Your Opinions on the 80/10/10 diet

A place to get your questions answered from McDougall staff dietitian, Jeff Novick, MS, RDN.

Moderators: JeffN, carolve, Heather McDougall

Postby Mober » Fri Aug 28, 2009 1:08 pm

I think you can look for yourself what fruits are available in Florida yr around, just eat enough of it to meet your caloric requirements. And eat a lb of greens+ for ever 2000 calories.

I also have a book that I can't find, How to Grow More Fruits and Vegetables (and Grains) ... It gives biodynamic methods for growing enough food to feed a number of people in the smallest amount of land possible. Not raw of course.
Mober
 
Posts: 344
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2009 3:45 pm

Postby Mober » Fri Aug 28, 2009 1:22 pm

When we point out the problems with the unhealthy low fat diets or unhealthy vegan diets, we can also point to literature and studies documenting what we say and why. There is quite a bit of evidence on healthy low fat plant based diets as recommended here.

However, while you can point out the problems with high fat raw, you can not point to any studies at all, (not one) supporting 80/10/10rv In fact, the only studies on 80/10/10 support a non raw diet based on cooked starches.

-------------

You are right, but have you actually pointed out any studies that show negative of 811rv? And where exactly is the McDougall study? McD pulls from other studies and clinical histories as far as I can tell. I have the 811 book, there's lots of footnotes in it pointing to studies and literature also. Now I haven't verified each one. And I certainly not as passionate about this topic as this would seem. I guess maybe its a logical thing at this point.
Mober
 
Posts: 344
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2009 3:45 pm

Postby JeffN » Fri Aug 28, 2009 1:59 pm

Mober wrote:You are right, but have you actually pointed out any studies that show negative of 811rv?


You have to understand the concept of "Burden of Proof," and how it applies. If someone is asking you to do something, the burden of proof is on them to prove it and not on me to disprove it. The more extraordinary the claim, the more extraordinary that the proof must be.

This forum has over 1200 topics and I have over 2000 posts, most all of them showing the proof for what I recommend. I would recommend you take some time and read through them.

Mober wrote:And where exactly is the McDougall study?


McDougall has actually published a few studies as have others with very similar programs. In addition, we are about to start a study on MS.

Mober wrote:I have the 811 book, there's lots of footnotes in it pointing to studies and literature also. Now I haven't verified each one.


You might want to verify them before you accept them as accurate and even related. I have done this with several of these books and found that most of the references listed are either unrelated or just of very poor quality.

I also have shown here how many references and studies are misused even by those in the vegan and alt health community. Listing references is not a sign of high quality. High quality references are. :)


In Health
Jeff
User avatar
JeffN
 
Posts: 9412
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 5:56 am

Postby Mober » Fri Aug 28, 2009 3:33 pm

I am looking at the references right now. Ornish, McDougall, Pritikin, China Study, JAMA, CDC, WHO ... ! Primarily these are sources for the 80/10/10 part. Certainly lesser known sources for the rv "proof". And there is no doubt there are no 811rv specific studies to point to.

I get it. But you cited the cooked food author as if it were persuasive against 811rv, which it isn't, unless 811rv was part of the study. The same standard of proving claims applies to everyone.

Where I get into logical problem is when you seem to pull relevant information from non McD specific studies to come to conclusions ... including longevity populations and why they live so long, cooked food author etc that brings in an amount of subjectivity. You certainly are confident of what you refer and its relevance and you are the expert. But that allows other subjective questions such as why not raw fruit. What is there or not there that indicates an answer to this question esp. that its almost universally stated that minimally process fresh food is best, and you can't get more fresh and minimally processed than raw fruit.

My take away is you feel there is not enough/any information to prove it, all of the studies on low fat included cooked foods as primary source of calories, so it's not recommended to base diet on raw fruit. And I can agree with this recommendation. That was my original question! Although I am still curious if it were studied would raw fruit be good/better.

