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 JeffN » Fri Aug 28, 2009 9:48 am

We can always find one (or two) exceptions in everything, but one or two exceptions don't make the rule.

So, lets us look to the entire world of professional and competitive athletes.

When we do, we see many incredible feats of what the human body can achieve, in all areas such as strength, endurance, balance and flexibility.

Many of these athletes will do almost anything (and some already do) for the slight edge that will give them the advantage and move them from one of the crowd to one of the top performers. And, amongst the top performers, most of the would do anything to move from #3 to #2 and from #2 to #1, and, many already do "almost anything." Being number one is their goal, not whether they eat a certain way or a certain food or exercise a certain way, etc. They already make incredible sacrifices to try to be number one.

Yet, when we look to this "world" we do not see any raw athletes, though we have seen a few vegan ones who have reached the true top of their field, such as Dave Scott, who is a 5 time Ironman World Champion. There are a even few other examples of vegans who have excelled to the top of their field, but not one of a raw fooder.

In addition, when we look to the greatest endurance athletes, we see the Kenyan's and the Jamaican's who eat a diet very similar to the one recommended here, a low fat starch based diet with fruits and veggies, though they do include some animal protein.

If I was a professional athlete, especially a professional endurance athlete, I would be willing to do whatever it took to gain that extra little advantage to push me to the top of my performance and the top of my field, even if it meant eating a raw diet.

Yet not one of them uses a raw food diet. And for those who did, and were coached by raw food guru's, they did not reach the pinnacle of their ability or the top of their field. Not one.

Cooked vegan? Yes.

Raw food vegan? No

When we look to the long lived populations, we again, see the exact same thing, low fat, starch based diets that are cooked.

Success leaves clues.

The raw food movement needs better clues.

Much better clues.

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

Postby Mober » Fri Aug 28, 2009 10:23 am

But aren't there a lot of clues on raw as well - apple a day and all? I grew up eating canned green beans, but my mom used to always comment about throwing away the vitamins with the water she cooked them in (I know there's a lot wrong with that). I go read backpacker magazine and they suggest you make hot chocolate out of the pasta water to not be wasteful and the extra benefit is you get the lost nutrients left in the water! There certainly seems to be common sense consensus that cooking destroys nutrient value of foods. I don't understand why that isn't extrapolated to one's entire diet. Seems like if you add up (a) longevity populations eat <10% fat and mostly carbs and (b) cooking destroys nutrients it adds up to a more or less obvious answer.

I read your posts and clearly you guys rely on studies and examples to point to and I have no dispute. I can also pick up my Canyon Ranch book where they site studies as well and they make the claim to eat food w/ highest nutrient-to-calorie ratio as possible. Also these long lived populations typically eat very small amounts of animal products - so obviously McD diet uses some subjectivity to not include those.

How do you synthesize nutrient loss due to cooking, or even toxicity created by cooking? For someone in the middle that's not trying to be philosophical in the debate, that's what lands me on the raw side.
Mober
 
Posts: 344
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2009 3:45 pm

Postby JeffN » Fri Aug 28, 2009 10:51 am

Mober wrote:But aren't there a lot of clues on raw as well


There are clues that the food most common to all long lived populations is beans, but that is not a clue for an all bean/rv diet. :)

Mober wrote:I read your posts and clearly you guys rely on studies and examples to point to and I have no dispute. I can also pick up my Canyon Ranch book where they site studies as well and they make the claim to eat food w/ highest nutrient-to-calorie ratio as possible.


All of this is thoroughly addressed in this forum and at this website. They are moving in the right direction and the more you move in that direction, the better the results will be. If they moved further, they would get better results. This is well documented and discussed here also.

Mober wrote:Also these long lived populations typically eat very small amounts of animal products - so obviously McD diet uses some subjectivity to not include those.


This is irrelevant to your point and if anything is more evidence against it....

however, since you made it.....

the McDougall diet is not a vegan diet nor is he. Many choose to follow it as vegans, but that is their choice.

Mober wrote:How do you synthesize nutrient loss due to cooking, or even toxicity created by cooking?

All well addressed here in these forum including links to charts/studies showing actual results and numbers. Nutrient loss to cooking is minimal at best. Minerals are heat stable and vitamin loss is minimal.

The raw food community grealty over exaggerates the effects of cooking on nutrients and on toxicity. Cooking also increases availability of some nutrients and kills toxins.

BTW, all fresh raw fruits and veggies have toxins in them also. The foods recommended here and cooked as recommended here do not increase toxicity of the diet. This is also well covered in this forum.

