Combining Starch Solution with 5:2 IF

[determined2bhealthy]

Hi all,

I'm presently experimenting with this combination, and I feel really happy with it.

The only issue I have is that everyone in the discussion group I am in seems to fear the carbs. It's low-carb this and low-carb that, and it's the same.old.thing. Carbs make you fat. All these nice people who want to make health changes are going to starve and fail by trying to subsist mostly on protein, fat, and veggies--and then adding two days of calorie-restricted fasting to that.

I'm just whining, really, because I'm going to stick with my starches, no question. Just wishing for a high-starch friend to do this with. Lol.

[Grammy Ginger]

Jeff has addressed intermittent fasting before. You might consider searching for those threads. If you follow Starch Solution or Maximum Weight Loss, you already limit calories but without going hungry. After years of anorexia and bulimia, I personally wouldn't choose to eliminate meals. As far as I go is to eat more veggies if a pound or two creep on. Good luck in your quest.

Have a lovely day.

[JeffN]

This may be one of the most common questions we get during our Q&A at our events. It was one of the top questions at the past 3-Day Weekend.

Follow the regular program or the MWL as is, eating when hungry of the recommend foods until comfortably full and not eating when not hungry.

IF violates that basic principle.

viewtopic.php?f=22&t=36724

In Health
Jeff

[geo]

IF makes no sense in the context of the McDougall Program (regular or MWL). Why? Because:

1. This program already follows calorie density principle to adjust for reducing caloric intake easily and without thinking about calorie counting,measuring food portions, having to worry about whether your diet is nutrionally adequate/balanced/tasty/expensive.

2. There is no remembering or confusion on what time frame your allowed to eat in, be it specific days or number of hours to eat a day or what food to eat when. You simply eat when your hungry, thus theres no need to try to specifically fit it into your schedule or adjust your life in any way.

3. There is no worrying or anxiety about being hungry during that fasting time (YOU WILL BE HUNGRY, (though most wont admit it). With this program you are quite simply never hungry, never worrying about how many hours till your next meal, never anxious about when that hunger is gonna hit you and drive you crazy. Here, you get hungry, you eat, rinse, repeat, over and over again throughout your day.

4. This program works,works well,is simple, easy, cheap and effortless (as long as you don't let others tell you otherwise). With IF, there are so many different methods,each claiming to be best and none having any scientific proof to say so.

All the weight you could ever want to lose is easily achievable with this program...you wanna lose 10lbs, no problem...wanna lose 100? again no problem...because there is no hunger...sticking to it, i.e., time and adherence is easy, and key to success. And finally, not only do you lose weight but you regain health! Preventing, stopping, reversing, and eliminating any nutritionally based chronic disease (and most are!) as best as your body can manage. Its not simply a one trick pony (to just lose some weight)...its the best way to regain total health for a lifetime. There is nothing temporary about this program, it is ment to be followed for life.

[determined2bhealthy]

It "violates" the principles? Are you being serious?

[Skyscraper]

When someone says they are going to do the McDougall program in addition to some type of fasting program it raises red flags. Because if someone does the McDougall program strictly they will not need to add any type of fasting to lose weight. If someone isn't losing weight there are things that can be adjusted within the principles of the McDougall program.

Usually they aren't actually doing McDougall. For example, maybe someone is eating a lot of high fat foods like lots of nuts and nut based creamy sauces and dressings. Or maybe they are eating processed vegan cheese junk foods or oil or some other vegan junk foods. They might still consider that they are doing the McDougall program because they also are eating a lot of starches and avoiding meat and dairy, but it's really not McDougall at all. So they are rightfully not losing weight. Rather than address it through application of the McDougall Program's principles they want to see if they can lose weight while still eating the unhealthy high fat foods that they want. Thus the solution becomes to add in some fasting.

I fell into this trap at one point myself, when my diet was just a bit too rich for me. Rather than adjust the diet I wanted to try intermittent fasting.

Fasting is not the answer because it is too annoying and people usually can't sustain it for the long term (which is what matters most). For those who can sustain it, it is not going to be healthy if used as a way to continue eating unhealthy foods. It is much healthier to get the unhealthy foods out of the diet rather than try to be thin while eating unhealthy foods. Being thin is not the ultimate indicator of health. You will find thin people can have heart attacks when they eat unhealthy foods even if they maintain a thin weight.

I know you came here looking for support in this endeavor but we are always going to try to give you the best advice we have even if it's not what you wanted to hear.

[Yomom]

“I know you came here looking for support in this endeavor but we are always going to try to give you the best advice we have even if it's not what you wanted to hear.”
by Skyscraper

Yes!

“Jeff Novick is giving you a gift”
by Patty

Yes!

