Nasoya Fat Free mayo

[Letha..]

I’m glad you and SactoBob were able to work together to resolve his health issues and I know you’ve helped a great many other people here on this forum and elsewhere. Regarding your advice differing from Dr. McDougall’s I think I’ve made my point. I don’t really see what my experience has to do with the point I was making but I’m happy to share that I’ve lost 191 pounds following the MWL plan since September 2009. I still have 180 pounds left to lose. I am very pleased with my progress to date.
Letha

[JeffN]

I’m glad you and SactoBob were able to work together to resolve his health issues and I know you’ve helped a great many other people here on this forum and elsewhere. Regarding your advice differing from Dr. McDougall’s I think I’ve made my point. I don’t really see what my experience has to do with the point I was making but I’m happy to share that I’ve lost 191 pounds following the MWL plan since September 2009. I still have 180 pounds left to lose. I am very pleased with my progress to date.
Letha

Congratulations!

You are a success and should be proud of your progress as I am for you.

I am sure you will reach your goal.

However, I am now wondering why you are such a staunch advocate, making such an adamant case for the McDougall 12 Day Program as outlined in the book of that title, yet you yourself have chosen to follow the MWL program?

Why would you argue against the MWL program (and its stricter guidelines) which I am recommending, while it is the very one you are choosing to follow and are having incredible success with?

If anything, your choice and experience only seems to support my point.

In Health
Jeff

[SactoBob]

I'm glad Jeff mentioned my case. I just passed my second year following this great program and can hardly believe how good and how much better I feel. So many things are so great and continue to be great.

I did fail a previous attempt at McDougalliing because I was much too liberal in my (probably incorrect) interpretation of the program. That's what you get for giving a lawyer rules that are subject to interpretation. It is easy to be very liberal with things that are allowed only occasionally or in small amounts, and then when things aren't going well, realizing that combined, these things are making up a large part of your diet and blocking your goals. It is also easy to gravitate towards the higher calorie density end of what is allowed.

You don't need stats - just look at this board. How many people here are on the MWL thread who have failed to get results long term although they claim to be following the guidelines? Lots and lots. Check the journals of these veterans and you will see that they have been maintaining a stable weight which is much too high on what is claimed to be a McDougall or even a MWL plan. I don't even comment on these threads anymore, because I don't think these people need information - they are happy where they are - at least happier than having to change to what Jeff (and I am sure Dr. M) really recommends.

Another point is that Letha is still 180 pounds over her own ideal weight by her post above. She has a lot of wiggle room with the program. She may find that the results are tougher to achieve as she approaches her goal weight - I did. When I was 50 pounds heavier than I am now, I lost weight very easily - but not anymore.

I eat very close to MWL, but over the holidays allowed myself some bread and even nuts (my last cholesterol was 139 and LDL 39). Result - I was shocked recently to see that I had gained about 8 pounds and have had to stop those foods. It was difficult stopping those foods because I had got to like them, but I am over them now.

I understand that Dr. McDougall has to reach out to a public that is not eager to change its diet, and that he is trying to do the most good for the most people. But there is no question in my mind that the stricter version of the program which Jeff is talking about is a huge improvement over what I used to do and used to think was doing as Dr. McDougall recommended.

If you listen to Dr. McDougall's dvd's and read not too much between the lines, he is saying virtually the identical thing as Jeff, Dr. E, and everybody we admire here. There is no question that whole plant food / intact whole grains are the best foods for health. Yet I see the unsuccessful weight loss crowd here swapping recipes for countless processed treats while, at the same time, bemoaning their lack of success. It is really simple and obvious, but not very popular because the needed changes are neither easy to make nor conducive to a conventional social life. The only sad thing is that I see newbies come here and get involved with this concept and of course they too fail.

Sure, the processed and high calorie density vegan foods are better than a burger and fries and a shake. But they are not the equal of what Jeff recommends. We can debate what Dr. M says is "legal" forever, but that fact will remain unaltered. If you are in this for your health, or have a health problem to address, then Jeff's recommendations are the way to go. If you just want to eat healthier than SAD, you can do that too, and you may even get some results. But the only thing these high calorie and processed vegan foods have over the whole plant foods is that they are tastier to the palate (until you get used to the whole plant foods) and easier find in stores and easier to manage with restaurants and social occasions.