But for some reason I do feel I should speak up when I see something get dismissed as requiring hard burden of proof but other elements get supported that don't have the same burden, such as the link to longevity populations and this cooked author as examples.
Mober
 
Posts: 344
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2009 3:45 pm

Postby JeffN » Fri Aug 28, 2009 5:07 pm

Mober wrote:But for some reason I do feel I should speak up when I see something get dismissed as requiring hard burden of proof but other elements get supported that don't have the same burden, such as the link to longevity populations and this cooked author as examples.


You will have to be more specific as your response seems "general" to me and does not accurately represent the case I make, which deals with specifics.

The McDougall program (like many other similar programs) teaches a set of principles that have been well proven out in an overwhelming body of evidence. While not all of it is 100% the same, it all points to the same basic and overriding principles. Even the FAO and WHO recommend starch based diets with the addition of fruits and vegetables as the best option. The emphasis of his teaching (and all the others with similar programs) is on those principles that have been proven. When others emphasis principles that are not proven, like consuming 3-4 oz of nuts a day, I separate these parts out and show why. And, as stated here, put the "burden of proof" on them, not me, to validate their recommendations.

The emphasis of 80/10/10 rv and why it "separates" itself from the rest of the low fat vegan world, is the "rv" part, mostly the "r" part, which has no evidence especially for the way it is promoted and emphasized and for the claims made about it. The burden of proof is on them, not me. :)

There is a world of difference between the way I present my case here and the support I provide for it vs the way the case for 80/10/10rv is made by its promoters.

As you have demonstrated, the 'best' evidence the promoters of 80/10/10rv can give is the evidence that points to this, a very low fat cooked food vegan diet. To then take that "science" and somehow say it makes the case for 80/10/10rv is an incredible leap of "faith" and not "science." These are not the same level of proof at all. Not even in the same "ballpark".

However, in response to your above comment, if you post any specific comment I have made or any specific study I have posted and the specifics about what you don't understand, I will respond in kind.

In Health
Jeff
User avatar
JeffN
 
Posts: 9412
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 5:56 am

Postby Mober » Fri Aug 28, 2009 6:57 pm

I wouldn't know Graham from Adam, nor am I invested in 811rv other than having bought the book and figuring out what to eat.

811v not r is basically the same set principals you promote. There are a few things additional (like dislike of spices ...).

It doesn't seem to me to be that big a leap of faith to wonder if raw fruit is better than cooked starches. Esp given that even people like you state fresh, minimally processed food is best. Common sense seems to say you could extrapolate those comments out and make a case for eating only "r", high 'r' or some 'r'.

And agree on the burden of proof. I appreciate your effort to demarcate the extra claims. I didn't feel like you did that however on the points in this trail on longevity cultures and cooked food, both of which eat/ate meat btw, and the direct proof they offer of to any claim made. I believe the link is subjective. That's basically why I took a position. I am not philosophical on r or non r. I am trying to be as objective as I can and I weighed in on this discussion as I have looked into 811rv.

Respectfully, Mike
Mober
 
Posts: 344
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2009 3:45 pm

Postby anne8789 » Fri Aug 28, 2009 7:18 pm

Mober suggested several posts up that a diet which supports human evolution should also support longevity. In order to support evolution, a human being really only needs to live long enough to reproduce and I guess raise children to adulthood. Living to be a happy and healthy older person (60, 70, 80 or more) is the result of a diet that fosters longevity. Continued evolution of humans would probably result even if our diet only enabled us to live until 45. A diet that encourages evolution is not necessarily the same diet that will promote longevity.
anne8789
 
Posts: 35
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2007 7:22 am

Postby Mober » Fri Aug 28, 2009 7:33 pm

Men could live longer than 45 and continue to procreate. And there's a few that would argue that evolution happens on a longer time scale than man has been cooking. However, I will let the experts answer that scientifically! I was giving Jeff a hard time as I thought he was having his cake and eating it too by claiming links to both studies.
Mober
 
Posts: 344
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2009 3:45 pm

Postby jmygann » Fri Aug 28, 2009 8:29 pm

Speaking of "proof' and references ...

