An Argument Against Fast Food

A calorie is defined as a measure of food energy. It might seem logical, then, to assume that the more calories consumed, the more energy our body is supplied with. Of course, we know this is not the case, otherwise people with the highest energy would be those who eat at fast food restaurants. By simply consuming more calories, we are not guaranteed more energy. Many conventional nutrition books would have us believe that if we expend a certain amount of energy, it can be quantified and replaced. They suggest that by simply adhering to calorie counts, with no consideration of other factors, we can accurately gauge the amount of food we need to consume to maintain low body weight and high energy. But it doesn't work that way.

Unfortunately, most foods in the average North American's diet require almost as much energy to assimilate as they contain, because while they are high in calories, they are low in nutrients. The nutritional value of food stated on the food packaging label refers to what is in the food - not what the body actually gets from it. By consuming more easily assimilated foods, you can conserve a large amount of energy, therefore reducing stress in the body, and helping with recovery. There are two main reasons for this. First, foods in their natural, nutrient-dense state can be digested and assimilated with less energy expenditure than processed, refined foods. Second, when more nutrient-rich foods are present in the diet, the body does not have to eat as much as if it were fed less nutrient-rich foods. Today, I consume 30 percent fewer calories than I did just two years ago, yet I have more energy - by means of conservation, rather than consumption.