Finally, for anybody bored enough to have read this entire reply, I want to thank Jeff for his dedication and commitment to all of us. He is one of the people who literally saved my life. He not only saved a life, but gave to me a life which is so much richer in so many ways than what I had before. Jeff has to be one of the most brilliant and generous people ever, and despite his impressive academic credentials, he treats even people who disagree with him with courtesy and respect. It would be easy to simply point out that a person who disagrees with him has no real scientific credentials or experience, yet time and again he continues to be a true gentleman. You are an example for us all - not only how you eat, but how you live your life. Thanks.

[Letha..]

However, I am now wondering why you are such a staunch advocate, making such an adamant case for the McDougall 12 Day Program as outlined in the book of that title, yet you yourself have chosen to follow the MWL program?

Why would you argue against the MWL program (and its stricter guidelines) which I am recommending, while it is the very one you are choosing to follow and are having incredible success with?

If anything, your choice and experience only seems to support my point.

In Health
Jeff

I never said I was against the MWL program. It’s a wonderful program for accelerating weight loss and I’ve been very successful on it. For anyone wanting to speed up their weight loss, I would highly recommend trying the MWL program.

For people who lose weight easily, or who don’t have much to lose, or who don’t mind if it takes a while to lose, or for those who are just trying to lower cholesterol, triglycerides, blood pressure, and blood sugar, it seems to me it would be far easier for them to stick to the 12 Day program. Dr. McDougall has published case studies showing his 12 Day Program works to resolve these issues. By advocating a program that’s unnecessarily strict you could make it so difficult that folks give up and go back to the Standard American Diet. Mary McDougall has hundreds of wonderful recipes that are not MWL but that would help individuals and families to make enormous health improvements.
Letha

[Letha..]

You don't need stats - just look at this board. How many people here are on the MWL thread who have failed to get results long term although they claim to be following the guidelines? Lots and lots.

SactoBob,
Are you really arguing that rather then look at the stats in the clinical trials that Dr. McDougall has published we should instead make decisions based what people write in posts on this discussion forum?
Letha

[SactoBob]

By advocating a program that’s unnecessarily strict you could make it so difficult that folks give up and go back to the Standard American Diet. Letha [/color][/size]

That is the point. For many people (like me and many others here), the program Jeff recommends is not unnecessarily strict. In my case, my doctor said that he was taught in medical school that diet and lifestyle could change cholesterol numbers by about 15%. He is blown away by my drop from 290+ to 139 total cholesterol and 210+ to 39 for LDL.

I didn't want to say this, but I developed diabetes doing "mostly" what I thought Dr. McDougall recommended. I blamed the diet, and accepted the ADA diet that my doctors recommended. That is when the problems seriously started - kidney stones, worse diabetes, heart disease . . . .

Since doing the program recommended by Jeff, these are all reversed. As for weight, I recently proved that all I had to do was a drink here, some nuts there, a bit of bread, a bit of dried foods, etc. and I could gain weight.

Although the program I follow seemed strict at first, once I got it off the ground it is easy and tasty. I thought I would have to give up all pleasure in food to survive - but I laugh at that concept. As Jeff can confirm, the food I eat, mostly prepared by my awesome wife, is as delicious as it is nutritious. I wouldn't go back to my old ways even if I found out that all my medical tests were in error and I had no problems.

That is a point that gets missed. Don't do this program because you will be at a healthy weight in a year or so. Do it now because you will feel so much better almost immediately.

[SactoBob]

You don't need stats - just look at this board. How many people here are on the MWL thread who have failed to get results long term although they claim to be following the guidelines? Lots and lots.

SactoBob,
Are you really arguing that rather then look at the stats in the clinical trials that Dr. McDougall has published we should instead make decisions based what people write in posts on this discussion forum?
Letha

Although I have an honors degree in biology from UC and have spent my life in the medical arena, I don't consider myself (or you) qualified to dispute either Jeff or Dr. M as far as what their studies show. I am fortunate enough to know both of these great men personally and am confident that what I am doing is in accord with their recommendation - and my results have showed this too.

Their qualifications and experience and integrity are the keys for me. Anybody can cite a study to support virtually any conclusion they wish. I don't pay much attention to such tactics, whether advanced by "spin doctor" scientists or unqualified members of the public.

