I did not say in my post that the Minn. study was more or less valid than what a survival situation. It is a place to start and read and learn from.
It is a scientific study attempting to match the conditions in a concentration camp.
Actually, no, it was a study attempting to match the near famine diets of much of war torn europe. To quote from the wikipedia article:
"The motivation of the study was twofold: First, to produce a definitive treatise on the subject of human starvation based on a laboratory simulation of severe famine and, second, to utilize the scientific results produced to guide the Allied relief assistance to famine victims in Europe and Asia at the end of World War II. It was recognized early in 1944 that millions of people were in grave danger of mass famine as a result of the conflict and information was needed regarding the effects of semi-starvation — and the impact of various rehabilitation strategies — if post-war relief efforts were to be effective."
The specific situation in concentration camps and japanese POW camps was different, and worse. (I have specific knowledge of both from survivors, in my extended family and the co-family in my household. Safta used to beg MARGARINE wrappers from german guards to boil for soup.)
That you did "NOT see the energy level of the food to be as important as the nutrient quality" is not a good argument - two points.
1. Absence of proof is not proof of absence
2. It is a straw man argument
Well-known human vitamin deficiencies involve thiamine (beriberi), niacin (pellagra), vitamin C (scurvy) and vitamin D (rickets). In much of the developed world, such deficiencies are rare; this is due to (1) an adequate supply of food; and (2) the addition of vitamins and minerals to common foods, often called fortification.[18][27]
Most commentators note that Food is not usually urgently needed in survival situations because a human can survive for several weeks without it. However, they also note that in extreme cold lack of food can be dangerous, and in other situations hunger, like gradual dehydration, can bring about many consequences long before it causes death, such as:
* Irritability and low morale
* Weakness
* Loss of mental clarity, such as confusion, disorientation, or poor judgment
* Weakened immune system
* Increasing difficulty maintaining body temperature (see Heat exhaustion and Hypothermia)
I just knew debate protocols would start taking over, but I'm going to ignore that for the moment. My philosophy and debate training are well over a decade in the past.
I'd like you to explain further the 'absence of proof is not proof of absence' part.
The last bit there, discussing the effects of inadequate food, is very important. I will still maintain the possibility that fewer Calories of higher nutritional value food will have a greater preventative effect on all but possibly hypothermia (we'll get to that) than eating, for example, plain boiled taters or macaroni. And a foraging diet with
fewer Calories is not the same as
no intake
You do point out that in our hypothetical situation, there is not enough time elapsing for most nutritional deficiency based diseases to arise. I could argue that, for example with the depression of immune capability and stress response from even short term lack of vitamin C. But in a broader context, the overall function of the body is going to be far better with higher nutritional quality rather than simply more Calories.
I'm assuming that our hypothetical situation is long enough for reduced intake of calories to have a significant impact. Barring extreme environmental conditions such as snowpack withoout adequate heated shelter, that's a fair amount of time. Long enough for the body to feel the initial effects of nutritional lacks.
Calories are extremity important in a survival situation. Those of use that do hard hiking know that we can burn 4000+ calories a day. If you are in a survival situation, foraging, and moving towards safety are burning in the same area of calories. So using the 1800 or 1000 calories a person has a deficit of 50%+ or 75%+ in calories per day. The affects of this starvation will affect a person long before the nutritional deficit will.
This is highly variable. For example, were i in the YT in winter, I'd be very conscious of Calorie intake, but in summer it would be far less threatening. Similarly, where I live now, anywhere from the coast west of me to the high foothills of the Sierra east of me, I'd be far better able to get by without heavy hiking, and foraging doesn't necessarily require huge amounts of sustained heavy effort. And there is adequate forage year round, for extended issues.
Hypothermia is a greater risk when moving around than in a secure shelter, as well. Is my primary goal to make 10 miles/day of rugged terrain hiking in upland winter?
My responses show that - all other things being equal - the person on a 2000/day cal intake would have a better chance of survival versus the 1000/day person.
Now you are changing things around- your responses are designed to indicate that
if nutrition is completely unimportant 2000 Calories a day will get you by longer than 1000 Calories per day.
Without going into detail on every possible non stored or short term vitamin deficiency, a quick look at thiamin is possible:
Beriberi is caused by a chronic long term deficiency of thiamin, but short term effects include- anorexia, irritability, loss of energy, depression, and apathy. All of these bear very directly on your above noted consequences of long term hunger. Plentiful carbohydrate intake with a thiamin deficient system can cause acute thiamin deficiency and bring beriberi into play much more quickly.
Thiamin is a coenzyme crucial to the metabolism of glucose (hence the carbohydrate problem). Since glucose is what the nervous system needs, this is more improtant than simply having more cheap bad carb based Calories. (and while enriched flour came out of the near famine environment of the first Great Depression, it doesn't gorw wild.) As was pointed out in a thread a few months ago, even a meager couple hundred Calories per day giving more available glucose for the brain and nervous system drastically reduce the psychological strain of an extended fasting regimen.
This is
just a short example. I do feel like I'm being debated as if I was claiming that Calories are completely unimportant, when what I'm suggesting is that a foraging diet is significanlty different from a reduced "calories are calories, regardless of source" pasty carb diet.
Rose hips, for example, weigh in at about 50 Calories per ounce and are a very good broad seasonal forage for this area, with large quantities of vitamin C, A, E, K, some amount of riboflavin, niacin, and B6, and a good amount of mineral nutrition. Unfortunately, as an example, they are lacking in thiamin. (Thiamin is available in many meats and fish, legumes, nuts, sunflower seed, and noteably in yeast- which naturally occurs in many fruits and can be utilized in extended scenarios by light fermentation of fruit products, expecially grapes and berries.) Point being, that a double handful of rosehips alone will net you a few hundred calories and requires very little heavy foraging work if they are around. Obviously, to me, I am not suggesting simply eating two handfuls of rosehips per day as a foraging diet, it is simple a single part, and 30 minutes light grazing out of a day.
i fee as if your argument is that regardless of source, Calories are the primary importance over all other factors, in all situation, and that I am being painted as suggesting zero Calories instead of a heavy focus on nutritional balance over Calorie counts.
