Discussion Board

Is food, McD approved of course, really unlimited? Like today I have been on tear with corn. all I want is to eat corn. I had 2 cups of corn and two cups of peas at noon, then I had 1 cup of corn and black beans, twice, and I still want corn. My question is, the bag of corn says 1 gr of fiber and 1 gr of fat per 2/3 cup. Would I gain wieght if I ate lets say 5 cups of corn today? I saw on the discovery channel a while back about a guy who wieghed like 800 lbs and his dr asked what things he ate. The guys response was among others things was that he ate 16 oranges per day. The dr's response was well if you eat 16 of anything you will gain wieght. Is that the same here? I know that if I eat 10 potatoes fried in oil I will gain wieght, however if I eat 20 potatoes with no added oil will I still gain wieght?
Debbie

do you have the MWL book?

There is an excellent section in there on why it would be very difficult to gain weight even if you ate a ton of potatoes. Or name-your-legal-food.

if you don't have the book, maybe you can check it out from the library, it's soooo helpful in understanding why it's really okay to eat 5 cups of corn today.

There are some things that the Maximum Weight Loss program limits - flour products, for example, because it IS possible to eat too much bread, or pasta ... but for most people, it would be difficult to eat too much.

I actually seem to lose a little *better* when I eat lots of whole food starches, as opposed to trying to limit them.

I'd say if you're really hungry, eat until you're satisfied (not stuffed) and don't worry about it.

Hi, Debbie.

My experience has been that if I stick to foods that are 800 calories or less per pound, I can eat all I want and either maintain or lose weight slowly. I may eat a lot and maintain for a several days in a row, but eventually I feel less hungry, eat less, and some weight comes off.

If I have very much that's a higher caloric density (bread, pasta, etc.) I gain.

green/yellow vegetables: 100 cal/lb
fruits: 250 cal/lb
beans: 350 cal/lb
starchy vegs (potatos, corn, winter squash): 350 cal/lb
whole grains (cooked in water): 600 cal/lb
bread, pasta: 1500 cal/lb

Every element of any program should be kept in context. In my understanding, these are the principles of the McDougall Program regular diet:

1. Whole foods.
2. Plant foods.
3. Starch centered.
4. A wide variety in each of three categories (fruit, vegs, starch).
5. Eat as much as you want until full.

The fourth element kills the idea of eating nothing but oranges or nothing but corn. The fifth element kills the idea of compulsive eating.

It is important to focus on all the fundamental principles not just one.

Hi Debbie,

I think Burgess gave you the best answer to your question,



Unlimited does not mean unlimited in the sense that you can eat all you want of anything.

What it means is that if you follow the principles of the program, especially of the Maximum Weight Loss program, you will be able to eat all you want until you are comfortably full, and still lose weight.

The reason, as TominTN pointed out is due to calorie density. Many many studies have been done in the last few decades confirming this. If you allow people to eat "ad libitum" or all they want till the are comfortably full, from low calorie dense foods, they will lose weight, not be hungry and do not have to count calories.

Of course, calories still count, but it becomes almost impossible to over consume calories from the foods you choose if you follow these recommendations.

The numbers Tom gave are very close, so let me adjust them slightly

These are averages

Fresh Veggies are around 100 cal/lb
Fresh Fruits around 250-300 cal/lb
Starchy Veggies/Intact Whole Grains around 450-500 cal/lb
Legumes around 550-600 cal/lb
Processed Grains (even if their Whole grain) around 1200-1500 cal/lb
Nuts/Seeds around 2800 cal/lb
Oils around 4000 cal/lb

What they found is if the calorie density of the food is below 400 calories per pound, not matter how much they eat, they all lost weight.

Between 600-800 calories per pound, with some moderate exercise, they all lost weight.

Between 800-1200 calories per pound, people gained weight, except for those with very high activity levels

Over 1200 calories per pound, everyone gained weight.

These numbers are also inline with other recommendations.

The recent WCF/AICR report on cancer recommends that the average calorie density of our diets be around 550-600 calories per pound, to avoid obesity and weight problems.

The Okinawan diet, before Western influence, was around 600-650 calories per pound

So, knowing all this, if you look at the numbers, it all makes sense.

A starch based diet, made up of starchy vegetables and intact whole grains along with some fruit and veggies, will have a calorie density under 500 calories per pound and maybe even 400 calorie per pound. It would be near impossible to overeat.

You can also see the problem with many of the "low fat" diets that focused on processed whole grains, like whole wheat bread, crackers, dry cereals. At 1200-1500 calories per pound, if they become a large part of the diet, they can raise the overall calorie density and make it much easier to overeat on calories and easy to gain weight and/or not lose weight, even with a higher activity level. Hence the principles of the MWL program is to avoid those foods, or really limit them.

In Health
Jeff Novick, MS, RD

How much is a pound of these foods? And the starch is cooked when measure I assume because example rice 1 cup uncooked is 3 cups cooked. Or is that considered processed starch? I like large bake potatoes and they are about a pound! I eat one for a meal. I have maintaine my weight so I want to figure this out to lose my last 30 lbs.

Hi Linda



A pound.


j/k

For some foods it is a huge volume (lettuce, celery, etc) and for some foods it is a very small volume (nuts, seeds, oils).