[SactoBob]

I think that Jeff has made his important point very clearly and that at this point you are just being obtuse and /or argumentative. Like Jeff, I don't understand why, but absent a new point or inquiry from other quarters, I will sign off this thread.

[SactoBob]

Carroll,
I think that you are right, and that we need to share adverse consequences as well as positive. It is important that we examine the failures.

In my case, I freely admit that I misinterpreted the plan. I thought that as long as I avoided meat and dairy, that the rest was pretty much fair game. And I thought that a little dairy or wasn't so bad.

Of course, I also had a lot of breads, including white breads, bakery products (didn't really ask about butter etc.), oils etc. In short, I was deluding myself that I was following Dr. McDougall's advice. In fact, if I had a criticism of Dr. McDougall (I don't think this applies as much today) it is that it is easy to make the kind of mistakes I did, thinking that "a little bit won't hurt" and that I really didn't have to eat so many whole foods, since the processed foods tasted so much better - oh yeah, and beer and wine are legal too.

Honestly, when I started working with Jeff, and reading books and buying dvds, it became clear that I really was not following a healthy diet. So in my case, I don't blame Dr. McDougall - I blame my own "version" of the McDougall plan. I see what I think is the same thing here on the boards.

I usually don't get involved in these issues any more. There is a lot of defensiveness when people are not successful. They tend to think that they have gone so far in changing their diet, and not got results. They don't want to go further. I just wish I could explain to these people the magic of really understanding and doing what is close to optimal.

I really did not benefit in any noticeable way from my previous "mostly" "sorta" McDougalling. My recent experience has been night and day.

The reason I have been reluctant to talk about this is that I don't want people to jump to the conclusion that "Bob developed diabetes" on the plan. I did not - in fact, I reversed my diabetes on the plan. I did develop diabetes on what I wanted the plan to be - my favorite vegetarian dishes regardless of health, with occasional fish and a bit of dairy.

[JeffN]

You don't need stats - just look at this board. How many people here are on the MWL thread who have failed to get results long term although they claim to be following the guidelines? Lots and lots.

SactoBob,
Are you really arguing that rather then look at the stats in the clinical trials that Dr. McDougall has published we should instead make decisions based what people write in posts on this discussion forum?

With all due respect, would you mine providing the references for these clinical trials and the exact stats you are talking about?

Thanks!

In Health
Jeff

[SactoBob]

My own opinion is that, when we stray, we always underestimate how many calories of the "allowed" 5% we consume. Have you noticed how much that 5% is discussed here in the forum - it is a lot more than a true 5% would warrant. When people argue hard for that 5%, I suspect that it is way more than 5%, or else they wouldn't be arguing so hard. A true 5% should be easy to give up for awhile.

People always err in their own favor - I sure do. I'm sure that my 5% was more like 50%, and when I see somebody who is not successful, I always assume that this is what is in play.

The easy way for people who are unsuccessful would be to go 100%, and then, once they had promptly reached their goal, they could add food from the regular plan to see well they could do. Although that makes sense, it is very unpopular. Instead, people want to keep the treats, and maybe cut back on beans or potatoes, or something healthy, or change brands of soy milk or cold cereal or . . . If these people really went 100%, by the time they reached their goals, they would find that it is not difficult to continue and would probably want to continue 100%.

But it is human nature that we look for some magic in giving up the foods we really don't care for that much, or look to a supplement or the latest research. It is really simple. If you follow Jeff's recommendations you will achieve your goals and feel great. How many people have you seen here that are going to do this, and the next thing you know, it was stress or some outside influence that prevented them from succeeding. This cycle repeats itself.

How many people here argue with others about the merits of the McDougall program when they themselves cannot achieve success. How credible is a fat and unhealthy looking person telling others how to achieve health? These people are more interested in argument than health.

Transition to what Jeff recommends has some unpleasant side effects at first - but they are so worth it. You get to a place where the food tastes great and you don't need the high calorie density treats. It's a difference you can see and feel very shortly.

[Dechen]

SactoBob, I was thinking when I read your post.

