of the body. That may

just be wishful thinking though.)

 

I'll be interested in what else you learn from this reading.

 

 

Annette

(Washington State)

 

rawfood , " Debbie " <aromatic_wings> wrote:

 

> Flipping through the book she states that strawberries are one of the

> top 12 with the fattening " chemical calories " due to the fact that it

> is a fragile food crop and needs more of the pesticides and

> preservatives to keep them fresh looking.. She even states that

> strawberries would be more fattening then avacados..

[Guest guest]

Debbie [aromatic_wings] Wednesday, June 15, 2005 8:19

AM [Raw Food] Chemical Calories are fattening... What is Your

opinion?

 

I am reading a book called " The Body Restoration Plan " by Dr. Paula

Baillie-Hamilton.

 

In this book she states that we need to eliminate the " chemical calories " to

repair the body's natural slimming system. That these " chemical calories "

can inhibit weight loss and actually make us fatter. They damage the

metabolism and appetite-regulating systems that compose the body's " Slimming

system " that maintain and control proper weight.

 

I know that we are to be eating raw and organic to have better health and

that the pesticides on foods are toxins to us.. But do you think there is

anything to what she says??

 

Flipping through the book she states that strawberries are one of the top 12

with the fattening " chemical calories " due to the fact that it is a fragile

food crop and needs more of the pesticides and preservatives to keep them

fresh looking.. She even states that strawberries would be more fattening

then avacados..

 

I am just flipping through this book as I have just started it..but was

wondering if anyone else has anything to say about this..? Do you think

there is something to this or is it more nonsense?

Debbie

_____

Hi Debbie,

 

Obviously you are just familiarizing yourself with this book, so both your

inquiry and my response must be a bit tentative in nature. I limit my

response to the strawberry matter.

 

Recently there has been a thread about organic vs. commercially grown foods.

I found the overall content and spirit of this thread disappointing, but I

will address that more fully in a longer post, probably in July. In the

meantime, here is a simple way to think about both the organic/commercial

question and the strawberry question above:

 

ANY food crop that cannot survive without the support of pesticides,

herbicides, fungicides, heavy use of commercial fertilizers, etc. is, almost

by definition, a nutritionally deficient food. Strong, healthy plants are

rarely susceptible to routine attacks by insects, fungi, and the like.

Rather, insects, fungi, etc. prefer to attack weak or sickly plants. Looked

at through another lens, the plants lack the vitality to survive healthfully

on their own in nature, they can only survive within a massive defensive

perimeter of poisons (e.g., pesticides) and drugs (e.g., fertilizers).

 

This phenomenon is much the same as occurs among predatory animals, such as

cats: a lion always goes after the weakest zebra in the herd, never the

strongest. This is sometimes known as " culling the herd. "

 

In order to address the strawberry question above, we need to distinguish

between commercially vs. organically grown strawberries. Commercially grown

strawberries (and indeed most commercially grown food crops) can only

survive with the support of poisons and drugs, as discussed above. These are

always nutritionally deficient foods.

 

Whether this results in the food becoming " fattening " is another question,

however. We obtain calories from proteins, carbohydrates, and fats we

consume. When we consume calories in excess of our utilization, this excess

is generally stored in the body as " body fat. " To my knowledge, use of

poisons such as pesticides does not materially alter the caloric content of

plant foods. However, use of other substances, particularly

growth-enhancers, may indeed alter the caloric content of these foods. I am

not presently aware of any data that reflect such a phenomenon, but I would

at least allow that this is possible, and I certainly am not aware of " all

available data. " In any event, I would expect to see an increase in mass

accompanying any increase in calories, so that the calories per unit of mass

(e.g., calories per 100 gm) might not vary all that much.

 

It seems more likely, again having not seen this book, that certain toxins

entering the body via these commercially grown food crops cannot be easily

eliminated and must therefore be stored. To the extent that these toxic

substances are water soluble, then it is possible and even likely that the

body would take on additional water weight in which to dilute and store the

material until elimination becomes feasible.

 

But overall, I cannot presently imagine how strawberries would cause more

weight gain than avocados.

 

To be fair, most organic farmers do use some form of fertilizers, and toxins

presently permeate the entire ecosystem. As a result, even organically grown

foods may bring in some poisons and other chemical " additives. " However, in

general the quantity and toxicity of these materials is significantly less

than that brought into our bodies via commercially grown foods.

 

I would also caution you to filter carefully what you read. The body has no

" slimming system, " slimming is the result of a combination of healthful

activities -- eating, physical activity, sunshine, etc., the usual list. We

can only create health, or not. We can never manipulate the body to become

something it is not, it will simply compensate somewhere.

 

I hope this is helpful!

Elchanan

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

--

------------------------ [ SECURITY NOTICE ] ------------------------

rawfood , rawschool .

For your security, vlinfo

digitally signed this message on 15 June 2005 at 17:27:22 UTC.

Verify this digital signature at http://www.ciphire.com/verify.

------------------- [ CIPHIRE DIGITAL SIGNATURE ] -------------------

Q2lwaGlyZSBTaWcuAVdyYXdmb29kQHlhaG9vZ3JvdXBzLmNvbSwgcmF3c2Nob29sQHlha

G9vZ3JvdXBzLmNvbQB2bGluZm9AZWFydGhsaW5rLm5ldABlbWFpbCBib2R5AKUQAAB8AH

wAAAABAAAA+mSwQqUQAACCAwACAAIAAgAgWd+zucKbIEucZcbnZ7O7RcEjNJ+04fHvM/E

sxjA51E8BAEHvXDx7hpKTsvAgr9D0EPgSpueSCJ3R+4yHzWz2x9XhOJIDGddxDfEURboH

a8cXwSFp3+WWH5NfyPqDEHZGN+Y6U2lnRW5k

--------------------- [ END DIGITAL SIGNATURE ] ---------------------