All numbers I gave are for the food in its edible form.

So, the number for rice (around 500 calories/lb) is for cooked rice.

PS, do not get to caught up in the numbers/amounts, as that defeats the whole purpose of this method. Knowing and understanding this method and the general numbers and foods, allows us to eat when we are hungry until we are comfortably full without counting and/or measuring weight and/or calories and still lose weight.

In Health
Jeff Novick, MS, RD

Okay I am not trying to make this more difficult however, I am not math wizard by any means but, If for instance You take carrots my bag says 35 calories for 1 medium carrot, so take three carrots and that is 105 calories but threee carrots dont wiegh 1lb right. I am sooooo confused
also how do I know how many calories I need to eat. I thought I had all this figured out. I have 5 lbs to go to get to my prepregnacy wieght with my second but 25lbs to go till I get to my preprego wieght with my first. Oh and I am still breastfeeding. I keep hearing I need like 2500 cal but I know on average I dont eat that many cals a day. Sometimes. Please help.
Debbie

Hi Debbie



Let me try and help

First, I do not think anyone needs to know any of these numbers in order to eat healthy and live a long and healthy life. I give them and use them only to help in understanding some points and some of the principles and guidelines, and answer some questions.

The numbers i gave for calorie density are "averages" for the food groups.

Vegetables "average" 100 calories a pound but some are more, and some are less. Celery, having a slightly higher water content) is 70 calories per pound and carrots, (having a slightly higher starch content) is 198 calories per pound. While neither one is exactly 100 calories per pound, the 100 calories per pound works and helps understand the over riding principle of calorie density when compared to other food groups.

So, I do not know the size of the carrots you have or their weight. but if you have a pound of them, they will weight right around 198 calories.

In regard to how many calories to eat, that is another number, that....

1) has no simple answer unless you plan to maintain the exact same physical activity, exercise, stress, temperature, etc etc every day. The concept that everyone needs a certain calorie level that can be determined is wrong.

2) i do not think people need to know this number nor do I think there are any great ways to calculate it. All the forumlas have great margins of error in them. So does all estimates of how many calories there are in food. Any calorie estimate you see on any food package can be up to 20% off. Formulas can be over 40% off. Professionals trying to track their calorie intake can be 30% off. Why attempt to measure something that we have such poor ways of measuring.

3) calorie density is a much better approach then counting calories as it uses general guidelines and principles to help make healthier choices.

We should focus our diets on a variety of healthy foods within the healthy food groups, get enough activity and physical exercise, and not worry about micromanaging our intake.

If we need to lose weight, then we can shift our overall calorie density down by focusing on and including more foods lower in calorie density and limiting the higher calorie dense foods. If we need to gain some weight, then we can do the opposite and include more higher calorie dense healthy foods. Of course, we can also adjust activity levels to coincide with our food intake and our goals.

Check your scale on a 1x weekly basis and see how you are doing. Adjust accordingly.

I think there is a real irony in the USA that we now know more about food and all its components (calories, protein, fat, vitamins, minerals, etc) yet at the same time we have more obesity, diabetes then ever before.

In Health
Jeff Novick, MS, RD

Thanks Jeff

Now I think I understand it better. I dont like to think much about calories and counting them, which is why I never could do low cal diets in the past. And I know that McDing I dont have to, however these were just things I happened to think about and wonder why.
Debbie

Hi Jeff, where do rice cakes fall in calorie density? Are they considered processed whole grains? I used to snack (too much!) on wholegrain bread and have replaced them with plain brown rice cakes and puffed kamut cakes, which are almost as satisfying. I eat brown rice and oats with plenty of veggies and fruits at regular meals, so the rice cakes are "treats." Thank you.

Hi, Nara. It's not hard to figure out. Just look at the label to see how many ounces in a serving. That will tell you how many servings in a pound, and that will tell you how many calories in a pound.

For example, say a product has 200 calories in a 2 ounce serving. You'd multiply 200 by 8 since there are 16 ounces in a pound, and get 1600 calories per pound. Those numbers are made up since I don't have a package of rice cakes handy, just to give you the idea of how to do the calculation.

If the label doesn't tell the ounces in a serving, you can often get it by looking at the total ounces in the package and the number of servings in the package. Say it's a 12 ounce package with 8 servings. Then each serving would be 1.5 ounces (12 ounces/8 servings).

Hope that helps...

Hi Nara

Rice cakes come in at around 1750 calories per pound.

We tend to think of them as being lower in calorie density because of their "puffiness" from the air, which gives them lots of volume.

However, unlike a high water content in a food, which really helps in lowering calorie density,a high air content does not. One reason is because air does not have a lot of weight. The second is because unlike water, the air doesn't really make to your stomach, as most of it gets "chewed out" in our mouth.

In Health
Jeff Novick, MS, RD

I have just had one of those light bulb moments that where it all fits together. Like where was my head Thanks for making some real sense in eatting right.

Jeff and Tom, the numbers chart was very interesting and helpful. an eye-opener regarding nuts, which I love. I'm not eating any right now but when I do some day the chart shows why it's to be a small amount, like a few nuts on my salad. and not to sit down with nuts for a snack. too bad, but that's the way it is!