I think the plant based diet Dr McDoughall advocated is the very best to lose and maintain weight, regain and maintain health.
Dr McDougall gives his observations and medical data by which he came to that conclusion.
So, I started on this diet and can only bare him out from my own experience and my belief in the data he gives because it makes sense.
If I follow his advice and lose weight and regain health that will say tons to the world without me opening my mouth.
If I just pay lip-service, eat how I want to and remain overweight and unhealthy I discredit what he is trying to achieve aka that people will get well through knowing and applying the truth.
Nobody will take me seriously and why should they.

I am sticking to the MWL like a dead bug to a wind shield and let the changes in my appearance speak for them selves. IF people ask I shall tell them about Dr McDougall. If they reject it then that is their choice. If they want to give it a go I will help as much as I can if asked to.

[JeffN]

however it is troubling to think that someone would develop diabetes on a plant based diet at all.

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8560&p=62407

but it still goes to show how we can be mostly there and still run into problems (like that infamous news article Jeff shared way back about the family suffering ill health until adding dairy, which I admit I still don't quite get

The problem here on why you don't quite get it, as we have discussed several times, is that you made 2 assumptions about this situation (and other similar ones), based only on the mass media news article (or on what people say), that were inaccurate. The first assumption was that the child who was suffering was following a healthy vegan diet. She wasn't. Second, the adding dairy to add it, made it healthy. It didn't. There was much more to the picture which the story did not reveal nor was I at liberty to share based on confidentiality issues. This family was anything but "mostly there." As long as you hold on to these two inaccurate assumptions, the story will not make sense to you. Or the stories of others.

So, someone comes here and says they have been a vegan and following McDougall for 6 months and they have not lost any weight and/or their blood sugars are still high and/or their cholesterol is still high. From what I see, you assume they are strictly following the diet and don't understand why it is not working for them.

My experience working with these people is the problem is always a misunderstanding of the principles and guidelines of the program, and how to apply them and the confusion that being a vegan automatically makes them healthy.

Just because someone says they are following a healthy vegan diet, does not mean they are. These forums are filled with examples of this. See the above link.

It just seems from what I gather of all that Dr.McDougall has taught us, that these minor indiscretions shouldn't really matter...

Depends. For most, if they have regained their health, or never really lost it, it shouldn't. But, again, we have several issues here..

1) Most Americans are really much sicker than they think. The amount of Americans overweight and obese has skyrocketed in the last 20 years. Along with it has come many other health related problems. Many of the patients I see today and in much worse shape than the patients I saw 10 and 15 years ago. Even in worse shape than the patients I saw 5 years ago.

2) Many people do not accurately calculate the impact of their indulgences. What you always hear is that, it is just a "little bit" or that it happens "occasionally". Yet, when you sit down with them and help them accurately try to determine what the real impact is, you find out it is much more and much more often. A "little" piece of something unhealthy can be a lot of calories. This is what I call the perception deception. Many "unhealthy" foods are extremely calorie dense and little bits add large amount of calories. So, the comment, I only had a "little bit" may be true by "perception" but not by caloric contribution. Understanding this point is the key to "getting" some of those situations you don't get.

I mean it really does seem from what I've read on these boards that many are able to eat all those cheerios and then even have that occasional dairy, etc. and do just great,

Unless I am wrong, this thread is showing the opposite. That many say these things yet at the same time (in other threads) discuss their struggles.

and even Jeff tells us just to worry about the 95% (was all that butter you didn't ask about really more than 5%)?

My comment is a general comment and I also say for some it may be 90% and for some it may be 99% or even 100%. However, let's say it is 95% and someone is consuming 1800 calories. That 5% is only 90 calories. If it was butter, then that is less than a TB. It is also less than a TB of oil, or about 2 oz of chicken, or about 3/4 of an ounce of a Mounds bar or of a McDonalds cookie. As you can, the 5% is not much at all.

So, when someone says, I am following the program 95% but I just had 2 little cookies today, those 2 "little" cookies a) were not so little compared to 30 years ago, and b) contributed about 15-20% of their total caloric intake for the day.

I think many of us have been frustrated following the plan only to realize it's not working and be told we aren't really following the plan, it is a bit confusing.

This brings us back to the original point I made in this post. The problem may be in the way the plan is being interpreted and/or applied and/or the individuals own health/medical conditions. Or what they are willing to admit publicly.

In addition,as you can see on these boards, there are long discussion threads on what exactly is allowed and/or how often it is allowed in regard to many of the "approved" but maybe not "recommended" products.