More importantly, we have to realize that most people do not die of nutrient deficiencies anyway, but from excess calories, fat, saturated fat, hydrogenated fat, trans fat, cholesterol, salt and sugars. There are discussions here documenting that even the longest lived people have some mildly deficient diets yet are the longest lived people.

So, nutrient deficiencies and/or is not what is killing people or making them sick.

Mober wrote:For someone in the middle that's not trying to be philosophical in the debate, that's what lands me on the raw side.


Raw is a philosophy and can only be rationalized as such.

To be and do more, they need better clues and evidence.

Much better :)

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

Postby Mober » Fri Aug 28, 2009 11:16 am

Thanks. I have looked/will continue to look through the other trails.

>>> the McDougall diet is not a vegan diet nor is he. Many choose to follow it as vegans, but that is their choice.

I am surprised by this statement. I have his books - #1 "Eat no animal foods". He says he eats turkey once a year to prove he's not vegetarian orthodox, but isn't eating no animal products the very definition of vegan diet?

So if these populations eat some meat and those populations are the "proof", it is subjective to take meat out of the picture. It is also subjective to account for nutrient loss etc. Or not account it for it. It's not weighted as a factor by you for various reasons. You still say vitamin loss is minimal and minimal x a lifetime can be non trivial, however the viewpoint you guys have is it actually is trivial when considering what ails people. You answered my question.
Mober
 
Posts: 344
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2009 3:45 pm

some nice things to look at

Postby mortimerlightwood » Fri Aug 28, 2009 11:19 am

http://www.verger-biologique.com/photo.php
Here are the pictures from the farm I order my basket from. The site is all in French but the photos speak for themselves. How could anyone prefer the tropics after a such a scrumptious view?!!
mortimerlightwood
 
Posts: 6
Joined: Sat Aug 15, 2009 9:02 am

Postby Mober » Fri Aug 28, 2009 11:34 am

très cool
Mober
 
Posts: 344
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2009 3:45 pm

Postby Mober » Fri Aug 28, 2009 11:39 am

I think I spent all my ammo, but I have another entry from Jeff bookmarked ...

The healthiest foods are the foods that come straight out of the garden and are consumed in their natural form or as simply prepared as possible. These foods are fresh fruits, vegetables, starchy vegetables, legumes, and intact whole grains and should be the focus of any healthy diet.


...

raw is pretty simple :)
Mober
 
Posts: 344
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2009 3:45 pm

Postby JeffN » Fri Aug 28, 2009 11:45 am

Mober wrote:So if these populations eat some meat and those populations are the "proof", it is subjective to take meat out of the picture.


Populations have done many things to survive (and thrive) based on what is available to them.

Humans today, in most civilized and advanced cultures have the "luxury" of making choices that was never available to humans before, due to the need to survive in their limited environments.

Veganism is a philosophy that includes some dietary restrictions, but it is not a diet though many people, including those who follow this program, choose to follow a vegan diet.

Mober wrote:It is also subjective to account for nutrient loss etc. Or not account it for it. It's not weighted as a factor by you for various reasons. You still say vitamin loss is minimal and minimal x a lifetime can be non trivial, however the viewpoint you guys have is it actually is trivial when considering what ails people. You answered my question.


My comments are based on the evidence.

If you can show me the evidence that conservative cooking..

1) significantly impacts nutrient loss

2) significantly increases toxic load

3) because of #1 & #2, is a major cause of early disease and death,

that we can discuss the evidence.

However, we have very good evidence showing all the opposite.

If you read the "triage your health" thread above you will see that even the WHO says we can eliminate 80% of CVD, DB, Stroke and 40% of cancers by some very simple steps, none of which related to lack of nutrients.

In Health
Jeff

PS you may be interested in listening to this NPR Show from today..

Did Cooking Give Humans An Evolutionary Edge?

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... t=1&f=1007

In Catching Fire: How Cooking Made Us Human, primatologist Richard Wrangham argues that cooking gave early humans an advantage over other primates, leading to larger brains and more free time. Wrangham discusses his theory, and why Homo sapiens can't live on raw food alone.
User avatar
JeffN
 
Posts: 9412
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 5:56 am

Postby Mober » Fri Aug 28, 2009 11:59 am

They cooked meat too!
Mober
 
Posts: 344
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2009 3:45 pm

Postby jmygann » Fri Aug 28, 2009 12:27 pm

The authors conclusion: "We must find ways to make our ancient dependence on cooked food healthier."

http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/blog/204 ... 21841.html



I feel it is important to eat a plant based diet that is healthy , sustainable , local, and eco friendly.

If your are importing your food is that sustainable/eco friendly ?

