But where does that leave some foods like grilled Japanese sweet potatoes (yaki-imo) which I like occasionally, but are, in fact, to the right of the red line in calorie density because when grilled they lose enough water weight to put them over? "
You caught me at a good time when I am writing a new article on the issue of Ultra processed foods and it also addresses many of these issues which are currently circulating in my head.
First, understand there is no "line" or black and white distinction. Even in the research there is no black and white line nor did any of the studies use one. In fact, in one of the studies that is often used to support this so called "line", 6% of the group whose intake was to the left of the line, were still obese.
I have had clients who were much older, inactive, have physical limitations, shorter, etc. whose food averaged 300- 400 Cal/lb. And I have had clients who were younger active, muscular, tall, etc. whose food was in the range of 1000-1200 (or more). Yet, that is 100% to the right of the line.
That is why I teach the "sweet spot" as represented in this slide below, and the process of how to find one’s personal range. Notice that at both ends of the sweet spot graphic, the line turns yellow and then orange as we can go too high in calorie density and we can go too low.
In regard to the roasted sweet potatoes, this is why I teach the concept of chubby chips which are thicker cut slices that are lightly broiled/grilled on each side. This way, there is much more moisture retained in the chip and the calorie density is not as high. The thicker (to a point) the better. Or you can use the concept of overall dilution. By also having some steamed veggies like broccoli, the overall calorie density of the two items goes down. Or you can do both, thicker chips and some vegetables with them.
On dilution (which I linked earlier)
https://www.drmcdougallforums.com/viewt ... 11&t=62238The earlier Sweet Spot link was just to get you to understand there is no single number. However, it was also an early attempt of identifying the 4 most important factors but was not completely accurate. There is also not much great support for the 4 lbs of food per day and I have seen all the studies and personally seen quite a variance and so I don't use it or recommend it. Follow the principles of calorie density and ad-libitum eating and it will work itself out.
This is also why it is important to understand that while calorie density is just a number, it is also a good surrogate marker for several other factors that contribute to passive-overconsumption, which I linked to earlier. While volume can be an issue, it is not one of the top ones unless the volume comes from water as the volume created by air (puffed grains, air popped popcorn) does not contribute to satiety and so can be very misleading.
From this link
https://www.drmcdougallforums.com/viewt ... 22&t=62161Second, if you have seen my Calorie Density talk, or read my articles on it, you know I stress that while calorie density is a good marker of one's likelihood to overconsume a food, it is just a number and not the only thing that impacts our over-consumption of calories. There are several other factors that I review in the lecture and here in the forum, many of which are also in the 10 Point Checklist for MWL. These include:
- The % fat
- the water content
- the fiber/Cal content
- the degree of processing, such as:
- the form of the fiber (intact vs disrupted)
- the form of the food (liquid vs pureed vs solid, intact vs ground, and/or emulsified)
- the amount of chewing required.
- the variety of foods consumed (limited vs numerous) also known as “sensory specific satiety' or “the salad bar effect"
- the hyper-palatability of the food (high fat, sugar, salt, combos)
And this one
https://www.drmcdougallforums.com/viewt ... 38#p631194The 50/50 plate method is a guideline and the “method” means “up to” 50% non starchy veggies and/or fruit”. It’s not a black and white rule that the plate be 50/50, It might be 25/75 or 33/67 or 40/60 (non-starchy veggies and/or fruit/starch).
Everyone has to find their “sweet spot,” which may be the most important concept, and is a combination of water content, calorie density, satiety, fiber/Cal, food form (liquid vs solid) etc. Calorie Density just happens to be the best surrogate marker of all this.
This is how it is taught in the lecture at the 12-Day Program too.
These are all guidelines to help people find their sweet spot.
BTW, it sounds like you are doing this already with your own experiments of starchy vegetables, starches, fruits and vegetables as you indicate here....
Anyway, that's sort of where I am. I will say, though, that I have found when snacking on very low calorie density foods, like daikon and eggplant, that I can end up over the course of a day eating much more that 4 lb of food. It can go up to as much as 8 or 9 pounds! And I feel uncomfortable when I do that, but because I didn't take satiety into account I can't stop.
This past week I cut back on those foods and concentrated more on potatoes and okayu (Japanese rice gruel) which leaves me satisfied, but not uncomfortable.
I would say the most important factors are calorie density, % fat, satiety (fiber/Cal and water content), and food form (liquid vs solid). And as I said, calorie density just happens to be the best surrogate marker of these. Counting calories alone does not take any of these into consideration.
The questions you raised in your article about water content are interesting. Since water itself is not satiating for any amount of time, I have always wondered how they help make other foods, like wet whole starches, satiating.
Water is satiating because it contributes weight and volume, yet a glass of water hardly contributes any satiety and just adding a glass to a meal doesn't help much. The reason is for the water to be effective, the water has to be in the food and works best if the food is also a high fiber food because then the water is "bound up" in the fiber matrix. As we see with a sponge, the fiber has what I call, bulking capacity. Add water to a dry sponge and it expands (bulk) and holds the water. This is why water and fibers which contribute bulk are a key issue in satiety. This is the issue with blending, it disrupts the fiber lowering its bulking capacity.
I hope you have read the work on satiety which is an integral part of the principles.
This is why I think the concept of "wet" starches is not helpful and why I do not use it. It does not accurately describe what we are looking for.
For instance, if I take a couple whole grain crackers (high in calorie density) and dip them in a glass of water, they are now "wet" but they are not water rich. They are still high in calorie density and can lead to passive overconsumption.
If I take some dry rolled oats (high in calorie density) and let them sit in cold water for a minute or two, they will be wet but will absorb little to any of the water and so will still be calorie dense. But if take that same rolled oats (high in calorie density) and cook them in hot water for a few minutes, the oats absorb all the water into the food matrix and the resulting oatmeal is rich in water and low in calorie density.
We don't want wet starches, we want minimally processed foods/starches rich in water (and fiber).
Still, I feel like I have to track calories.
And you may always do so as you have connected the process with the results for quite some time.
For over 30 years I have watched people successfully manage their weight without counting a calorie through the principles of calorie density (not just calorie density). Have they created a negative energy balance? Of course. But most of those who are willing to do the experiment over time, and quit counting calories, find the results and this method very liberating in many ways.
That is because these principles of calorie density are much more important than just calories because by using them we not only create a negative calorie balance, we create a diet that is high in fiber, nutrients and satiety and low in fat, sat fat, etc. and allows us to eat ad-libtium", eating whenever we are hungry until we are comfortably full. Or as I said earlier....
By following some simple principles (without having to count anything) you will find your sweet spot, and discover which foods and amounts provide the calories to manage your energy balance (gain, lose or maintain), while at the same time keep you satiated without having to go hungry and, at the same time, provide the nutrients you to need to maintain excellent health for life.
Proof?
There was a fairly recent study which concluded...
To the best of our knowledge, there are no randomised controlled trials that have achieved a greater average weight loss over a 6- or 12-month period, without mandating regular exercise or restricting total caloric intake.9, 10, 41 The key difference between this trial and other approaches to weight loss was that participants were informed to eat the WFPB diet ad libitum and to focus efforts on diet, rather than increasing exercise. The mechanism for this is likely the reduction in the energy density of the food consumed (lower fat, higher water and fibre).
This was called the Broad study and taught the "principles of calorie density" that the authors learned while interning at the McDougall Program. You can read more here....
https://www.drmcdougallforums.com/viewt ... 22&t=54964Regards
Jeff