[JeffN]

Usually they aren't actually doing McDougall. For example, maybe someone is eating a lot of high fat foods like lots of nuts and nut based creamy sauces and dressings. Or maybe they are eating processed vegan cheese junk foods or oil or some other vegan junk foods. They might still consider that they are doing the McDougall program because they also are eating a lot of starches and avoiding meat and dairy, but it's really not McDougall at all. So they are rightfully not losing weight. Rather than address it through application of the McDougall Program's principles they want to see if they can lose weight while still eating the unhealthy high fat foods that they want. Thus the solution becomes to add in some fasting.

I fell into this trap at one point myself, when my diet was just a bit too rich for me. Rather than adjust the diet I wanted to try intermittent fasting.

This is such a very important point. It describes one of the main concerns and "flags" when we hear people are doing these "hacks."

Case in point....

This past Monday, someone booked an appointment with me. I asked about their concern and their main concern was their Total Cholesterol, Triglycerides, VLDL, and LDL ad all risen significantly from when we last worked together 3.5 years ago. Back then, they had a similar concern and at that time, I asked them do to an 8-week experiment cleaning up their diet from everything and anything that was not 100% on program (MWL). Just for eight weeks to see.

Eight weeks later and all the numbers were excellent.

So, this week I said, you don't need another appointment with me, you don't have to spend the money, you know what to do and you know what your not doing correctly. Just do the same experiment for 8 weeks and you will have the same results. If not, then we can talk again. I cancelled the appointment and refunded their money.

I then received a few more communications from them listing all the things they realized they weren't doing correctly and how they had each slowly crept back in and now, "they are back on track!"

I had a similar discussion last week from someone I worked with in 2015. They were interested in IF and a few other "modifications." My response was..

"Our program is simple, very simple. So simple it becomes difficult. Just eat commodity simple staple foods as close to their natural state as possible (rice, beans, corn, oats, fruits, and vegetables) and get a pair of sneakers and move. That’s it. Adjust to your personal health situation if necessary.

The problem is, to do this in our toxic food environment, is nothing short of brutal. Literally. It puts pressure on family relationships, relationships with friends, social interactions, dining out and restaurants, travel, work, etc etc. We are social creatures (most of us) and like to fit in and get along, so to do this, puts a great strain on fitting in. And, todays current climate of information overload, clickbait and social media, everyone is an expert and makes it hard to figure things out."

They wrote back. In their own words, " You are correct. Last year, I went to the 3-day and Dr Lim asked me to do an 8-week experiment and after my inspiring conversation with Dr. Lim late last summer, I dialed in, lost 9#, and lowered my thyroid antibodies by half. Okay, so I just remembered that. Back on track! Thanks lots!"

They both are doing the 8-week experiment again. The didn't need a consult with me.

Oh sure, I could spent an hour with either of them, explaining them the wonders of IF, TRE, EOD, VFB, etc etc and worked out a plan with them, but none of that would have addressed the real issues.

The real issue is understanding and adherence and those little things that starting slipping back in and adding up.

In Health
Jeff

[JeffN]

It "violates" the principles? Are you being serious?

Yes. 100%

That is why these forums exist. To help you understand the principles, guidelines and recommendations of the McDougall program and help you achieve success through the implementation of the McDougall Program.

From my thread on IF...

In a recent discussion on one of the latest IF studies, my long-time colleague Jay Kenney, PhD, RDN, said this,....

“Nutrition science is about what to eat. It gets complicated when that focus shifts form what to eat to how much to eat and/or when to eat. Knowing when to eat is simple and knowing when to stop eating is simple. Eat when you are hungry and stop when you are comfortably full (not stuffed). Calorie restriction (CR) & IF (and other forms of time restricted eating) complicates when (and sometimes also how much) one should be eating because it proclaims you should not eat even when you are hungry or you must stop eating before being satiated. CR as a means of weight control or as an attempt to induce longevity or slow aging complicates how much one should eat. If one understand how different foods impact disease risk factors and satiety/kcal, one can change what is being consumed in order to treat and prevent disease and maintain a healthy body weight and likely live a longer and healthier life. Pitting will power against the hunger drive is very hard to sustain over time and is likely a major factor promoting the development of most eating disorders. ”

If you did read my writings on this, then you would understand all the above including my comment that "IF violates the basic principles of the program."

In Health
Jeff

[thorn324]

I've always been pleased at the high level of agreement between Dr. McDougall's approach and that of Dr. Esselstyn. Especially in light of the logical explanations provided in this thread by Jeff Novick (Thank you, sir!) countering the adoption of Intermittent Fasting, I must say that I was somewhat saddened a few weeks ago (on March 21, 2019) during Dr. Esselstyn's presentation, one of many given by experts in the field (including Dr. McD) in the online summit (hosted by Chef AJ) titled, "The Real Truth about Weight Loss." Dr. Esselstyn said that, based on recommendations of The Institute on Aging to stave off Alzheimer's Disease, he (i.e., Dr. E) is now recommending that people who follow his plan also "do a complete fast on two nonconsecutive days per week—for example, Mondays and Thursdays." He provided no other details about this new recommendation.

