when in doubt

[AlwaysAgnes]

Anyway, I don't think you're supposed to be hungry on McDougall. You're not supposed to be running on an empty tank or on fumes or worrying over the gas gauge. You're not supposed to wait for fruits and nuts to talk to you. You're supposed to be full. And the primary fuel is starch.

Depends on the person. If you want to maintain a low BMI, you will be hungry sometimes unless you are exercising obsessively or you have a scary fast metabolism. As soon as I start to eat a little more, I gain weight. I work hard to learn to embrace being a little hungry and not grab for something just b/c my stomach is a little empty. I eat 3 meals a day--that is enough. Partly this is a psychological thing re: food, but a lot of people do have those!

Anyway, if you are trying to maintain a low BMI it is not hard to gain weight eating this food, if you eat a lot of it. Calories are calories are calories. If you are happy at a heavier weight it is certainly easier!

Please allow me to toss another potato or three onto the bonfire.

Today I watched the latest webinar with Dr. Lisle, and in it near the end he talked about the pleasure trap and the ego trap.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sG18AYkzUUE
He also talks about the ego trap in this webinar near the end
https://www.drmcdougall.com/health/educ ... -08-10-17/
And here is the webinar where he talks about the slow fast way
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5vbeHVecDlM

These videos strike a cord with me. Your mileage may vary, of course. Talk about maintaining a low BMI by not eating or eating less food (not just less calories) and the willpower and perfectionism that implies (intentionally or not) is a pretty big turn-off to me. If that's all there was to the McDougall program, low BMI via eating less and going hungry, I'd go the other way as fast as my turtle feet could carry me.

I think the only time I've ever seen/read Dr. McDougall say it would be okay to go hungry is if the available food is not health-promoting. Like if your only choice is oily crap and a candy bar, you could go without food for a couple hours until something healthier is available. Can anyone show me something specific where he says otherwise? Can you show me where the McDougall program says you should have to go hungry so you can maintain a low BMI? (I know it's been discussed by people on the forums. That and stuff like hara hachi bu, but I don't think I've ever seen Dr. McDougall support those ideas, and I couldn't find anything searching the site.) I think the only nod he makes to eating less for weight loss has to do with eating less overall calories using the principles of calorie density (MWL). But that's not about going hungry. (If I recall correctly, Chef AJ eats about 8 pounds of food a day, using the principles of calorie density. That's a lot of friggin' food. The average person eats 3-5 pounds of food daily.) I've never been to one of the McDougall programs but I'm pretty sure from what I've read that food is always available and not just at mealtimes or only 3 times/day. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong about any of that.

By the way, I'm rarely hungry. Most days I eat one meal a day. Obviously I'm broken. I'm not even sure I have a metabolism.


https://www.drmcdougall.com/misc/2007nl ... t%20if.htm :
If I Could Be Your Doctor, I Would Love to Tell You How:

To Lose Excess Weight Effortlessly, Painlessly, and Permanently

1You need to believe that the only thing that matters is the composition of the foods on your plate. Do not focus on anything else. Don’t think about how much you eat. Don’t think about exercise. It does not matter if you are a nice person, or if you go to church, or if your classmates picked on you in high school. It’s the food. All you have to do to permanently change your life—I sincerely mean this; to lose excess weight and regain your lost health—is to change the makeup of the meals you put into your mouth.


So, was he lying?

[bunsofaluminum]

For me at least, it isn’t about a low BMI or anything else. It has to do with appetite training. Sometimes when you think you are hungry, you aren’t, and there’s no reason to feed yourself when you’re not really hungry. I’m not talking about going hungry I’m talking about just letting your stomach get empty between meals. Nothing wrong with that.

[AlwaysAgnes]

For me at least, it isn’t about a low BMI or anything else. It has to do with appetite training. Sometimes when you think you are hungry, you aren’t, and there’s no reason to feed yourself when you’re not really hungry. I’m not talking about going hungry I’m talking about just letting your stomach get empty between meals. Nothing wrong with that.

