Discussion Board

This is a really good point. It's easier to be 100% compliant than to try to figure out how much you can get away with. One of the points that stuck with me from reading The China Study was that even among people who ate very little animal protein, those who ate closest to zero had the best health outcomes.

I think your question is a good one and a very common -- and, I think the answer is probably different for everyone. Some folks can tolerate a little animal products and still have good numbers, but it seems clear from not only the research, but the experiences of the folks here on the forum that the best way to eat is to be as compliant as you can be. Another common thread I see in folks who are successful here is there mental shift -- "this is what I eat now and boy, is it delicious!" as opposed to "I eat weird food and I can't eat normal food" This WOE becomes the "normal" food.

Good luck!

Sharon

I've been thinking about this thread alot as this is the question I get asked by family.

It's a question of "how much can I get away with?" whilst being healthy and avoiding heart disease. I have looked and there are no studies that categorically state 100% is better than 95%. As already quoted there are other studies that do show that better compliance show better results which I cannot ignore.
However, I look at the doctors/researchers who have any of the relevant studies and they are all 100% which says something to me.

Personally, with regards to avoiding heart disease - do I want to take the chance? How will I find out if 95% works?
When I started this woe I was 100% compliant at home and when eating out would not worry about the oil so much. Since reading something Jeff Novick wrote (a lightbulb moment) I now avoid it eating out too.

I have embraced this WOE completely and am no longer looking back - I find it easier to do so but of course that's a personal decision.

Thanks. That's an important point. That's why I like the fact that The Starch Solution does include a list of other foods, such as peanut butter, that one can partake if on target. At least with a fixed list one might avoid the slippery slope. The problem there is that my wife still hasn't achieved the TC< 150 (currently 160) despite her very high compliance. I guess we'll need to remain virtually 100% compliant until she reaches that goal.

Does anyone have a good explanation for the low fat component to the diet (for those maintaining a healthy weight)? If we were to relax our criteria a bit it would probably be on oil as an ingredient since that is probably the most difficult part of this WOE. We don't have any plans to return to meat, chicken, fish, dairy, or eggs.
Pete

Thanks. Can you refer me to the Ornish study showing a linear relation? I have his Spectrum book, but don't recall that study. If fact, one of the reasons we follow the McDougall/Esselstyn diets is that they both seemed stricter whereas Ornish offers 5 groups from most healthy to least healthy. This would seem to introduce the slippery slope problem mentioned above although it might allow for easier compliance.
Pete

The study is the original Ornish heart disease reversal study. In his book Dr. Ornish makes the proclamation that better adherence made for better results. Dr. Esselstyn, in his study, makes the same pronouncement. I think it's instructive that both do.
But as far as your personal situation no one here can tell you what your results are going to be if you let oils back into your diet. How that affects your own personal health can be variable. What it's safe to say is you are maximizing your odds by leaving them out. Anything else in conjecture. There is ample evidence of the effects of oil on endothelium health and other bodily processes to find unanimity on eliminating them by most all of the nutritional doctors and rd's we look to for guidance. It appears you are asking for some relaxing of the rules from a website designed to support those rules. I suppose you will find those here that would tell you if it keeps you somewhat on program then bend the rules. Many here would tell you to tailor your diet around those rules and make it work within the program. There is much you can do in making the food more appetizing and attractive but the most important trick is actually adherence. It will do as much to improve your taste buds as anything.
f1jim

I feel this WOE is a paradigm shift of knowing we live in a ecosystem where we are consciously participating body, mind and Spirit. It is easy to make choices within our own personal domain.. it is when we find ourself in ER that all our doubts will present their selfs and that is where it is important to remember our medical system is part of our ecosystem.

Addiction is a disease that tells the addict they don't have a disease. It is not how much you use, it is what happens when you use. Food and money are the last two seats on the addiction bus. The medical system has a huge investment in newton medical model, treating us like themselves, well oiled machines, where we have to be faster then the disease is chasing us. It is like the two photographers who realize there is a lion mist their camp, and the one photographer begins to put on his shoes. The other photographer says, "That is not going to help you." The photographer responds, "As long as I keep ahead of you they will". So phantom doctors like Dr. McDougall and Dr. Esselstyn are the best allies because they have stepped up the bar of our medical system, where there is a difference between cash register honesty and emotional honesty. Fat.oil coats the cell where it sticks to the other cells, when it doesn't repel and stand alone, the sludge breaks the cell's brain barrier.

No matter where you are, it is important to know where you are going, vs. focussing on the patterns that no longer work. This WOE is supported by our subconscious.. How great is that? When we reinventing our personal habits it is a constant state of tweaking as our global village is run by a government made up from those choices. Remembering our medical system is being run on the 300 lb. gorilla that is on each of our backs, is a great incentive to eat on $3.00 or less a day. Then it is easier to feed the old paradigm system with what it needs vs, then fight it for what it wants. As Dr. McDougall shares you don't want to form a personal relationship with a doctor:) It is just keeping all the ducks in a row, while knowing sometimes some fates cannot be changed till after:). It is like all swear words are about the body, we are all changing our perception in how we hold it. I am you, and you are me:) We are all living in delightful uncertainty. Our subconscious is our best compass it true north. Feedback is a echo of self:)

Aloha, patty

I can tell you what has worked for my husband who reached his cholesterol and weight goals several months ago.

He added in things like avocado to his mexican dishes, peanut butter to his toast and pistachios for snacking. When making a stir fry, he'll add tofu (which we avoided in the beginning) and he'll sprinkle almonds on his salads too. When/if he notices his weight move up a pound or two, he'll take away these foods and return to his goal weight within a few days. Since we can't monitor his cholesterol the way we do weight, he uses a slight weight increase as his guide to backing off or eliminating these higher fat foods.

Jeff's forum is a really good way to educate yourself on this topic. This thread in particular is especially useful - "Why no oil?"

viewtopic.php?t=5868