Moderators: JeffN, f1jim, carolve, Heather McDougall
That is good. This discussion on fruit consumption might be useful as you continue to experiment.Ejg wrote:These wobbles have so far been limited and I've not allowed myself to use them as an excuse to completely go off the rails.
Yup! ADHERENCE + TIME sounds like success to me! I'm happy to know that you are able to use the scale in a way that supports and motivates your efforts, and VERY happy that my thoughts on weighing felt validating. Congratulations on your results!carwex wrote:What is success for me? It’s just to keep coming back to this forum, keep on sharing, keep on trying as best I can to stick to the MWL. I don’t know if I will ever get to a constant state of just doing it naturally but if I keep coming back, I can’t go too wrong. That sounds like time and adherence to me.
You have it exactly right, in my opinion. Starch-power - what a great way to describe it!Noella wrote:Eating adherent food on a schedule helps me to get through these tempting moments. Lesson learned. I must not allow myself to get hungry when I am entertaining guests or eating out with friends at a restaurant. I need to have starch regularly in the hours leading up to the social event; then I have what looks like willpower, but it's starch-power!
Is there a particular nutrient that you are worried is missing from your diet, or is this more of a general anxiety that "something" is missing?Noella wrote:I sometimes wonder if there are vitamins or minerals in these that we need to have on occasion for good health.
More on B12 here and here. Likewise, Vitamin D has been thoroughly discussed here in the past.JeffN wrote:For those who have chosen to follow a diet completely free of all animal products, they have created a “need” for Vitamin B12 and so in this situation, a reliable source of Vitamin B12 is required and a supplement might be the way to fill that need.
Keep in mind, too, that many of the so-called "qualified health claims" that we see touted for different foods are essentially meaningless and really just serve as a form of marketing.JeffN wrote:My recommendation is not to refer to foods as proteins, carbs or fats as it rarely tells the full story or is accurate. It is much better to refer to foods as foods; like beans, grains, cereals, fruits, vegetables, nuts, seeds, etc. Then their degree of processing (minimally processed, moderately processed and ultra processed). Amongst them, we do prefer those low in fat and low in calorie density.
The diet we recommend is based on fruits, vegetables, whole grains and legumes that are minimally processed and low in fat and calorie density. It contains all the essential components (protein, carbohydrates, fats, vitamins and minerals) we need (except b12 and D)
JeffN wrote:There is a “myth” of nutrient density that often pops up around here, which is says the diet we recommend is not nutrient dense enough and/or making it more nutrient dense is better.
Let me be clear, the diet we recommend here, whether one is following the regular program or the MWL program is nutrient dense, period. Trying to make it more nutrient dense is missing the point. And in trying to do so, you may end up with a diet too low in calorie density & satiety
If you ever read the mainstream health organization discussions on this, they say the main reason the American diet is lacking in nutrients is not because the plants they eat are somehow lacking in nutrition, the reason the American diet is lacking in nutrients is because they don’t consume enough plants and because the ones they do consume, are overly processed. The solution is including more minimally processed plants. The most nutrient dense foods are vegetables, fruits, whole grains, legumes, and pulses. Trying to design a diet based on just the foods rated to be the highest in nutrient density amongst these foods is missing the point.
It is just like how one can take calorie density to far, miss the whole point, and end up with a diet of only leafy greens and non-starchy vegetables. Whether it is calorie density or nutrient density, we only need it to be good enough, not some made up idealistic goal of perfection, especially when, like with nutrient density, it is based on a fudged scoring systems (ie, ANDI).
JeffN wrote:Excellent point which I have discussed a few times in general but let me add in some additional comments on some of these misconceptions.
1) To begin with, starches are not low nutrient density. While they may not be as high as vegetables and green leafy vegetables, starches are a high nutrient dense food.
We can all do the comparison ourselves by using the CRON-O-Meter. This allows us to do both a nutrient by nutrient comparison and an overall nutrient comparisons based on the Standard of Reference used in studies which is the USDA SR 21.
However, in regard to second hand info and in the name of simplicity... You can also go to http://www.nutritiondata.com and use their online tools. They use a proprietary system to rate foods on Nutrient Density, Nutrient Balance, Protein Quality. Again, I am not a fan of proprietary systems, let's just see what is says..
Nutrient Density (Score 1-5)
Sweet Potato 4.5
Oatmeal 3.4
Almonds 3.3
Walnuts 2.4
Sweet Potato (starch) and Oatmeal (grain) are higher rated than Almonds and Walnuts.
Nutrient Balance (0-100)
Sweet Potato 65
Oatmeal 43
Almonds 42
Walnuts 26
Sweet Potato (starch) and Oatmeal (grain) are higher rated than Almonds and Walnuts.
Protein Quality/Amino Acid Score (higher is better)
Sweet Potato 82
Oatmeal 104
Almonds 54
Walnuts 55
Sweet Potato (starch) and Oatmeal (grain) are higher rated than Almonds and Walnuts.
The CRON-O- Meter, which I do recommend and which does not use any proprietary methods, will confirm all of these numbers.
In fact, Dr Fuhrman has his own proprietary system, which actually also confirms these numbers. From the actual ETL chart
http://www.drfuhrman.com/library/article17.aspx
Dr. Fuhrman's Nutrient Density Scores
Sweet Potatoes 83
Oatmeal 53
Sunflower Seeds 45
Brown Rice 41
White Potatoes 31
Walnuts 29
Almonds 25
Sweet Potato (starch) and Oatmeal (grain) are higher rated than Sunflower Seeds, Almonds and Walnuts.
There are several threads in this forum where I have analyzed simple versions of this starch based diet (Going Nuts, Wendy's Mini, SNAP, etc) that show it is extremely high in nutrient density. I know of no evidence showing more than this, is ANY better.
2) we know that diet that are low in nutrients, can raise your risk for certain diseases. However, this is not what is causing most disease and death in this country. In fact, when we look at the long lived Okinawans, we see that their dietary intake was actually low in certain nutrients and they even showed symptoms of these deficiencies, yet in spite of them, they were centenarians.
Caloric Restriction, the Traditional Okinawan Diet, and Healthy Aging,
The Diet of the World’s Longest-Lived People and Its Potential Impact on Morbidity and Life Span Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci. 1114: 434–455 (2007).
The data from 1949, which was reflective of those who would become centenarians. What i found most interesting is in spite of their nutrient dense diet, they were short on several nutrients.
Nutrient, Amount, % RDA
Vitamin D (mcg) 0.4 2%
Vitamin B2(mg) 0.5 45%
Niacin (mg) 13.2 93%
Vitamin B12: 0.6 27%
Calcium (mg) 505.3 82%
Zinc (mg) 6.2 62%
And while several reported experiencing some signs/symptoms reflective of these deficiencies, including 14% reported experiencing symptoms of Cheilosis, which is reflective of the B deficiencies, this didn't effect the overall benefit of their overall diet and lifestyle to their longevity.
So, where is the evidence that being a little low in a few nutrients is harmful or dangerous?
3) we have absolutely no evidence that once you have surpassed the general recommendations, that more is better and in fact, as consistently discussed here in the Where's The Harm thread and as Dr John discusses in his writings, more is not always better.
JeffN wrote:The overall dietary pattern matters most, not any one (or two) foods, good or bad.
JeffN wrote:By following the guidelines, especially starting meals with a soup or salad and the 50/50 guideline, one's diet will be very nutrient dense. In regard to weight, we do not recommend tracking your nutrients. Follow the plan, and the nutrients will be there.
Return to Maximum Weight Loss Program
Users browsing this forum: ClaudeBot and 2 guests