So how do you know when your stomach is empty? You can't see in there.

More food for thought (because you all know I just can't help myself):

http://theconversation.com/chemical-mes ... full-35545
https://theconversation.com/how-the-bac ... food-33141

[veg tom]

One of these days i may regale you people about my love of mr, and miss. potato head. I'm just concerned that jim may get mad at me because its rated R. Just a little in sight is i think Mrs potato is really hot. Think about it

[ETeSelle]

These videos strike a cord with me. Your mileage may vary, of course. Talk about maintaining a low BMI by not eating or eating less food (not just less calories) and the willpower and perfectionism that implies (intentionally or not) is a pretty big turn-off to me. If that's all there was to the McDougall program, low BMI via eating less and going hungry, I'd go the other way as fast as my turtle feet could carry me.

This plan is for everyone. Certainly, you can be happy and healthy at a higher BMI! That's great! But the medical facts show that the most health benefits do accrue at a lower BMI. So some of us choose to shoot for that. And people are different. In my case, I am a volume eater and have a history of binge-eating. And the fact is that the MINUTE I start to eat a little more food (even McDougall food) or partake in even tiny "cheats" (like an occasional meal out (which means oil), sorbet, etc.), I not only gain weight, but my blood work suffers. I may just be very sensitive--I don't know. In addition, once I start to eat more, that compounds itself and I eat more and more. Having experimented a good bit, and having been on this plan for 20 years (off and on--was always vegan but did fall off the McDougall wagon for a while), I know what I can get away with and what I cannot. I am at my healthiest and I feel best about myself at a lower BMI. If that isn't you, that's great. As I said, this plan is for EVERYONE.

[roundcoconut]

These videos strike a cord with me. Your mileage may vary, of course. Talk about maintaining a low BMI by not eating or eating less food (not just less calories) and the willpower and perfectionism that implies (intentionally or not) is a pretty big turn-off to me.

I think this is a perspective that many people in the plant-based community have embraced. Don’t take people’s food away — they will revolt!

And yet, it seems as though if you take away certain unpopular ideas, it becomes somewhat harder to explain what’s going on with people’s weight.

It has always seemed to true to me that even the most angelic and perfect food choices, cannot undo the impact of several unneeded meals and snacks a week.

I totally can understand why people don’t want to have their food taken away — it is what we do with our hands and our minds. But there is some explanatory power in noticing HOW people can eat “all the right foods, in all the wrong portions” and find themselves hanging onto excess weight.

My only point is that it’s an unpopular message (that eating too much can keep excess weight on) but that if we are 100% truthful, there are some of us who gain or keep excess weight if frequency / portions are not kept in check.

[ETeSelle]

I agree, roundcoconut. Also, I think the simple fact is that human beings simply did not evolve to have full bellies all the time. Let's face it--for the great majority of the population, that phenomenon is 60-70 years old (and coincided with the increase in diabetes, heart disease, etc.). For most of history, human beings had to work HARD to find or kill food, and were often hungry, just as animals are in the wild. We are simply not set up to never experience hunger, and there ARE consequences for going against Mother Nature. This is basically the idea behind CRON (which is not a McDougall thing, but Jeff Novick practices it I believe--he discusses it sometimes on his forum).

I am NOT a believer in fasting, per se, but I have found that occasionally (a few times a year) going a day without eating reminds me that I'm NOT going to die of starvation if I have a hunger pang. It's not an urgent situation. And it's not a bad thing to remember.

[bunsofaluminum]

For me at least, it isn’t about a low BMI or anything else. It has to do with appetite training. Sometimes when you think you are hungry, you aren’t, and there’s no reason to feed yourself when you’re not really hungry. I’m not talking about going hungry I’m talking about just letting your stomach get empty between meals. Nothing wrong with that.

So how do you know when your stomach is empty? You can't see in there.

More food for thought (because you all know I just can't help myself):

http://theconversation.com/chemical-mes ... full-35545
https://theconversation.com/how-the-bac ... food-33141

well, one of the ways I can tell if I'm actually hungry, as opposed to bored or premenstrual, is if something simple sounds good. If I think "mmm, an apple would be about right" or "weren't there some cold baked potatoes in the fridge?" then I know I'm actually hungry.