Remember, it doesn't mean someone is not following the plan. What it means is that because of their own personal concerns, they may have to adjust the plan to meet their individual specific needs.

This is all a learning process and we are all on the path moving forward.

Like I know I've wondered about those that have come here reporting their cholesterol has increased... they may have room for improvement, but shouldn't just getting the meat and dairy and oils out be enough?

Depends on what they replace it with and/or what else they are doing.

Maybe in the 70's it was enough before we had all the junk food being sold as "healthy" and "vegan." Now it is really easy to be a vegan and be unhealthy. In fact, that is one of the many misconceptions about this program and that is that by just being vegan, one is doing better. Not true. One can be vegan and still have a high intake of fat, saturated fat, hydrogenated fat, trans fat, salt, sugar, white flour, etc. This was much harder back in the 70's when much of this vegan junk was not available.

I think part of the problem here Caroll is that you and I both come from a time when being a vegan meant that most everything available for us to eat was healthy foods. Just think of the difference between what was available in a health food store in the early 70's that was vegan, and what is available in a health food store than is vegan, today.

Or is it really that easy and just some of us for some reason are more sensitive? In which case it becomes all the more important to dig deep into these anomalies to figure out why it happens and who it will happen to...?

I think it is much easier than this. You follow the program and monitor your progress. If you are not reaching the goals you want, you then review what your doing and make the changes accordingly. Over time, you will hit your goals. Once you have done so, you continue to monitor yourself over time to make sure you are doing what you need to be doing.

In Health
Jeff

[JeffN]

However, I am now wondering why you are such a staunch advocate, making such an adamant case for the McDougall 12 Day Program as outlined in the book of that title, yet you yourself have chosen to follow the MWL program?

Why would you argue against the MWL program (and its stricter guidelines) which I am recommending, while it is the very one you are choosing to follow and are having incredible success with?

If anything, your choice and experience only seems to support my point.

In Health
Jeff

I never said I was against the MWL program.

My recommendations, as you pointed out correctly, is for most everyone to follow the principles and guidelines of the MWL program.

Yet, earlier in our discussion, you said..

In general I think your advice is sound. I personally see it as advanced McDougalling. Something that can be attempted after you’ve mastered regular McDougalling.

Yet this is not your experience or choice. Your experience and choice is exactly inline with what I recommend.

You also said.

Why do I think this is important? Because I think your recommendations can have the effect of causing people to put a bowl of cheerios with rice milk and a spoonful of white sugar in the same category as a Burger King Whopper and French Fries. .

And that you yourself...

Yes, I do put a bowl of cheerios with rice milk and a spoonful of sugar into the same category with a baked sweet potato and steamed broccoli. .

Yet, this is just some assumptions you are making and, assumptions that do not even reflect your own personal implementation of, and experience with, the program.

You yourself make those very distinctions and do not put them into the same category in the choices you make, and it is these very distinctions that are helping you be so successful.

I have never met anyone in over 20 years who has said my guidelines has caused them to put a bowl of cheerios with rice milk in the same category as a whopper and French fries.

IIt’s a wonderful program for accelerating weight loss and I’ve been very successful on it. For anyone wanting to speed up their weight loss, I would highly recommend trying the MWL program.

I agree. It is also an excellent program for anyone who wants to speed up any of their progress.

For people who lose weight easily, or who don’t have much to lose, or who don’t mind if it takes a while to lose, or for those who are just trying to lower cholesterol, triglycerides, blood pressure, and blood sugar,

Cholesterol, triglycerides, blood pressure and blood sugar are all related to excess weight and weight loss lowers all these numbers. Therefore, the MWL program is not just for those who wanting to speed up their weight loss, (as you said) it is also for anyone wanting to speed up the improvements in all those numbers if they also have any excess weight.

Even if someone did not have any excess weight, the principles of the MWL program will speed up the improvement in all these numbers too because its focus on unrefined, unprocessed foods, will (amongst other things) increase the amount of fiber and soluble fiber consumed, which will positively effect all these numbers.

it seems to me it would be far easier for them to stick to the 12 Day program.

This is an assumption you are making and one that you yourself have not experienced or chosen.

Dr. McDougall has published case studies showing his 12 Day Program works to resolve these issues.