"The 80/10/10 Diet is the ultimate resource for anyone wishing to thrive on a sustainable, healthful, raw-food diet"
http://www.vegsource.com/articles2/811diet.htm


Mober states ..." Graham's 811rv (raw vegan) diet is locally sustainable in Fla, Hawaii, maybe even AZ/CA


where is the "proof" ? a statement by the author becomes proof ??



again
Mober states ..

"How to Grow More Fruits and Vegetables (and Grains) ... It gives biodynamic methods for growing enough food to feed a number of people in the smallest amount of land possible."

I have been to Jeavons place several times and no one grows their own food. It is a theoretical mathematical extrapolation that has now become a reference.

So where is the Sustainable Diet that is spoken of ?
jmygann
 
Posts: 17
Joined: Wed Jan 03, 2007 6:00 pm

Postby JeffN » Fri Aug 28, 2009 8:53 pm

Mober wrote:It doesn't seem to me to be that big a leap of faith to wonder if raw fruit is better than cooked starches.


A simple nutritional analysis of substituting raw fruit for cooked starches as either a 1:1 substitute for any one single item in a total diet, or for a 1:1 substitute for the bulk of the calories of a total diet, or a simple 1:1 comparison on a equal calorie level would show the fallacy of this line of thinking. The difference is more than dramatic in many ways.

Therefore, 80/10/10 rv is not the same principle (or even close) to what I promote and that is why I want to make that clear. :)

Mober wrote:I didn't feel like you did that however on the points in this trail on longevity cultures and cooked food, both of which eat/ate meat btw, and the direct proof they offer of to any claim made.


I make no claims or present no evidence about veganism in this forum and frequently state I am not a vegan advocate. I also ask everyone to focus on getting the 95% of what they do right and not worry about the 5% as no culture anywhere was perfect. And, there are some minor differences that exist between some of the long lived populations. Therefore, whether these cultures included a small of animal protein, and for many of them it was less than 5% and for some even less than 1%, does not negate the point in anyway. However, substituting raw fruit for cooked starches would change the whole entire picture in many ways.

There are many well done studies on the common denominators of long lived populations (of which there are many discussion threads here in this forum on and not just one link) and they all point in the same direction. Most all (if not all) of the long lived populations ate a diet that was predominately cooked starches (over 55%) with the addition of vegetables and some fruits. This is objective data from many sources and what matters most.

None of them, not one, lived on a diet of all raw, high raw, and/or all fruit or high fruit. For most, fruit was a small part. As there is a great difference between a banana and a potato, as is clearly evident to anyone who does the comparison so to think there would be no difference in the results of these long lived cultures if they just substituted raw fruit for the starch, is then a huge leap of faith and very subjective.

I welcome you to disagree with my rationale, evidence and line of thinking and encourage you to follow whatever you believe to be the best. However, I am asking you to present the evidence for the 80/10/10 rv (the point of this thread) and as you agree, there is none.

If you think the quality of the evidence I present to support my case in this forum is weak, that is fine. However you would then have to present a higher level of evidence to support any other claim, of which 80/10/10 rv does not have.

In Health
Jeff
User avatar
JeffN
 
Posts: 9412
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 5:56 am

Postby durianrider » Sat Aug 29, 2009 6:21 am

some good topics being raised...

regarding CR, why dont anorexics have abundant health? they eat the least calories in society no?

what happens to animals in the wild if they dont get enough cals? why do animals fight for food instead of fighting not to eat, if CR was correct?

perhaps the CR animals are getting fed their unatural diet ie cooked food and less of cooked food for them means greater health? but then the raw diet is not a concept most scientists wish to entertain cos maybe the results would imply more personal responsibility?

this year ive trained with lance armstrong, oscar periero and a few other elite cyclists. the team doctor always follows us in the car. not to swab a band aid on a saddle sore but rather to ensure immediate medical attention if a rider has adverse reactions to the cocktail of pharmacutical drugs that ensure race results.

the athletes i know use veganism for sports performance and only a handful continue to live that lifestyle after competition.

as for raw vegan..certainly Rudy Carti hit the top, he set a world record, on 811.
Kenny Croes hit the top, setting several "first and only" swimming records on 811.
I believe Martina Navratilova counts as having hit the top, and she did so on many diets, but did it last on 811, after her career had ended. It was revived on 811.
Pam Boteler just won the Nationals in her sport of sprint canoe, at age 40, and then went on to win the Seniors division too. She has been 811 for almost 2 years.
Ronnie Grandison played NBA ball on all raw. I am not sure what Jeff N calls "the top," but I think if you make it to the NBA, you are at the top.