The McDougall diet has that potential (native diet) but I don,t see how the 811 can be.

It appears that the 811 diet is heavily dependent on a non renewable resource and is not economically viable.

Maybe someone can provide a link to where it is ?
jmygann
 
Posts: 17
Joined: Wed Jan 03, 2007 6:00 pm

Postby Mober » Fri Aug 28, 2009 12:29 pm

jmygann - do you not believe Florida is in US?!
Mober
 
Posts: 344
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2009 3:45 pm

Postby JeffN » Fri Aug 28, 2009 12:38 pm

jmygann wrote:If your are importing your food is that sustainable/eco friendly ?


A very interesting study on this topic showing local may not always be better or the best choice

http://news.mongabay.com/2008/0602-ucsc ... miles.html

"according to a study published on April 16 in the journal Environmental Science & Technology, the fuel burned in transporting food items from farm to marketplace creates just a small % of the total greenhouse gas emissions associated with the food. Instead, they recommended consumers should shift their diets to include more foods that require less energy to produce in the first place.

Quoting from an article on the study..

http://news.mongabay.com/2008/0602-ucsc ... miles.html

"The start-to-finish process of raising and distributing red meat causes more greenhouse gas emission than any other food group, with dairy products coming in second. Animal products create the greatest amounts of nitrous oxide, emitted as a result of soil fertilization and management, because animals are inefficient at using plant energy. Producing red meat and dairy also causes the bulk of all methane emissions, which are put out by ruminant animals and manure fertilizer. Lower on the greenhouse gas emission scale are non-red meat protein sources such as chicken, fish, eggs and nuts, as well as fruit and vegetables."

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

Postby Mober » Fri Aug 28, 2009 12:52 pm

The raw study mentioned in the link doesn't detail the actual diet. Graham himself spends a lot of time ripping typical raw diets for their malnourishment - they are typically more than 50% fat. His key point, if you eat more than 10% fat, you are shorting your carb intake. He also makes a lot of the same argument I have read on this site for example on calcium v. protein and what is really key in getting right balance. Whenever anyone gives input on the right intake of a single nutirent it's not the only variable. It always seems like the raw guys compare bad vegan and McD compares to high fat raw.

BTW, a big part of say Okinawan diet is calorie restriction. If calorie density helped man evolve, why does calorie restriction seem to lengthen life span? I would guess its related to activity level of early man vs. todays lifestyle. But unless these guys in the studies normalize all this input, drawing a conclusion seems real tough.

On local vs. imported, here' was one of the articles I saw that was an eye opener. (Short of getting really local)

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/04 ... tprint.php

And fruit trees are pretty sustainable (and don't have to be planted every spring)
Mober
 
Posts: 344
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2009 3:45 pm

Postby jmygann » Fri Aug 28, 2009 12:56 pm

I feel the McDougal diet has the potential to be 80-10-10 and local

Not sure about the 811 diet

2000-4000 calories/day year round ??

A local 811 diet in S Florida would be ??


There is the 100 ft diet challange ...

http://urbanhomestead.org/journal/2008/ ... ge-launch/

prior to 150 years ago most diets were local , I wonder if any were plant based ??

3 sisters ?
jmygann
 
Posts: 17
Joined: Wed Jan 03, 2007 6:00 pm

Postby JeffN » Fri Aug 28, 2009 1:04 pm

Mober wrote:The raw study mentioned in the link doesn't detail the actual diet.


The study is available and looked at over 500 raw fooders over time and they were split into several groups based on their type of diet. So many different types were looked at.

Mober wrote:Graham himself spends a lot of time ripping typical raw diets for their malnourishment - they are typically more than 50% fat. His key point, if you eat more than 10% fat, you are shorting your carb intake. He also makes a lot of the same argument I have read on this site for example on calcium v. protein and what is really key in getting right balance. Whenever anyone gives input on the right intake of a single nutirent it's not the only variable. It always seems like the raw guys compare bad vegan and McD compares to high fat raw.


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.

Mober wrote:BTW, a big part of say Okinawan diet is calorie restriction.


Correct, which again, documents another important point, as clearly CR was more important than "raw."

Mober wrote: If calorie density helped man evolve, why does calorie restriction seem to lengthen life span? I would guess its related to activity level of early man vs. todays lifestyle. But unless these guys in the studies normalize all this input, drawing a conclusion seems real tough.


There have been over 70 years of study on CR on many animals including non human primates and now even humans. The scientists have several good ideas on what the mechanisms are, some of which have been discussed here. One of them will be a speaker at the Sept Advanced Study Weekend.

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 8 guests



Welcome!

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