Perspective of Dr. Lisle's "Continuum of Evil"?

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

Moderators: JeffN, carolve, Heather McDougall

Perspective of Dr. Lisle's "Continuum of Evil"?

Postby MikeyG » Wed Feb 08, 2017 4:21 am

If you would be so kind, could you please expand upon your distaste for such a food ranking system as Doug’s continuum of evil?

Thanks, as always, for all that you do.

I hope that you and the rest of your supporters are having a wonderful day.
MikeyG
 
Posts: 175
Joined: Tue May 06, 2008 4:01 pm
Location: Salinas, CA

Re: Perspective of Dr. Lisle's "Continuum of Evil"?

Postby JeffN » Wed Feb 08, 2017 3:08 pm

I think most all the rating systems out there mean well and have good intent but in the end, backfire and do more harm then good.

I realize Doug's intentions with his system and that he is attempting to simplify this process and give people something helpful. I respect that, just disagree with the product.

First, some background and history on why I don't like these systems.

As you may know, this has been a topic I have been covering and has been a main focus of mine since the mid 80's when I used to teach a class in Healthy Food Shopping. There were 2 parts, we spent a 90 minute class learning about healthy food and how to evaluate packaged products, then, we would go and spend about 2 hours in the grocery store practicing. (I still have my flyers from back then). At that time, I created a simple system that basically had three levels: the healthiest foods that can be consumed without any restriction; the healthiest foods that could be consumed but had to be restricted for some reason (i.e., calorie density, salt, sugar, sat fat, etc) and; everything else. The main focus was on the first 2 categories. So, you can say it had an A and a B and everything else was a D and if used, should be limited.

The original label reading lecture was based on this and was to help people basically understand the three levels and to focus on the healthiest foods.

Since then, I have worked with many grocers (including Whole Foods Market, Safeway, Schnucks, Publix,etc), in trying to implement a rating system of one kind or another. The one we implemented in the Wellness Clubs was very close to the above original system. There were very few items in the store that made the A or B grade.

Over the years, several organizations (and people) have wanted me to add other levels and while there were some times when we did look into it (behind the scenes), I never liked them and never did.

Here is why...

Studies and surveys has consistently shown that about 75-83% of the food is highly processed in one form or another and, as the years go by, its not getting any better, but worse.

The point is that most of the food products out there (that are sold as food) are nothing more than pure junk. These systems try to rank this junk.


These food rating/ranking system, have had huge critics (besides me)....

Here is a link to a JAMA article that addresses several of these systems and it raises 5 key concerns about them including...

http://www.foodpolitics.com/wp-content/ ... MA_101.pdf

1) most are proprietary so we do not know how they achieved the score/scoring they do

2) Most may focus on one, or two (or maybe three) aspects of the food and not the total picture. In regard to nutrients, which values were used for each nutrient and why? Many nutrients do not have an RDA/DRI so if a number was used, where did it come from as there are no established values.

3) Some of these systems actually violate labeling laws

http://www.webmd.com/food-recipes/news/ ... RSS_PUBLIC

4) Many of them give a false sense of health to products that do not deserve them.


Here is an article from the MAYO Clinic (Which is no longer on line)

"Some grocery stores and food manufacturers are creating their own nutrition rating systems and labels to highlight what they say are healthy options for consumers. These nutrition rating systems — which appear on the grocery shelf or on food packages themselves — use symbols, scores or colors to indicate how a product rates in terms of calories, fiber, fat, sodium and other nutrients. Each nutrition rating system uses different criteria, which may include federal dietary guidelines or input from dietitians.

But these labeling systems have become controversial. Sometimes called front of package labels, shelf labels or shelf tags, they are raising the eyebrows of consumer groups and agencies that contend they may be misleading — for instance, a high-sugar cereal was rated healthy. Some of the companies behind the labels have become the subject of lawsuits and state investigations.

These voluntary nutrition rating systems are different from the Nutrition Facts label required by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on most prepared foods. While the FDA Nutrition Facts label lists amounts of certain nutrients for an item, the grocery store nutrition rating systems judge the nutritional value of products.

The FDA doesn't currently regulate grocery store nutrition rating systems. These rating systems aren't standardized, and it's not always clear how their health ratings are determined. But because of the growing controversy, the FDA may set standards for this kind of labeling.

What can you do in the meantime? Don't rely solely on grocery store nutrition rating systems for your nutrition information. Read the Nutrition Facts label and other nutrition information to help you make wise choices.

Some of the new nutrition rating systems and labels include:

* Guiding Stars. This system, developed by Hannaford Supermarkets, uses one, two or three stars to represent good, better and best nutritional value.

* Healthy Ideas. This system, developed by Giant Food and Stop & Shop, uses the Healthy Ideas logo on products they deem healthy.

* Nutrition iQ. This system, developed for the SuperValu chain of stores, uses colored bars to highlight an item's main nutritional benefits.