When i rode with lance armstrong i was riding a bamboo bike with coconut oil on my chain and an old tyre i got from the bin at a local bikeshop. my elite fitness allowed me to keep up. i didnt need caffiene but lance drank a quad latte that morning. so does lance need a 6.8kg bike worth 12000$ US or could he perform on a 10kg bike like i was riding? so my question is 'do household name athletes perform cos they eat sub par fuel or do they perform in spite of eating sub par fuel?'

sports nutritionists say that a powergel is the same nutrition as a banana. what about lifeforce, prana..the fact that if you got a tomato and cooked it and then tried to plant it, it will not grow. but if you get a raw tomato and plant it, you get a plant in return. who needs science referrences when you have the truth every second of every day shown in mother natures glory. humans are the ONLY species on the planet to cook their food and we see that cooking food has created the overpopulated, polluted world we see today. no?

not many people are willing to do what it takes,and i compassionately understand this. but in my heart i look around and see that most people dont even really know how to succeed on natures design..so when the subject of eating fruits exclusively for calories arises, fear of the unknown will always dominate understandably.
im a vegan and i cycle solo up to 515km in a day..
durianrider
 
Posts: 12
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 8:17 am

Postby JeffN » Sat Aug 29, 2009 6:32 am

durianrider wrote:regarding CR, why dont anorexics have abundant health? they eat the least calories in society no?


Good question as many confuse the two.

Aneroxia (a mental disorder) and CR-ON, (a intelligent, science based, way of living) are not the same from motivation, intent, purpose or outcome.

http://www.crsociety.org/CR_vs_Anorexia

What you should know about calorie restriction
Journal of the American Dietetic Association, Volume 104, Issue 10, Pages 1524-1525 (Oct 2004J. McCaffree

durianrider wrote:perhaps the CR animals are getting fed their unatural diet ie cooked food and less of cooked food for them means greater health?


There have been 100's of experiments in many animals and in many of them, the animals get their natural diet.

durianrider wrote: but then the raw diet is not a concept most scientists wish to entertain cos maybe the results would imply more personal responsibility?


There are several of the CR followers who are raw and some of the researchers also do research on raw diets.

There are also around 30 published studies on those following a raw food diet, some with several hundred subjects and some going on for several years.

In Health
Jeff
User avatar
JeffN
 
Posts: 9412
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 5:56 am

Postby Mober » Sat Aug 29, 2009 8:44 am

My wife complains I just tend to restate in arguments as opposed to moving on. So this will be my last post on the topic unless I can add more to the discussion.

Jeff, I think you need to step back. McDougall is 100% vegan diet. You may not be vegan, but #1 . Eat no animal food, is vegan. You can't redefine that.

Secondly, I read this board frequently and there are hundreds of discussions on cooking temperatures, toxins, nutrient content. I was particularly concerned when I was baking potatoes every day at 450 degrees. So I read it here. Through all of these discussions it is clear that minimally cooked food are best at minimizing additional toxins and maximizing nutritional content. That is not a leap of faith. If raw is the most minimally cooked, it has to have maximum nutrition and least additional toxins. Thats not a very big leap. I can buy that the impact hasn't been proven or its so minimal compared to eating low fat cooked, there's no indication eating this much fruit is as good or better. But the second I ask why not eat predominantly fruit, now its a philosophical point by me or a giant leap of faith and I require 60 Senate votes to make the assertion.

