Changing perspectives of weight.

[f1jim]

I have been 100% compliant for 9.5 years. That doesn't mean I can't benefit health wise by eating lower on the caloric density scale. Dr. McDougall and I believe that given my hlth history it's a smart move. Let's call it fine tuning.
f1jim

[roundcoconut]

I think that's an interesting point, that you can be incredibly compliant to this way of eating and still wish to do some tweaking.

Our weight, as I understand it, is a function of not only calorie density, but meal quantity and meal frequency. I think that gets lost sometimes. Because it really is mathematical!

A quick thought:
Oatmeal with berries is a great meal for losing weight. It's also a great meal for gaining weight. Depends on quantity and frequency. Making wise choices as to calorie density, cannot overcome making careless choices as to meal quantity and meal frequency.

And I think this can be unwelcome information to someone who JUST wants to work on lowering their calorie density right now. But I imagine there are many of us here who would attest to the fact that if we allowed ourselves to eat double portions of the very same foods we are eating right now, we would find ourselves at a higher and higher scale weight. Again, this seems to be slightly uncomfortable truth for some people, but I would rather we acknowledge all honest information about food and weight, and not push anything under the rug.

Another comment:
It's pretty clear to me that Jeff Novick's opinion at least is that BMI is properly used as a screening tool only. The posts he linked to were very clear, that it is foolish to misquote the medical community as saying, "A BMI of X is too low" and "A BMI of Y is perfectly healthy". Rather the idea is that an elevated BMI may signal a medical practitioner to the presence of poor food choices, or insulin resistance, or clinical depression. An elevated BMI is a signal to the medical practitioner to say, "Are there things going on here that need to be addressed?" A good medical practitioner does not diagnose someone based on BMI alone -- "Well, you're heavy, so let's get you on some thyroid medication right away!"

By the same token, a low BMI signals a medical practitioner to the possible presence of drug addiction, of cancer, of elevated thyroid activity, of anorexia, of alcoholism. Based on BMI alone, no good medical practitioner would prescribe methadone, or hospitalize someone for force-feeding.

So, BMI is properly used as a screening tool. Common people (whom I like to call petty tyrants) LUUUUUUV to go around diagnosing people by looking at them, while intelligent and well-trained medical professionals know that they cannot KNOW what is going wrong with a person (if anything) just by seeing their BMI on a chart.

So, I thought I'd point that out. Now, Jeff Novick may be wrong, and you are welcome to disagree with him, but his links clear state that he is of the opinion that BMI is a screening tool only. Just saying!

[LuckyMomma]

Could it be that the McDougall family are naturally slender? For somebody like me who is not built like Gweneth Paltrow, I think I'd have to really never be full to lose the last 10 or more pounds. I do find wearing a weight lifting belt snugly and drinking warm liquids helps me hold off hunger.

[JuicerJohn]

@roundcoconut

I must take exception to a couple of points that you made.

Please understand, I am not trying to be mean, but only to clarify a couple of things that seemed unclear (to me) from what you said.

First, regarding the idea that if we were to double our portion sizes, we would gain weight. While that is likely true, if we are following the plan such a course should not be possible. The plan states, eat until comfortably full, right? Okay, if I am eating until comfortably full now, then I cannot double my portion sizes and still be just comfortably full, so, why would I? On the other hand, if I could double portion sizes and be just comfortably full, then the size of my portions currently must be far smaller than the recommended. Again, why would I?

So, instead I keep my portion size fairly constant, but vary calorie density if I need to make an adjustment in my weight.

And regarding BMI, yes, I agree with Jeff 100% that is should be used as a screening tool only. And, I agree with you that if BMI is too high (overweight or obese) that a qualified medical or dietetic practitioner should be queued to to look further into the diet, lifestyle, and other factors to find a cause. And the same would apply if BMI has gotten too low.

But, for example, if my BMI were 28, should I not be able to use that same information, along with my own knowledge of my lifestyle and eating habits, and healthy diet to make some changes on my own?

Or, if my BMI were 24.9, which is inside the healthy range, if I heard from a reputable doctor and researcher (or from multiple researchers) that closer to the low end of the healthy range is better than just inside the upper end, why would I not listen just because BMI is meant to be a screening tool?

In fact, thinking about it, listening to such advice and deciding to take steps to lower my weight is using BMI as a screening tool, IMO.

[dailycarbs]

I'm a big fan of bmi. I realize it's a general indicator based on population but I can hardly find anyone I know who wouldn't benefit from using the number to fine tune their health. Two exceptions are very short or very tall people. Which brings us to muscularity. The most common complaint I hear is that Arnold Schwarzenegger and Michael Jordan would be considered overweight or obese according to bmi. Ok, let's examine this further. Do you look like this?
https://goo.gl/images/7DB41l

Do you take steroids and lift gargantuan weights that would crush a normal man? I didn't think so.

Ok, now let's look at Jordan. Are you 6'6"? Do you fly through the air with the ease of a bird? Can you dunk a basketball from the foul line? When you look in the mirror, is this person looking back at you?
https://goo.gl/images/9HAjcq

Didn't think so. So let's put a nail in the "bmi is bunk" argument. It's the same magical thinking that has low carbers telling themseleves that cholesterol is irrelevant and saturated fats are good for our brains.

I think any everage person would do well by their health to maintain of a bmi ~18.5-22. If you go over, at least try to keep it under 25. Eating a plant based diet and keeping your bmi under 25 should be the minimum anyone is willing to do for their health.

Obesity is linked to 13 types of cancer
Only smoking comes close” as an environmental factor affecting cancer risk, Dr. Colditz said. “And that’s an important message for nonsmokers. Obesity now goes to the top of the list of things to focus on.”
http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/08/2 ... share&_r=0

BMI and medical costs
viewtopic.php?f=22&t=6916&start=30#p425858

[Dougalling]

One of my fave rice dishes is .. rice, onions, peas, corn, green salsa.