* NuVal. This system, developed for Price Chopper and Hy-Vee stores, rates products from 1 to 100, with higher scores signaling greater nutritional value.

* Smart Choices. This system, developed by a coalition of food companies and health professionals, was available for use by any food manufacturer or retailer for a fee. The program has been suspended because of the ratings controversy.



Here is a quote from the above mentioned JAMA article which I think makes some very important points, especially number 4

For a century, food manufacturers have lobbied for the right to use health claims in marketing, justifying their demands on precisely these grounds. Health claims demonstrably promote sales. But do they promote health? Research suggests that consumers believe front-of-package claims, perceive them to be government-endorsed, and use them to ignore the Nutrition Facts Panel.9,10 Indeed, current practices may mislead the public in several ways:

(1) Few, if any, claims can be verified. To be marketed, drugs must be proved safe and effective through randomized controlled trials. Although specific dietary components may be linked to improved health outcomes, food products containing that dietary component might not have the same effect. A diet ofwhole andminimallyprocessed foods provides more than 40 essential nutrients and countless phytochemicals that interact in complex ways to promote health. The claim, for example, that a refined breakfast cereal could boost a child’s immune system due to the presence of few antioxidants is tenuous at best. No independent agency would likely invest funds in high-quality clinical trials to test such possibilities.

(2) Claims based on individual nutritional factors are misleading. Whereas drug adverse effects must be disclosed in advertisements, front-of-package health claims have a selective focus, ignoring the presence of potentially unhealthful aspects (eg, the sugar or salt content in a prepared breakfast cereal).

(3) Even front-of-package labels restricted to nutrient content can be deceptive by presenting information out of context. Although an 8-oz serving of a sugared beverage has fewer calories than a 1-oz serving of nuts, a dietary choice based on this difference would be misguided.

(4) “Healthier” processed foods are not necessarily healthy. Manufacturers can manipulate snack food ingredients by replacing fat or sugar with refined starch, yielding a higher rating score with little meaningful improvement in nutritional quality. Moreover, health claims confer an aura of healthfulness that might encourage consumption of products of poor nutritional quality.

(5) Front-of-package claims produce conflicts of interest. Unless the FDA specifically dictates allowable claims for each food product (a logistically unfeasible approach), food companies’ interest in selling more products will undermine the educational purpose of labeling.



When Hannaford Brothers came out with their 3 star rating system, they rated 28,800 foods and showed that outside of the produce section, only about 23% of items in each section qualified for one star out of three (out of a fairly lenient system). 77% couldn't even get one star.

The Package May Say Healthy, but This Grocer Begs to Differ
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/06/busin ... ocery.html


After about a year, they came out with an article showing how successful the system was but success was based on sales and not health outcomes. All they showed was that in certain categories of products (ice cream, junk food), people picked the item with more stars, though this does not always equate to healthier as these are propriety systems and everyone has different health issues.

Store Chain’s Test Concludes That Nutrition Sells
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/06/busin ... .html?_r=1


I wrote a response at the time, The 3-star Rating System - One Year Later, but unfortunately, it is no longer online and I can't find it :(

Basically the system helped people choose better junk/convenience food, which may not really be an improvement. Produce sales changed little.


Here is an article by Marion Nestle, which points out some of these issues

'Better' junk food about marketing, not health
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c ... 18ITKJ.DTL


From Harvard

Food rating systems: A not-so-smart choice
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionso ... index.html


In this review in the NY Times, it points out that many health food companies were expressing their discontent with these systems, because many of their products from these "health" food companies that were making all these front of the box health claims, were getting low ratings.

The Package May Say Healthy, but This Grocer Begs to Differ
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/06/busin ... ing&st=nyt


This research article from 2008 questions the efficacy of these systems.

Health Claims in the United States: An Aid to the Public or a Source of Confusion?
http://jn.nutrition.org/content/138/6/1216S.full.pdf


So, to sum up the above, in the end, these systems do little then help people choose better junk/convenience food.

Now, I know you may be thinking, but Doug's perspective, focus and approach is different. I agree. But, in the end, we have the same problem. This is verified by my personal experience working with 1000's of people over 2.5 decades. What happens with these systems is that people don't use them to eat more of the best or top categories (A, B) but end up spending most of their time and effort trying to find products that are C's and D's and even debating which is the best C or D or even whether something is really a C or a D or whether it should be an E or an F and why can't the product that is rated an E or an F be a C or a D, if I only eat it once in while. And what percent of your diet can be C, D, E, F? When Doug gave this lecture the first time at the ASW, during the Q&A, Doug and John Mackey got into this very issue.

Herei s a video of their discussion
their discussion starts around 58:20

https://esteemdynamics.com/2020/04/24/t ... m-of-evil/

In the end, it does nothing to increase intake of A's & B's which is the real issue.