However, you are free to take diets and studies that in fact have meat in common and pull from them to support what you propose. There is not the same scrutiny on pulling from these as there is on the above. Which is why I am still typing. You are in fact subjectively choosing to make the links. And I buy it, your the expert.

I do not buy what a lot of the raw groups pitch (enzymes et al) and I have found Graham's sites to be probably the least crazy raw food advocate I have read about. However I am trying to be objective and ask questions, as a layman, as to why not fruit, I come at this from it purely as a nutritional density perspective. I don't think the topic is treated fairly here, any discussion of raw gets lumped together, and I have to ask who is being philosophical.

Respectfully, Mike
Mober
 
Posts: 344
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2009 3:45 pm

Postby Mober » Sat Aug 29, 2009 9:04 am

jmygann wrote:Speaking of "proof' and references ...

"The 80/10/10 Diet is the ultimate resource for anyone wishing to thrive on a sustainable, healthful, raw-food diet"
http://www.vegsource.com/articles2/811diet.htm


Mober states ..." Graham's 811rv (raw vegan) diet is locally sustainable in Fla, Hawaii, maybe even AZ/CA


where is the "proof" ? a statement by the author becomes proof ??



again
Mober states ..

"How to Grow More Fruits and Vegetables (and Grains) ... It gives biodynamic methods for growing enough food to feed a number of people in the smallest amount of land possible."

I have been to Jeavons place several times and no one grows their own food. It is a theoretical mathematical extrapolation that has now become a reference.

So where is the Sustainable Diet that is spoken of ?


I said I was looking into Jeavons and if its feasible, not trying to sell it to you. And I think you can decide on your own if the state of Florida has enough fruits to support a diet locally. Are you being obstinate on purpose?
Mober
 
Posts: 344
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2009 3:45 pm

Postby JeffN » Sat Aug 29, 2009 9:59 am

Hi Mike

Thanks for the discussion and I appreciate your input. I think important points are being made and clarified here.

In regard to "evidence"....

We all get to look at the evidence ourselves, evaluate by our own standards, interpret it, draw conclusions as to what it means, and then decide how best to apply it.

Many of us look at similar data and see it differently. For 10 years I sat on a science committee with 12-15 top scientists from around the country who reviewed all the new relevant data each month. It was a mind opening experience to do this and learn to share information and perspectives this way. Anyone of the members could try and make the case for anything from raw foods to Vitamin E, to fasting, to salt, etc etc. But we had some basic rules we followed including... the evidence presented had to be relevant, high quality, recent, peer-reviewed and published. And, of course, we all agreed to how we defined those terms. :)

However, the problem with the raw food movement is that make many claims that are not accurate or even true nor do they have any evidence for. They make incredible leaps of faith that are not logical. Many years ago, in the early 80's, I was even one of them. :) Fortunately, that there have been a few (such as Dr Harris) who have come forward in the last few years and spoken out about this and tried to set the record straight.

Mober wrote: McDougall is 100% vegan diet. You may not be vegan, but #1 . Eat no animal food, is vegan. You can't redefine that.


I don't. I allow Dr McDougall to speak for himself. :)

At the beginning of every 10 day program, Dr McDougall makes 2 points, which he insists people understand, to fully understand this diet..

1) this is not a vegan diet and he is not a vegan

2) this is a starch based diet.

In addition, I represent myself here and I do not see the McDougall program as a vegan diet. :)

Maybe it is just semantics.

Mober wrote: I read this board frequently and there are hundreds of discussions on cooking temperatures, toxins, nutrient content. I was particularly concerned when I was baking potatoes every day at 450 degrees. So I read it here.


Just because something is posted in these boards does not mean it is accurate or represents Dr McDougall's and/or my opinion. We have to look at who is posting it here, why and what is their evidence. Many things are posted by distractors with little to any good evidence or just well-meaning people with good intentions, who make valuable contributions but may not understand all the principles of the program.