One of the things that bothers me (even beyond what Jeff Novick had to say to the original poster in this thread) is that people who take this new cousel, at its face a 24-hour fast twice a week, will most likely turn it into a 36- to 38-hour fast twice a week. Brutal! How does 24 equal 36 to 38? Well, I suspect most people will have their last pre-fast meal on (to use the days given as suggested) Sunday/Wednesday at the evening meal time and not eat again until breakfast of Tuesday/Friday, thinking they're doing as told by fasting "for one day on" Monday/Thursday. But they aren't doing that: they're fasting at least or slightly more than 1.5 days by starting the fast after supper on Sunday/Wednesday, the day before the nominal fast day (Monday/Thursday), & then continuing it through that day & on into the day of breaking the fast (i.e., eating breakfast!) on the day after (i.e., Tuesday/Friday). Talk about things becoming complicated when doing IF … yikes!

Actually, I should have written "complicated as well as a long time to go with no food." With all due respect to Dr. E, I don't think he thought through this new twist in his recommended approach to therapeutic eating before launching it. (And just think: this will cut down the number of weekly doses of greens from 42 (6 x 7 days) to only 30 (6 x 5 days). So much for assuring a steady intake of nitrous oxide.

[f1jim]

It seems logical that given a few "tweaks" the McDougall program can work faster, easier, more efficient.
In the 13 years I have been on these pages we have had new members(and old) try to find ways to adjust the program in a myriad of ways. Typically, those people leave to move on to other, more novel ways of losing weight.
I understand the frustrations of having excess weight and not seeing it disappear rapidly enough. But their are some realities of human energy storage and digestion. Those realities must be addressed with long term techniques that will stay with us for a lifetime. Anything else is doomed to failure. The program works. Will it be fast enough for you? That we can't answer.
f1jim

[human vegetable]

To me, the main cause for people adding little tweaks of their own to the McDougall program is not the wish to speed things up, but rather the psychological need to "really own" this way of eating. And you don't "own" it until you personalize it and add little individual embellishments, distinguishing your own application of the principles from others'.

Just think of the old Bruce Lee quote: "Use what is useful. Discard what is useless. Add what is specifically your own." If you are being told: "There is nothing to add (and definitely nothing to discard), because it is already perfect", you don't feel valued.

On one level, I understand that Jeff sees it primarily as a hassle when people try to be creative, and mostly are just "too clever by half", making the program worse instead of improving it. In German, we even have a funny word for that: "Verschlimmbessern", which might be translated to "worseproving".

Yet on another level, I think those at the helm of the McDougall program now should respect the people's natural desire to customize and personalize, and rather than offering just one generic version, and insisting that this WOE is best for everybody, they should rather stress the possible alternatives that can be built from the same underlying principles, without violating them. If they offered people subtly different ways of applying the principles and encouraged them to personalize the program, I'm sure adherence and also general popularity could be increased quite a lot.

I realize that Dr. McDougall has already done that in some of his books, but these finer points often get lost here in the forums, where most threads seem to end with generic advice such as "Follow THE program and shut up."

When looking at other diets such as Atkins that from a nutritional perspective are clearly inferior, their popularity may stem from the fact that they have at least understood dieters' psychological concerns. I own one of the newer Atkins books because on the back cover I read that it also included vegetarian and vegan options. Of course, I never put it to the test, but I find it striking that nowadays even Atkins tries to appeal to groups that could traditionally be considered polar opposites of their targets.

Of course I'm not arguing for a carnivorous MWL version - but still, there might be something to learn from being open to people's needs.

[JeffN]

Isn't the idea of IF to give the digestion a complete break once in a while? Empty out the gut fully, so the body has energy that is not going towards digestion for a couple of breaks a week.

No.

What's wrong with doing that, while eating McDougall foods? Big deal..

Hunger is a big deal.

I realize that Dr. McDougall has already done that in some of his books, but these finer points often get lost here in the forums, where most threads seem to end with generic advice such as "Follow THE program and shut up."

I agree with most all you said above and is actually how we implement the program. There is no cookie-cutter program that everyone must follow nor is "follow the program and shut up" our advice.

As I have always said, the program is a set of guidelines and principles that you apply and adjust as needed to your own situation (health status, weight, activity level, metabolism, food sensitivities, allergies and preferences etc). They are not “rules," nor are they carved in stone. They are only principles and guidelines.

People apply the basic principles and guidelines in a multitude of ways. You can see this discussed in many threads including the ones on nuts, meal frequency, calorie density, exercise, supplements etc, even on whether I recommend a vegan diet or not. Even my wife and I apply them differently.

My concerns are only when the “hacks” violate the basic principles and guidelines of the program.

That is the main problem with IF.

No way around it.

Anyone is welcome to follow any program and eat anything they want. However, in these forums, we will keep the focus on the principles and guidelines of the McDougall program that have been cultivated from over 40 years of clinical experience.

In Health
Jeff