Unfortunately, due to human nature, as soon as we say, yeah, you can have that once in a while, the once in a while becomes very often. And if we say, yea, this cookie is (relatively) better than that cookie, it is heard as us blessing the better cookie. And, the biggest trap right now is that, oh, but it is vegan.

Recently, when asked about feast days in one his lectures at the 10-day program, Dr McDougall said, (paraphrasing), the problem with me saying you can have a few feast days is everyone starts having way too many of them.

I will give you more clarity (and detail) on my 3 levels in a later post in this thread, but if you know my video's or classes, you probably know them. :)

In Health
Jeff

PS Doug knows the above :)
User avatar
JeffN
 
Posts: 9412
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 5:56 am

Re: Perspective of Dr. Lisle's "Continuum of Evil"?

Postby MikeyG » Thu Feb 09, 2017 2:27 am

Thank you very much for the thorough explanation, Jeff.

JeffN wrote:So, to sum up the above, in the end, these systems do little [than] help people choose better junk/convenience food.

Now, I know you may be thinking, but Doug's perspective, focus and approach is different. I agree. But, in the end, we have the same problem. This is verified by my personal experience working with 1000's of people over 2.5 decades. What happens with these systems is that people don't use them to eat more of the best or top categories (A, B) but end up spending most of their time and effort trying to find products that are C's and D's and even debating which is the best C or D or even whether something is really a C or a D or whether it should be an E or an F and why can't the product that is rated an E or an F be a C or a D if I only eat it once in while. And what percent of your diet can be C, D, E, F? When Doug gave this lecture the first time at the ASW, during the Q&A, Doug and John Mackey got into this very issue.

In the end, it [does] nothing to increase intake of A's & B's which is the real issue.

Unfortunately, due to human nature, as soon as we say, yeah, you can have that once in a while, the once in a while becomes very often. And if we say, yea, this cookie is (relatively) better than that cookie, it is heard as us blessing the better cookie. And, the biggest trap right now is that, oh, but it is vegan.

Recently, when asked about feast days in one his lectures at the 10-day program, Dr McDougall said, (paraphrasing), the problem with me saying you can have a few feast days is everyone starts having way too many of them.

I will give you more clarity (and detail) on my 3 levels in a later post in this thread, but if you know my video's or classes, you probably know them. :)

In Health
Jeff

PS Doug knows the above :)


Your comments above seem to correspond well with your three articles here, if anyone is interested:

1) "The Myth of Moderation Pt 3: Is Your Diet Exceptional? - Jeff Novick, MS, RDN"
http://www.jeffnovick.com/RD/Articles/E ... ional.html

2) "Hedge Your Health - Jeff Novick, MS, RD"
http://www.jeffnovick.com/RD/Articles/E ... alth!.html

3) "A Date With Disaster: The Pleasure Trap of Whole Natural Foods - Jeff Novick, MS, RD"
http://www.jeffnovick.com/RD/Articles/E ... Foods.html

I believe you have also commented elsewhere on the forums on our tendency to be less than moderate with our off-plan indiscretions, and I appreciate your thorough guidance.

I certainly look forward to your other insights, on these and other issues, whenever you can find the time to share them with the rest of us.

As you mentioned Dr. McDougall, here's one article he shared about the significant challenges of moderation, although in this case, he was referring to more blatantly unhealthy foods:
"Moderation Is Impossible for Passionate People"
https://www.drmcdougall.com/misc/2006nl ... ration.htm

I hope that others find these resources as worthwhile as I have, and that they also utilize the wealth of information you provide to us on these boards, your website, and elsewhere on the internet.

Thank you for all that you have done and continue to do to produce such amazing resources and to share them with us for free. I look forward to continuing to support and promote your work, and I truly appreciate your dedication to the health of our community.

Please have a wonderful day.
MikeyG
 
Posts: 175
Joined: Tue May 06, 2008 4:01 pm
Location: Salinas, CA

Re: Perspective of Dr. Lisle's "Continuum of Evil"?

Postby JeffN » Thu Feb 09, 2017 8:07 am

MikeyG wrote:
Your comments above seem to correspond well with your three articles here, if anyone is interested:

1) "The Myth of Moderation Pt 3: Is Your Diet Exceptional? - Jeff Novick, MS, RDN"
http://www.jeffnovick.com/RD/Articles/E ... ional.html

2) "Hedge Your Health - Jeff Novick, MS, RD"
http://www.jeffnovick.com/RD/Articles/E ... alth!.html

3) "A Date With Disaster: The Pleasure Trap of Whole Natural Foods - Jeff Novick, MS, RD"
http://www.jeffnovick.com/RD/Articles/E ... Foods.html

I believe you have also commented elsewhere on the forums on our tendency to be less than moderate with our off-plan indiscretions, and I appreciate your thorough guidance.

I certainly look forward to your other insights, on these and other issues, whenever you can find the time to share them with the rest of us.