If I'm feeling vaguely appetite-ish and can't decide what sounds good, standing there with the fridge door open, not making up my mind, then I'm not truly hungry, just feeling the ole appetite bumping up against my pleasure trap or some such.

Now, while I'm sure that eating a cold baked potato if I'm not TRULY hungry won't throw off my weight loss, there is something so freeing about eating only three regularly scheduled meals, and not saying "how high" every time my appetite says "jump"...it's nice that my appetite is not the boss of me.

[bunsofaluminum]

even if the craving says "wendys spicy chicken wrap"
its potatoes to the gills.

why is this different or better than simply saying the hunger or thirst is not real?
coz there is an actual feeling involved, that has to be dealt with:
(its rattling like a nut in an empty can or a taste in the mouth)
we can repress it using reasons and rationales,
or we can use satiety itself.

the guidelines tell us that a response with satiety based on the right foods
is better than any repression/willpower response/psychological training.
because the choice of food is "this WOE".
to mcdougall is to choose clean starch.
anything else is something else.
that said, ive really enjoyed having to express my understanding of this to this extent
its cleared up for myself quite a bit of fuzziness i had about some of this issues

This is very well stated, and right on the dot. When I first started doing this, I felt hungry a LOT, and everyone on these boards told me "Eat some potatoes" so I did. And I ate a LOT of food every day. Heaps on my plate, and kept a supply of cold baked potatoes for the between meals hunger. I simply followed the guidelines strictly, and lost weight EVEN THOUGH i was eating a LOT of food, primarily potatoes, yams, and rice. And eventually I needed less food on my plate, though I still felt I had to carry food with me everywhere, in case I felt hungry and needed compliant foods to tide me over.

It's cool. I lost weight, and felt fantastic. But overeating remained a real issue for me, such that when I slipped up, I began overeating on things NOT within the guidelines...which meant weight gain. So, for me, eating three meals a day, and not snacking unless I know I am actually hungry (empty stomach) has been amazing. It wasn't that hard to do, but I also wasn't right at the beginning of my McDougall journey...disciplining myself to eat only at mealtimes, etc. My body adapted pretty fast, and now I'm hungry before meals, and one spot at about 10:30 a.m. when I have a small compliant snack/meal. I call it Food Sanity, and it is wonderful. Because, yeah, eating foods within the guidelines is a very good default setting, but I also really love Food Sanity.

[AlwaysAgnes]

These videos strike a cord with me. Your mileage may vary, of course. Talk about maintaining a low BMI by not eating or eating less food (not just less calories) and the willpower and perfectionism that implies (intentionally or not) is a pretty big turn-off to me. If that's all there was to the McDougall program, low BMI via eating less and going hungry, I'd go the other way as fast as my turtle feet could carry me.

This plan is for everyone. Certainly, you can be happy and healthy at a higher BMI! That's great! But the medical facts show that the most health benefits do accrue at a lower BMI. So some of us choose to shoot for that. And people are different. In my case, I am a volume eater and have a history of binge-eating. And the fact is that the MINUTE I start to eat a little more food (even McDougall food) or partake in even tiny "cheats" (like an occasional meal out (which means oil), sorbet, etc.), I not only gain weight, but my blood work suffers. I may just be very sensitive--I don't know. In addition, once I start to eat more, that compounds itself and I eat more and more. Having experimented a good bit, and having been on this plan for 20 years (off and on--was always vegan but did fall off the McDougall wagon for a while), I know what I can get away with and what I cannot. I am at my healthiest and I feel best about myself at a lower BMI. If that isn't you, that's great. As I said, this plan is for EVERYONE.