No one is denying that the 12 day program works. However, as I said, if you were to personally attend the 12-Day program, it will include making adjustments to it for individuals based on what their individual needs are, including putting some of them on a more stricter version.

By advocating a program that’s unnecessarily strict you could make it so difficult that folks give up and go back to the Standard American Diet.

While I understand your theory and where it comes from, Ornish's own research has shown that people are more apt to stick to stricter versions of a program because it produces better results quicker. Half way measures produce half way results. No one wants half way results. And, in several of these studies, those following the stricter program reported higher ratings in Quality of Life measures in every measure tested. (I have posted this research elsewhere in the forum)

viewtopic.php?f=22&t=6183&p=42694&hilit=jeff+quality+of+life+intensive#p42694

And, again, your own personal experience has proven this not to be true for you. You have been doing MWL, have done it for sometime, have been hugely successful at it, and have not felt that it was unnecessarily strict.

These are all the exact same points I am (and have been) making!!

Thanks!

Any change in our way of living is going to be difficult, especially when we live in an environment that does not support these changes. Remember, even those who are following diets like Atkins, the Zone, etc., have shown high drop out rates. Therefore, IMH(P&P)O, since any change we are going to make is going to be difficult, let us put our efforts into those changes that are going to produce the most benefits/results the quickest, as for most people, this is what is going to motivate them and keep them on the path. Once the goals have been achieved, they can always experiment with how much they can loosen up if they want.

In Health
Jeff

[JeffN]

first of all I was very clear in that this particular family wasn't even vegan, so I didn't understand why they were used as an example of unhealthy vegans,

Because that is what the media does. It is how they sell their stories and make money. It is a highly competitive cut-throat market.

secondly, rather than make any assumptions at all I asked for details. Without knowing the details, all anyone can get from that story is that it's possible to think you are eating a very healthy diet and end up having children severely deficient... and that's fairly troubling, especially without even being able to know how they went wrong.

While I can see how you "got that" from the story, that is not at all what I got from the story, even before I knew the details. And that is my point, we always see things from our own framework and point of references.

Anyway, the details were not public and I was not at liberty to discuss them. However, i assured you they were following a very nutritionally inadequate diet, regardless of whether or not it was vegan and that was the issue. You will just have to trust me on that one.

However, it is not really asking too much to trust me on it because it is the exact same issue with the famous legal case down in S FL that I was also involved with. The story was that a baby died because its parents were vegan and the baby was being fed a vegan diet. This is what made all the news and headlines. 'Death by Veganism"

Again, this was not the case and is only the result of inaccurate media reporting. The baby was malnourished. The parents failed to provide adequate and enough nourishment, regardless of whether the food being supplied was vegan or not.

And, again, it is the exact same thing that happened with the report of the vegan who went blind from B12 deficiency that Dr McDougall discussed. That case was in the medical literature so the details were public. Again, it had nothing to do with veganism.

Therefore, it was just another example of the same thing that has happened many times and to ask you to trust me on that one example, with so many others available making the same point, was not asking a lot.

I think part of the problem here Caroll is that you and I both come from a time when being a vegan meant that most everything available for us to eat was healthy foods. Just think of the difference between what was available in a health food store in the early 70's that was vegan, and what is available in a health food store than is vegan, today. f

Well, I don't know if that's entirely true... I mean white flour, soda, and potato chips (and cereals! -which btw, was shredded wheat always not vegan?) have been around a long time.... and skippy... but certainly there's a lot more junk 'health food' ...

Yes, they have been around for a long time but they were not sold in health food stores. In the early 70's there was virtually no packaged and/or processed foods sold in health food stores. Most all the food was sold in bulk bins and was whole grains, legumes, etc. That is what I am discussing.

I mean I am aware that there really are people eating morningstar farms thinking because it's labeled 'natural' that they are on a healthy diet,

Today.

But again, that was not possible 40 years ago and it was the rare exception when a product like that did exist 40 years ago. Today the regular food stores and the health food stores are flooded with these products and they are marketed and/or advertised as healthy to the general public like never before.