As you mentioned Dr. McDougall, here's one article he shared about the significant challenges of moderation, although in this case, he was referring to more blatantly unhealthy foods:
"Moderation Is Impossible for Passionate People"
https://www.drmcdougall.com/misc/2006nl ... ration.htm

I hope that others find these resources as worthwhile as I have, and that they also utilize the wealth of information you provide to us on these boards, your website, and elsewhere on the internet.

Thank you for all that you have done and continue to do to produce such amazing resources and to share them with us for free. I look forward to continuing to support and promote your work, and I truly appreciate your dedication to the health of our community.

Please have a wonderful day.


Thanks for linking those other articles. Yes, they all make the same point.

So, what is the problem with a 5 tier or a 7 tier or any of the other rating/ranking systems?

As noted in all the critiques I posted above, they sort of bless, allow and give permission to unhealthy foods.

And as a friend who struggled for years said to me once, it is "the beginning of the end."

If the majority of your diet is an A or a B, and the amount of anything else (C, D, E, F) you consume is minimized, it will not matter what it is. So, if you (can) eat a small brownie once a week as a dessert (and I mean "small" and I mean "1x a week"), then regardless of whether or not it is a so called healthy vegan brownie or a traditional brownie, it won't matter. The impact on your overall numbers for that day, the week and the month will be minuscule.

The problem comes in when you tell someone, oh yeah, that healthy vegan brownie is "better" then that traditional brownie, and it is OK to have once in a while and (as human nature is), they think, oh, well, since it is healthier, I can have it more often. And the small brownie once a week turns into a larger portion several times a week. At this point (again), it won't matter if it is the healthy vegan brownie or the traditional brownie because now, due to the increased portion and frequency, both will have a negative impact on your numbers.

This is easy for anyone to see by using a nutritional calculator. Put in a 100% perfect day of the McDougall MWL diet. Then, substitute in 5% of calories coming from the worst unhealthy food you can imagine for some of the other food. Out of a 2000 calorie diet, this would be 100 calories of pure junk for 100 calories of something 100% healthy. Do the analysis of both for the day and compare them. The difference will be miniscule.

Then, look at it from the perspective of once a week. Do the analysis using 6 perfect days of 100% adherence and 1 day of 95% adherence and see the difference.

In fact, do each experiment twice. Do a) the 100% perfect day, b) the perfect da with 5% of calories from a healthy vegan CRAP food substituted in and then c) the perfect day with 5% of calories from a traditional CRAP food substituted in.

Then look at it from the perspective of once a week.

The difference in any between the healthy vegan CRAP and the traditional CRAP will be minuscule (if any).

So, as with the link above to the "exceptional diet," when you begin to think that these C's, D's etc are somewhat healthy or healthier and they start making up a bigger portion of your intake, the overall quality of your diet is impacted. Instead, more attention should be paid to including more A's and B's and then any impact of any of these others, even E's and F's will be minimized (as explained in the Hedge Your Health link above).

What if your diet is currently an F? Doesn't adding in more C's and D's make it better? Maybe slightly, but in most cases, not enough to create the health you are looking for. However, add in a few As and Bs instead of the C's and D's and you will see huge improvements. And, the more you do this, the better.

Not only have I witnessed this 1000's of times, we see it here all the time in these forums. People struggle to achieve their goals and when they take a close look at their diet, they see, there are too many foods that may be allowed (C, D, E etc) but not ideal (A, B).

That is why many can't find success till they go on the MWL program (or some other stricter version of the program). The MWL is pretty black and white about what is allowed. Almost everything is an A with a few B's. There are no exceptions to it either. The regular program has a lot of gray area (C and Ds and maybe Es). And, for many, the little becomes a lot.

Remember, it is not so much the brownie, its the permission to use it and the apparent blessing of it. :)

Your personal experience may be different. And if it is, and you are successful managing all of this and navigating the lower ends of the continuum of evil, more power to you. Some people can have one small brownie a week and not look back. Most of us here can't. That's how we got here.

But if you are the exception, have mercy on those that can't and understand almost 80% of American have shown they can't either. And for many who do come here, our percent is probably higher because we are self selected and have volunteered to be here.

I hope that all makes sense.

I'll clarify my A, B and F levels next.

BTW, this is nothing new. If you go back to my earliest writings in this forum (or anywhere else), I have always said, focus on the 95% (A and Bs) and getting it right and not the 5% (C, D, E & Fs) and debating what is the best within the 5%. (Just read my early threads on Why No Oil and Why No Dairy.)

Stay focused on A and B and that is it. And whatever percent of your diet is not an A or B yet, then continue to work on adding more A's and B's to it. Don't worry about the brownie and how healthy it is because in the end, if you are having a small portion on a rare occasion, it won't matter as either way, its impact will be minimal, And, if you are having more than that, don't worry about the brownie and how healthy it is because in the end, it won't matter either, as either way, its impact will be negative.

