Dr. McDougall's Online Discussion Board

Yeah, the biggest thing I notice, is that people have poor nutritional literacy! Someone who looks pretty and sounds smart says something very, very stupid, and because we don't have any proper basis for knowing how food works in the human body, people just sit there all confused, and don't know who to believe.

But no, the dietitian who said that eating good fats will help you lose weight, is foolish. Only someone with low nutritional literacy would be willing to believe this as a blanket statement.

The thing is, when we eat calorie-rich foods, we often wind up eat far more (in terms of calories / energy) in one day than people who tend to eat calorie dilute foods. And this adds up -- people who eat calorie-rich foods, month after month, are much heavier than those who eat calorie dilute foods month after month. So, if you add more fat to your diet, thinking this will help you lose weight, you are pursuing an ineffective strategy. Increasing the calorie density of your food -- all other things being equal -- will cause you to put on weight. Decreasing the calorie density of your food -- all other things being equal -- will cause you to take off weight.

So someone who eats a 1.5 cups of broccoli and 1.5 cups of potatoes at each meal for a year will become lean, generally. Someone who eats 1.5 cups of broccoli and 1.5 cups of potatoes, PLUS 4 Tbsp of olive oil at each meal, wouldn't do so well.

People really do need better nutritional literacy! It is not only eating dietary fat that can cause humans to gain body fat, but also eating any calorie-rich foods in excess. If I ate 1.5 cups of broccoli and 1.5 cups of potatoes, PLUS a liter of Dr. Pepper every day, do you think I'd still be wearing the same pants size in a year? Prob not!

What about sedentary Americans who think that toast with jelly can be added to each meal as a dessert? Low fat, for sure. But calorie-rich! This person would boost the overall calorie density of their meal by the addition of this concentrated source of calories represented by, basically, flour and sugar.

Basically, the nutritional literacy that Americans need, is about understanding which foods should be avoided or limited, in order to lower the calorie density of their meals. They also need to understand that, if they lower the calorie density of their meals in order to lose weight, they would be foolish to compensate by eating medium-calorie density foods to excess, or eating far more frequently, thinking "I can eat all I want now!" It's an equation, and taking oils out of the equation will lower your calorie density, ONLY if you don't tamper with the equation horribly in other ways.

But overall, the calorie rich foods to be avoided or severely limited, in order to lower your overall caloric load would include those with hardly any fat (such as raisins, dried mangos, carrot juice, pomegranate juice, Dr Pepper, marshmallow fluff, etc) as well as calorie-rich processed fatty foods (olive oil, coconut oil, peanut butter, almond butter, almond milk, coconut milk, etc.) and calorie-rich whole natural fatty foods (nuts, seeds, avocados, coconut, olives).

Hope that is relatively comprehensive! I just think we spread more misinformation by acting like dietary fat is the only thing that influences overconsumption, because it's not -- not by a long shot!

Thanks, Round Coconut!

The guy is advocating to eat an avocado a day. Which is not only very expensive in the UK, but I just know I'd gain weight or plateau.

Avocados for me, are a rare treat.

lilypad wrote:Avocados for me, are a rare treat.

That's probably smart -- for your body, for your wallet!

Stay intelligent and don't believe any magic thrown at you by ding-dongs.

There are also lots of "health professionals" who hang out a shingle to give advice, and they seem like perfectly lovely people (Andrew Weil, Marc David, Michael Pollan come to mind), who seem to believe every word of what they're saying. And yet, the advice they give is stuff that (most likely) THEY want to believe or want to be true.

It's so appealing to believe that only fat matters! I've listened to people who slip into that (foolish) argument that two plates of food with, say, one fat gram each, are equivalent in terms of your body weight outcomes. So, "Instead of having that one piece of chocolate, you could have 85 oranges!" Uh, no. That's not how this works.

If Dr McDougall intended for us to restrict only dietary fat, I don't think any of us would be having the results we're having. Maybe he'd sell a few books with that gimmick, but we'd all sit around eating 85 oranges and avoiding the dietary fat in oatmeal. It would be pure foolishness!

Anyways, that''s my rant of the day!

The nutritionist bases the proof that 'good fat' is good for weight loss and doesn't make you fat, based off ONE Youtuber, named Rawvanna who is slim despite consuming 'good fats'. He said 'Well Rawvanna isn't fat' as proof lol.

But she could be constantly restricting her calories, she's also young- and when I was younger I had a much higher metabolism. Kind of an unscientific way to prove that certain fats are good for weight loss lol.

Also, for me, nuts and avocados are 'high tastes' and I am trying to train myself out of eating food like that. I just don't crave fatty, oily foods any more.

I also really appreciate what Dr McDougall says about foods like avocados and nuts, about how humans are designed to eat in season. I just don't think we are designed to eat an avocado a day!

lilypad wrote:
I also really appreciate what Dr McDougall says about foods like avocados and nuts, about how humans are designed to eat in season. I just don't think we are designed to eat an avocado a day!

I would even dare to say we are not designed to have added fats every day.
For me fat is a flavour carrier, whether it's a "good" or a "bad" fat - it's still fat, isnt it?

I lost 5kg or almost 5 kg a week without added fats.
Then I wanted some pan-fried stuff but hadn't have a non-stick pan and had to use some oil. (a very expensive and recommended olive oil) I only used tiny amounts, but lost "only" 3.6 kg that week.
Bought a non-stick pan at the weekend, had still some pan-fried stuff this week and lost 3.6 kg in only 4 days.
So I for myself won't add any fat anymore to my foods.

I don't think you won't lose weight with fats, but it will slow down a weight loss enormous.

wyfbaby wrote:I have a question. What happens when you eat an extra 100 calories of carbohydrates? (above your caloric need)

Dr. McDougall discusses this in the Starch Solution. The following link also does a great job of answering your question.

https://goaskalice.columbia.edu/answered-questions/does-carbohydrate-become-body-fat

Snow White wrote:lost 3.6 kg in only 4 days.

That would require a calorie deficit of almost 7,000 calories a day. How did you do it?

petero wrote:That would require a calorie deficit of almost 7,000 calories a day. How did you do it?

Eating (hopefully) right, playing around a lot with my son, going for a walk every day (~ 4 to 5 km), including squats in my housework, little home exercises (cross trainer; between 11 and 15 km in 30 mins including different counter weights) while watching an episode of my series in the evening.

Edit: In addition to that I'd like to say I started with overweight with a very low activity level. So maybe this can explain the rapid weight loss ecause of right eating and exercises in the beginning as well.

petero wrote:

Snow White wrote:lost 3.6 kg in only 4 days.

That would require a calorie deficit of almost 7,000 calories a day. How did you do it?

Don't know. But I had the same experience when I first started this way of eating 4 years ago. I lost 30 lbs in 6 weeks. When I calculated the deficit, it was some ridiculous number such as the one you came up with.

This way of eating does something that causes you to lose much faster than makes sense.

I don't know. It just happened that way for me. I am not complaining