In addition, all the guidelines on what can be called healthy and promoted as healthy have changed and are much more lenient than they were 40 years ago.

but if people are sticking to unpackaged foods, which is what for the most part what people had to do 30 years ago,

Right. That is my point. We had to stick to whole natural foods as that was all that was available to us, for those of us in the natural food/living group and shopping at health food stories, co-ops and farmers markets. But that situation no longer exists for most people.

I just really don't see what the challenge or confusion could be...?? It just doesn't seem that difficult to me to recognize if you are eating whole foods or not.

Again, this is the inherent problem. It may be difficult for you to see but look out in the world and stop and talk to people. They are not eating whole foods.

Many Americans actually believe they are eating healthy and healthy natural (whole) foods, yet their shopping carts, homes and bodies are filled with junk food that has been cleverly marketed to convince them it is healthy, whole and good for them.

The FDA even changed the guidelines and the definitions of the word "Whole" and now lots of packaged processed foods can actually be labeled and marketed as a "whole" food.

In addition to Americans buying packaged and processed foods under the illusion they are whole foods, they are also buying supplements and are convinced that these supplements are actually "whole foods." There is a whole movement of whole foods supplements.

These people really believe they are consuming whole foods. To you and me it may be hard to believe but not for them and the environment they grew up in and are now in.

And if it really is that difficult then that is troubling in and of itself

Now you see the problem, which is reflected very often here on these boards and in these discussions

Without a doubt, over the last 15 years, the single biggest response I get to my lecture on Label Reading is, "OMG, I did not realize all the packaged processed food I was eating was so bad for me and just junk. I though I was doing the right thing and eating healthy, whole foods. It even said so on the box!"

All of this reminds me of the famous quote from The Wizard of Oz...

"Toto, I've a feeling we're not in Kansas any more."

In the world of health and health foods, we left Kansas a long time ago.

No, I really don't assume that... but I also don't assume they must be being dishonest or not accurately following the program. Instead, I am curious as to exactly what aspect of their diet it is that may be preventing them from achieving perfect health or why they seem to have a greater challenge than others... and if it is really some misunderstanding that is reassuring on some level,

Yes. In most cases.

Look at my Favorite Threads thread above and the Discussions on the 10 reasons for failure. These are consistently the same reasons over and over that I see.

Remember, it doesn't mean someone is not following the plan. What it means is that because of their own personal concerns, they may have to adjust the plan to meet their individual specific needs.

I mean how often is that the case,

As I said in the other post recently, in my case, 100% of the time. Otherwise why would they come to me? They come to me because they are trying to follow the program and not reaching their goals. But that is not a bad thing or a statement against the effectiveness of the program.

is it really just the odd person that needs to be so strict and in that case, what is it about that person that makes them so much more sensitive than the average?

No one is average and we are all "odd" in our own ways.

You have to understand numbers and statistics. When they say the average cholesterol is 180, then does not mean there is anyone who has a cholesterol of 180, it just means the average out of the group was 180.

We are all individual with different pasts. Very few walk into these "rooms" because they have stellar health. People come here because they are not well and have in many ways lived through years of dietary and lifestyle abuses. These varies from person to person, along with their own sensitivities, individuality, etc etc.

Remember, medicine, nutrition and health is an science and an art. The science is the data. The art is how you apply the data to the individual (or how they apply it to themselves)

It has always been this way, and will always be this way.

Like I know I've wondered about those that have come here reporting their cholesterol has increased... they may have room for improvement, but shouldn't just getting the meat and dairy and oils out be enough?

Depends on what they replace it with and/or what else they are doing.

So there are no oil vegan foods that could actually increase cholesterol? I mean it's not just an issue of someone's makeup or prior health causing this to happen?

See, there is one of those assumptions

You are first assuming they are vegan and second assuming they are consuming "no oil" vegan foods or consuming a "no oil" vegan diet.

First, when someone comes here and says they are following the program and the cholesterol is too high, it does not mean they are consuming "no oil" vegan foods or a "no oil" vegan diet.

Second, There are plant foods that are high in saturated fats, hydrogenated fats and trans fats which can all increase cholesterol. While the hydrogenated and trans fats would be in processed foods, the saturated foods can be in naturally occurring vegan foods. There are naturally occurring plant foods that are high in saturated fat.

In addition, there are vegan foods that are calorie dense and are easy to overeat on and can increase someones weight. Increased weight can raise cholesterol.

In Health
Jeff