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

Re: Perspective of Dr. Lisle's "Continuum of Evil"?

Postby MikeyG » Thu Feb 09, 2017 11:27 pm

Thanks, Jeff. I sincerely appreciate the thorough clarification of your critique of "healthy food" ranking systems, and the detailed rationale behind that critique.

JeffN wrote:I'll clarify my A, B and F levels next.


I look forward to your further insight on your A,B and F levels, should you decide to go more deeply into them.

I would presume that insight, in addition to what have already shared, is available for those of us willing and able to review your numerous posts on the forums (7041 posts to date), and your other free resources online, but I sincerely appreciate you taking the time to assemble it here.

For anyone else following along:
Why no Oil?
viewtopic.php?t=5868

Why no Dairy?
viewtopic.php?t=5907

[Both from: "Greetings & Hot Topics"
viewtopic.php?f=22&t=7828 ,
which is stickied at the top of the JeffN forum, here:
viewforum.php?f=22 ]

"My Guidelines For Evaluating The New Nutrition Facts Label" - Jeff Novick
viewtopic.php?p=534035#p534035

"The Real Dirty Dozen: The 12 Deadliest Dietary & Lifestyle Factors & What You Can Do About Them" - Jeff Novick
viewtopic.php?p=441210#p441210

More information about the Whole Foods Wellness Club tiering system, which it seems Jeff was involved in:
"UPDATE: Whole Foods, Health Starts Here, Wellness Clubs" [5/29/12]
viewtopic.php?p=297548#p297548

For those of us who might trend towards perfectionism, and are wondering how we can achieve an "A+" diet, instead of just an A diet. Or those of us who hope that "A+" foods might excuse more dietary indiscretions:

"High Quality Foods: How To Optimize Your Food & Nutrient Intake or How Much Kale Does It Really Take To Reach Nutrient Nirvana?"
http://www.drmcdougall.com/forums/viewt ... 22&t=28413

"The Top 10 Super Foods"
http://www.jeffnovick.com/RD/Articles/E ... Foods.html

Thorough explanation and guidelines of the "MWL" ["Maximum Weight Loss", or, as I believe Jeff has said in some of his forum posts, "Maximum Health"] Program:
The Ultimate Guide To Free Calorie Density (MWL) Resources - Jeff Novick, MS, RD
viewtopic.php?p=500426#p500426

I hope anyone who reviews these resources finds them at least as worthwhile as I have. Jeff has remained the most evidence-based and most generous health professional I have ever encountered, and I do not believe I can recommend his work more highly.

Thanks, again, Jeff, for all that you do :)
MikeyG
 
Posts: 175
Joined: Tue May 06, 2008 4:01 pm
Location: Salinas, CA

Re: Perspective of Dr. Lisle's "Continuum of Evil"?

Postby JeffN » Fri Feb 10, 2017 8:19 am

MikeyG wrote:More information about the Whole Foods Wellness Club tiering system, which it seems Jeff was involved in:
"UPDATE: Whole Foods, Health Starts Here, Wellness Clubs" [5/29/12]
viewtopic.php?p=297548#p297548


Again, thanks for posting the links. As mentioned above, the Wellness Club Tiers (And their explanation) is very close but was adapted to work in the WFM environment.

Here is the basic guidelines for the 3 levels.


Level A

Unprocessed/very minimally processed, unrefined plants that are naturally low in fat, low in sat fat and low in calorie density and have no little to no added SOS (Sugars/sweeteners, Oils/fats, or Salt/sodium) according to my guidelines. There are no flour products, no high fat or calorie dense foods whole foods (nuts, seeds, dried fruit) in Level A.

SOS Guidelines
Added Sugar/sweeteners - no more than 5% of calories. The less the better.
Added Salt/Sodium - Aim for a 1:1 sodium to calorie ratio or less. Not to exceed 1,500 mg total in day. The less the better.
Added Oil - No more than 2% of total calories or less. Very low saturated. Unheated. For flavoring only. Not to exceed 4 gm/day. The less the better.

This is basically the equivalent of MWL.


Level B

Everything I mentioned in Level A but also Includes some unprocessed/very minimally processed unrefined plants that that may be higher in fat calorie density &/or processing. These include nuts, seeds, avocado, dried fruit, whole grain flour products (bread, bagels, dry cereals, crakers, tortilla’s) and puffed cereals and grains. How much of these foods one consumes is based on their health/medical condition.

This is more like the McDougall regular program with clearer guidelines.

Level F

Everything else is an F.

Keep the intake of these foods to no more than 5% of calories. The less the better. The amount is dependent on ones health/medical condition. None may be necessary and a little more (up to 10%) may be possible. Proceed with caution.


All of the above needs to be applied and adapted to the individual based on their current health/medical situation, personal preferences, food sensitivities, allergies, etc. etc

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

Re: Perspective of Dr. Lisle's "Continuum of Evil"?