I also think McDougall (starch based) is for everyone, even volume eaters like Chef AJ. I don't think I've ever seen her express the need to go hungry to reach or maintain her low weight. (In the video below she says she's 5'6 and 115, so that would be bmi of 18.6) What I'm saying or trying to say is that "go hungry" is not part of McDougall or Dr. McDougall's diet philosophy. And I've yet to see anyone offer proof that it is.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j1fj39DytKY Dr Lisle again. (I think he's great, even if sometimes he does over-do the sports analogies.) At the beginning, he's talking about satiation and the animal kingdom.
"so anybody that thinks that you have to consciously regulate your food intake is just not understanding animal biology or is thinking that human beings are independent of animal biology."
You'll have to excuse the weirdness in this transcript, but I think the point still comes through:
5
differences so people need to learn the
06:40
dad there's really two different ways to
06:43
be at a healthy weight one way is to eat
06:46
trash but to consciously override your
06:50
hunger drive and eat less than you want
06:51
and that's what I call losing your mind
06:53
in other words to eat less than you want
06:56
in order to maintain a low weight but
07:00
we're a healthy weight is the same thing
07:03
as for the rest of your life consciously
07:05
drinking less fluid than you want to
07:07
drink you know that does its course
07:09
ridiculous
07:09
and so the solution instead is to eat a
07:13
diet that is consistent with the natural
07:16
history of our species and that diet is
07:18
dominated by famous MacDougal starches
07:22
rice beans and potatoes and and so when
07:25
people are are eating an appropriate
07:29
diet they don't have this problem when
07:31
they wander into the weeds towards
07:33
processed food that's when they're going
07:35
to wind up with a problem

Interesting and informative video. He also discusses binge eating behavior and says restricting and binging go hand in hand. If you tend to restrict, you'll be inclined to binge.


I'm also gonna drop this link here just because I think it's interesting:

DNA vs. Diet
APOA2 Gene Interacts with the Environment to Affect Weight
http://genetics.thetech.org/original_news/news121

[AlwaysAgnes]

These videos strike a cord with me. Your mileage may vary, of course. Talk about maintaining a low BMI by not eating or eating less food (not just less calories) and the willpower and perfectionism that implies (intentionally or not) is a pretty big turn-off to me.

I think this is a perspective that many people in the plant-based community have embraced. Don’t take people’s food away — they will revolt!

And yet, it seems as though if you take away certain unpopular ideas, it becomes somewhat harder to explain what’s going on with people’s weight.

It has always seemed to true to me that even the most angelic and perfect food choices, cannot undo the impact of several unneeded meals and snacks a week.

I totally can understand why people don’t want to have their food taken away — it is what we do with our hands and our minds. But there is some explanatory power in noticing HOW people can eat “all the right foods, in all the wrong portions” and find themselves hanging onto excess weight.

My only point is that it’s an unpopular message (that eating too much can keep excess weight on) but that if we are 100% truthful, there are some of us who gain or keep excess weight if frequency / portions are not kept in check.

The plant based community contains lots of ideas, but not all of them are McDougall's philosophy. I'm trying to focus on what is and isn't McDougall. The McDougall diet is not a diet of weighing and measuring and ignoring hunger signals. (If it is, you need to provide the evidence.) The only foods that Dr. McDougall might suggest restricting are feast foods, rich plant foods, and foods he considers toxins. He also suggests limiting specific foods (like beans and fruits) for specific health issues. https://www.drmcdougall.com/misc/2009nl/dec/nyr.htm
https://www.drmcdougall.com/misc/2005nl ... ushing.htm

And here's Jeff Novick again. (I wonder how many times this particular link has been posted on these boards. Many, I wager. )
http://www.jeffnovick.com/RD/Articles/E ... ition.html

[roundcoconut]

I’m all for obeying hunger signals, if you HAVE reliable hunger signals. And can reliably tell the difference between urges and needs.

In the wider world, I look around me, and I see people who’ve amassed a bit of excess by weight largely due to the fact that they DON’T have a practice of eating only when hungry and stopping when reasonably full.

So it seems odd to me, to assume that people who begin a plan of plant-based eating will suddenly have an accurate assessment of what is a hunger cue, versus what is an eating urge plain and simple!