However, in regard to cooking and toxicity, the effect of cooking on both toxicity and nutrient loss is overstated by the raw food community. Even a potato or sweet potato that is baked at 450 degrees is not toxic nor lacking in nutrients and such foods have been the staple food of many long lived populations. There is a difference between containing toxins (as all fresh raw fruits and vegetables do) and being toxic.

All foods contain toxic or potentially harmful chemicals. Many of these occur naturally in the food and are part of the plants natural defense system. Bruce Ames has published some articles on this, showing just how many toxic chemicals occur naturally in common fruits and veggies. Cooking can actually reduce some of these toxins.

Ames, B. N., Profet, M. and Gold, L. S. (1990) Dietary Pesticides (99.99% All Natural). Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 87, 7777-7781

Ames, B. N. (1990) Natural Carcinogens: They're Found in Many Foods. In: Health & Environment Digest, B. Murdock, ed., pp. 4

So, the real issue is not whether or not a food has any toxic chemical in it, but how much of the toxic chemical is in the food and does it exist at a level that can be toxic to humans. Nicotine occurs in many common vegetables.

N Engl J Med. 1993 Aug 5;329(6):437. The nicotine content of common vegetables.

In regard to cooking and nutrient loss..

Here are charts created from the actual data showing actual nutrient loss

http://www.beyondveg.com/tu-j-l/raw-coo ... d-2f.shtml

http://www.beyondveg.com/tu-j-l/raw-coo ... d-2g.shtml

As you can see it is minimal. And, cooking can actually increase availability and absorption of certain nutrients. In addition, there is no evidence anywhere that this minimal loss from cooking is in anyway responsible for any of the major diseases we die from that are related to lifestyle and diet.

This does not make cooked food "poison" or "dead", which is two of the mantra's of the raw food movement.

And, while less maybe better in many things, this does not make none best.

For clarity, I am posting the comparison of 1000 calories of Sweet Potato vs 1000 calories of a banana. The nutritional analysis is for the "cooked" vs the "raw" forms of the foods so this includes the effects of cooking on these nutrients

Cooked Sweet Potato/ Raw Banana
1000 Calories

Protein | 22.3 g / 12.2 g
Fiber | 36.7 g / 29.2 g
Fat | 1.7 g / 3.7 g

Vitamins (78%)/(51%) (average for the DRI's)
===========================================
Vitamin A |213531.2 IU / 719.1 IU
Folate | 66.7 µg / 224.7 µg
B1 (Thiamine) | 1.2 mg / 0.3 mg
B2 (Riboflavin) | 1.2 mg / 0.8 mg
B3 (Niacin) | 16.5 mg / 7.5 mg
B5 (Pantothenic Acid)| 9.8 mg / 3.8 mg
B6 (Pyridoxine) | 3.2 mg / 4.1 mg
Vitamin C | 217.8 mg / 97.8 mg
Vitamin E | 7.9 mg / 1.1 mg
Vitamin K | 25.6 µg / 5.6 µg

Minerals (73%)/(47%)
===========================================
Calcium | 422.2 mg / 56.2 mg
Copper | 1.8 mg / 0.9 mg
Iron | 7.7 mg / 2.9 mg
Magnesium | 300.0 mg / 303.4 mg
Manganese | 5.5 mg / 3.0 mg
Phosphorus | 600.0 mg / 247.2 mg
Potassium | 5277.7 mg / 4022.5 mg
Selenium | 2.2 µg / 11.2 µg
Sodium | 400.0 mg / 11.2 mg
Zinc | 3.6 mg / 1.7 mg

Saturated fat / .4 gm / 1.3

As we can clearly see, there is a great difference between the two and substituting one for other would have a dramatic impact.

I have absolutely no problem with anyone following a 100% raw diet if they wanted to and have several clients who do. However, for optimal health, their diet must provide the essentials, meet the nutritional requirements of the human body, and avoid any harmful components of the diet.

In Health
Jeff
User avatar
JeffN
 
Posts: 9412
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 5:56 am

PreviousNext

Return to Jeff Novick, RD

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests



Welcome!

Sign up to receive our regular articles, recipes, and news about upcoming events.