Postby JeffN » Fri Feb 10, 2017 10:51 am

One particular situation and place that people get stuck, until they understand the above, is that often times, when someone first comes to the program, they are eating something close to the worse diet every fed to humans in recorded history. The Standard American Diet, including some of the healthier versions, are just made up of the most calorie dense, processed, high fat, high salt, high sugar CRAP.

So, when they first start the McDougall Program (or any similar program), they may be including a few of the foods that are C's, D's and still having success. Their health is improving and they are losing some weight. That's simply because they got rid of most all the E's and F's. But, this is not a solution, it is just a direction.

However whether it is 1 month, or 3 months or 6 months, somewhere down the road they hit a weight and/or health plateau head-on and cannot figure out what has happened. After all, they were doing so good.

Now you know

I also described this in the "Can You Really Eat As Much As You Want?" thread

viewtopic.php?f=22&t=27333&p=272969#p272671

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

Re: Perspective of Dr. Lisle's "Continuum of Evil"?

Postby MikeyG » Fri Feb 10, 2017 6:50 pm

Thanks, Jeff. I really appreciate the clarification, and I look forward to directing people here that might have questions about food ranking systems or the common pitfalls that are associated with them.

The diet and lifestyle recommendations that you have developed seem like the best way to maximize our chances of success, and I know I have certainly benefited a great deal from them.

Thank you, again, for all that you do, and please keep up the amazing work.

I hope that everyone reading this is having an excellent day.
MikeyG
 
Posts: 175
Joined: Tue May 06, 2008 4:01 pm
Location: Salinas, CA

Re: Perspective of Dr. Lisle's "Continuum of Evil"?

Postby JeffN » Sat Feb 11, 2017 9:39 am

As mentioned above, I have run these numbers many times and so thought I would post an example to really solidify the point.

Now, please don't take this in the wrong way as I am NOT recommending anyone go to this extreme with their 5%, but for the record, lets take a look at two worst case scenarios of my 95/5 perspective.

First, create an example of the MWL diet of 2000 calories

6 Sweet potato, cooked
2 cups oatmeal, cooked
1.15 Cup Blueberries, raw
1 cup Strawberries, raw
2 cups Broccoli, cooked
2 cups Carrots, cooked
2 cups Kale, cooked
1 cup Beans, kidney, cooked
1 tbsp ground flaxseed

The numbers
2000 calories
68 grams of Protein
94 grams of Fiber
7% calories from fat
1.2% grams from saturated fat
2.6 grams omega 3
4.6 grams omega 6
0 mg Cholesterol

Now, lets reduce the sweet potatoes by 100 calories (5% of the total) and add in pork bacon at 100 calories. Yeah, Pork Bacon! I think on Doug's scale, it would clearly get an F.

The new numbers for a day
2000 calories
72 grams of Protein
90 grams of Fiber
10.6% calories from fat
2.3% calories from saturated fat
2.7 grams omega 3
5.3 grams omega 6
19.5 mg Cholesterol (Which is below what was allowed by Dr Ornish, Dr Esseslystn, Dr Diehl and Pritikin, in all their original studies)

If you then compute this to see the impact over the week, it would be diluted much much more. The cholesterol would average out to under 3 mg per day


Now lets try this with an extreme example of some unhealthy vegan food. Coconut oil. What could be worse? Pure fat, over 80% saturated fat. So, again, let us replace 100 calories of sweet potatoes with 100 calories of pure virgin, organic, non-GMO coconut oil. :).

2000 calories
66 grams of Protein
90 grams of Fiber
12.3% calories from fat
5.7% calories from saturated fat (very close to my recommended limit of 5%)
2.6 grams omega 3
4.7 grams omega 6
0 mg Cholesterol

If you then compute this to see the impact over the week, it would be diluted much much more. The fat would average out to under 8% per day and the saturated fat would average out to under 3% of calories per day.

So, as you can see, while I am not recommending the above extreme examples, in anyway, the impact of 5% of calories, even if an F, is going to have little to any impact at all on any given day "IF" (and this is a HUGE "IF") the rest of your 95% is spot on. And, if this was to be just one day a week or one day a month, the impact will be diluted that much more.

This is why I am asking you (and have always asked you) to focus on the 95% and I could not have summed it up better then Vgpdlr did in this recent post on this topic....

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=54540&p=554336#p554308

vgpedlr wrote:
Helpinghands wrote:Aren't we talking about two different subjects?

Sort of.
You've got the rating systems for packaged food that some have put in place with red light, yellow light, and green light, or some numbering system.

That's what most of the thread is about. The mental martial arts people go through trying to find "lesser evils" results in wasted energy and plenty of "evil." This is both the macro-consumer level of conventional products and so-called "natural" healthy" and even vegan products. Ranking junk doesn't yield benefit, instead it takes away from the real issue which is replacing junk with health promoting foods.
You then have systems that rate whole foods in categories. That system I believe was started by Dr. Ornish. An example would by broccoli being a one while nuts might be a five.