Generally, I think it may be wise to examine what your body is telling you — take half a second to verify that your body is telling you the truth, before acting. Like, if your body says, “OMG I’m freaking starving over here. How about seconds on dinner?”, then I think it is good to say, “Let’s see, the body says it’s freaking starving. Did you do way more activity than usual? Did you miss a meal today? Is your body giving you an accurate assessment of your needs or is there some faulty wiring going on?”

The article posted above (AlwaysAgnes’ link — the first one) mentions some things that can trip a person’s wires. Like, pictures or descriptions of food will sometimes make the mouth salivate and make the tummy rumble. This probably has some explanation back in caveman history, where a cave woman who stumbles into an apple grove needs to be able to say, “Why yes, of COURSE I’d love to eat right now” rather than saying, “No thanks, I’m not very hungry right now.”

The thing that I tend to observe with people in our society, is that we’re WAYYYYYY too gullible. If one voice in our head says, “We’re hungry! We’re STARVING! Need food NOWWWWW!”, then it would be weird to assume that that voice is telling the truth. How could that voice be telling the truth, if all other signals (recent eating history, recent weight history) indicate the opposite is true?

Just some food for thought!

[roundcoconut]

The quote above:
“If you restrict, you’ll be inclined to binge”, from AlwaysAgnes’ post —

It strikes me that some people have genuine, reliable hunger signals, while others have an inner child who likes to throw tantrums.

So, a lot of Americans have an inner tantrum-throwing child who says, “If you don’t give me the third veggie burger, I’m going to demand ice cream”. Or, “If you say no to a midnight snack, I’m going to raid the ENTIRE refrigerator”.

And with tantrum-throwing children, I don’t know that it’s a good idea to let them have the upper hand, and respond fearfully to their threats.

The idea that to “restrict” (a loaded term!) your intake, is to set yourself up for a binge (a tantrum thrown by the inner brat, if you will) — seems to imply that you can never tell yourself no. If your inner brat says it wants to eat eight times a day, then you run around complying with those demands, no matter how foolish.

There IS such a thing as healthy boundaries. I believe that emotionally healthy people DO tell themselves no, and DO “restrict” themselves to (intellectually) reasonable quantities and intellectually reasonable mealtimes. It is people who are afraid to set boundaries for themselves who are probably finding themselves in the difficult situation of having to dig out of a health crisis or a weight crisis.

(And there’s MORE food for thought!)

[f00die]

...
The idea that to “restrict” (a loaded term!) your intake, is to set yourself up for a binge (a tantrum thrown by the inner brat, if you will) — seems to imply that you can never tell yourself no. If your inner brat says it wants to eat eight times a day, then you run around complying with those demands, no matter how foolish.
...

you can say no, but not sustainably.
thats why most weight lost is regained,
and why the mcdougall program does not recommend
this high-failure-rate technique of telling your hunger "no".
it wont last.
this is uncontroversial across the studies.
changing what you eat is the only effective weightloss method long-term
and that has a decently high failure rate too
due to the temptations of the massive abundance of food nowadays.

ime, unfed hunger eventually results in an altered state
im watching myself eating crap (a whole pizza, 20 wings, six pack, dessert...)
and im still not satisfied
when i eat a sufficient amount of clean starch
this doesnt happen.
maybe thats nuts.
but it doesnt happen when i follow the guidelines

from looking at the mwl thread
eventually my weight can be what it was when i graduated high school
but im not in a hurry
i feel great, strong, numbers look good
im not gonna risk that to lose 20lbs in the next 6 months
its ok if it takes 5 years
or if it never happens
but that just me
im generally unconcerned about what anyone thinks about me
their business

[viv]

"There IS such a thing as healthy boundaries."

I agree that healthy boundaries are necessary and I think that most of the posters here have healthy boundaries when it comes to food, because after all we are a tiny minority of people who are taking charge of our health in the best possible way. However, these healthy boundaries can, for some people, have occasional "slippage". I, for one, have had some slippage this week, but caught it in time to get back to spuds and veggies.

Viv