Similar mental martial arts happen at the other end of the spectrum, and that is not necessary either. People often expend too much energy trying to get the "best" produce possible, when it really doesn't matter. It's all good. Again, it is a distraction from the real issue, eliminating the F foods and eating more of the A and B foods. There are links already to topics like "How Much Kale to Reach Nirvana" that go further.

The same operation happens at both ends of the spectrum:

"Is this vegan cookie better/worse than that cracker?"
Doesn't matter, they both get an F.

"Is broccoli better/worse than kale?"
Doesn't matter, they both get an A.

Put down the cookies and stop rationalizing them, go to the produce section and stop worrying. :)

Don't overthink it.


AMEN!

Carry on. :)

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

Re: Perspective of Dr. Lisle's "Continuum of Evil"?

Postby MikeyG » Sat Feb 11, 2017 8:20 pm

Thanks, Jeff. I sincerely appreciate your perspective, as always.

I thought the examples you provided were also very illustrative of how small discretions, if kept very small, tend to have a minimal impact on our overall health, even if those discretions are of the least healthy category.

Please have a wonderful day, and thank you, again, for all that you do :)
MikeyG
 
Posts: 175
Joined: Tue May 06, 2008 4:01 pm
Location: Salinas, CA

Re: Perspective of Dr. Lisle's "Continuum of Evil"?

Postby MikeyG » Fri Jul 24, 2020 12:00 am

Since this topic seems to continue to come up, I thought highlighting the similarities between Dr. McDougall and Jeff might be valuable.

Their shared perspective has certainly helped me a great deal when considering the relative impact of our healthy lifestyle deviations.
(Thanks, Jeff and Dr. McDougall :), for setting the bar where the evidence and your clinical experience suggest that it should be set.)

From "Going All the Way" (in terms of a healthy diet and lifestyle):
viewtopic.php?p=598264#p598264

PJK wrote:
... Dr McDougall says a starched-based diet with no animal products is the healthiest. But as I understand it, you're saying it's not about the meat.

Does this mean one could re-introduce meat into the McDougall diet and, assuming one continues all the other healthy behaviors (no smoking, exercise, no excessive alcohol), likely be just as healthy?


JeffN wrote:
The McDougall Program does not recommend the consumption of animal products (not just “meat”). Their consumption is "one" of the leading contributors of lifestyle related death and disease.

However, if you have not seen this, you may want to take a look at this McDougall Newsletter from 2009.

https://www.drmcdougall.com/misc/2009nl/dec/nyr.htm

He rates the relative risk of foods and puts them in 4 categories. Category I are the worst foods that are called "dangerous foods," and not recommended to be consumed.

Category II are Feast Foods. They are broken up into 3 subcategories. Here they are.

Dr. John McDougall wrote:
IIA. These foods should be eaten rarely, if ever. Never eat them if you are trying to regain your lost health and appearance. These are very rich foods. They should be reserved for that special occasion, the feast. For most healthy people, these feasts should occur less than once a month. Anyone still trying to regain the best possible level of health should always avoid feasts. Be forewarned: for some sensitive people, like those with inflammatory arthritis, one feast can result in devastating pains lasting for weeks.

1. Range-fed beef without hormones or chemicals.
2. Organically grown poultry.
3. Shellfish.
4. Fresh fish.
5. Cream.
6. Whole milk.
7. Cheese.
8. Creamed cottage cheese.
9. Sour cream.
10. Ice Cream.
11. Yogurt.
12. Butter.
13. Eggs.
14. Vegetable oils (including olive oil, flaxseed oil, canola oil, coconut, and all "free" oils).

IIB. These modified feast foods should be eaten no more than once a week, and then only in small amounts. Anyone looking for improvement in their health should never eat them. These dairy and egg foods have been modified to lower the fat and cholesterol content. Removal of the fat reduces the level of fat-soluble chemical contaminants. However, they are still too high in animal protein, and contain no dietary fiber. Dairy products are the leading cause of food allergies, and eggs are often listed as the second most common food allergen.

1. Low-fat yogurt.
2. Low-fat milk (skim milk).
3. Buttermilk.
4. Low-fat (dry curd) cottage cheese.
5. Low-fat cheese (like mozzarella).
6. Kefir.
7. Sherbet (contains water, sugar, fruit juice, and often egg whites or low-fat dairy products).
8. Egg whites.


Category IV are Health-Supporting Foods

These foods are health-supporting. They allow your body to attain and maintain its naturally intended state of good health. They should account for the greatest share (at least 90 percent) of your calories if you are healthy and for all of them if you are still working to regain your health.

1. Whole grains, such as wheat, rice, barley, millet, rye, oats, corn, and popcorn
2. Milled grains, such as whole-wheat flour, corn meal, brown rice flour, rye flour, oatmeal, and bulgur.
3. Starchy vegetables, such as white potatoes, sweet potatoes, yams, and cassava.
4. Green and yellow vegetables, such as spinach, kale, zucchini, broccoli, cabbage, carrots, and onions.
5. Sprouted seeds and beans, such as alfalfa, radish, wheat, mung bean, and lentil.
6. Beans, peas, lentils, such as kidney beans, white beans, garbanzo beans, pinto beans, split peas, and red lentils. (These legumes are high-protein. They should be restricted to about one cup of cooked food on average daily and restricted even more for people with osteoporosis, kidney stones, and liver or kidney failure.)
7. Fresh fruits. (All edible varieties of these are suitable; however, most people should limit them to about three per day. They contain simple sugars that are largely protected by fiber. People trying to lose weight and people with high triglycerides should consider further limitation.)


For health reasons, I know of no evidence that 100% animal product free is necessary. The original diets shown to reverse heart disease (Ornish, Pritikin, Gould, Esselstyn), were not vegan. Much of the related research on a WFPB diet (Kempner, Shintani, CHIP, 7th Day Adventists), was not done on vegans.

However, we are not recommending them. The reason is, as discussed in other threads, there are several additional compelling reasons not to consume them, including animal welfare, environmental, contamination, the pleasure trap, etc.

Dr McDougall states this in the above newsletter. Towards the end, he says...

Dr. John McDougall wrote:
Ten Ideas We Have Improved On in Three Decades:

You should not be surprised to learn that we got it mostly right the first time -- more than 30 years ago. After six years of exhaustive study of the scientific research and almost every vegetarian cookbook published in the preceding eighty years we learned a lot from other people's hard work. During those six years between 1977 and 1983 when The McDougall Plan was being written, Mary also designed homey recipes, cooked the meals, and the McDougall family taste-tested each and every one of them. Here is what we can now add:

1) Animal foods -- be they derived from cow, pig, chicken, or fish muscles or the ovum of a bird or the lactation fluids of a mammal -- high-fat or low-fat -- are all so similar in their make-up that they must be considered together, and should be strictly avoided for health reasons. The destruction of the Earth due to the livestock industry makes avoiding animal foods imperative.

2) Chicken and Turkey are no improvement over beef and pork products. Consumers are just fooling themselves and might as well have a beefsteak on their birthday rather than a dried-up piece of white breast meat.

3) Fish are health-wise no better than any of the other muscle foods. Since the time The McDougall Plan was written nearly 90% of the world's large fish and other sea life have vanished. In order to restore our oceans, lakes, and streams people must understand the importance of not eating and further contributing to the depletion of these natural resources.


4) Low-fat Dairy Products and Egg Whites are very high in animal protein and sulfur-containing amino acids, which promote bone, kidney and liver damage. Trading high-fat foods for low-fat foods in this category is a matter of choosing whether to be shot or hanged.

5) Soy Foods, such as traditional soymilk, tofu and miso are sensible additions to a healthy diet, but should be used in small amounts because they are rich in fat and protein. Fake foods, such as soy burgers, soy luncheon meats, soy hot dogs, and soy cheeses made from isolated soy proteins and a number of other chemicals should be strictly avoided.

6) Vegetable Oils, regardless of the health claims, such as "high in omega-3s" or "good fats" are serious health hazards and should be clearly distinguished from whole foods that are high in vegetable fats such as nuts, seeds, avocados, and olives.

7) Salt is a pleasurable taste that can make compliance with the McDougall Diet much easier. Research over the past three decades shows salt is well tolerated by most people and rarely is a contributor to poor health. However, to be on the cautious side, use salt sparingly.

8 ) Simple Sugars are all basically the same and make foods delicious. Used sparingly they add great pleasure to the McDougall Diet without causing harm.

9) A Starch Focus is emphasized in every possible way. The McDougall Diet has always been taught as a starch-based diet with the addition of fresh or frozen vegetables and fruits. Until people eat most of their calories from higher calorie plant foods, such as rice, corn, beans, and potatoes, they struggle. Emphasizing these comfort foods makes everything about the McDougall Program work easily.

10) Simplicity in meals is a key to better health and appearance. Mary's cooking style in our home has become focused on simple meals. She prepares dishes such as sweet potatoes and broccoli or rice with steamed green veggies, which are topped with delicious sauces. With simplicity, advantages like greater weight loss, better health, and lower food costs are enjoyed.

[mikeyg: As the quoted discussion with Jeff had started the context of animal products, Jeff had originally only included #1 and #3 of the ten additional improvements from the original McDougall Plan. I have included the others as I think that they further emphasize the shared perspective of McDougall and Novick on the relative harms of certain foods and how we can best consider their proper roles in our dietary patterns .]



I don't think there is anything I have said in this forum that disagrees with the above. In fact, I am stricter then the above as I ask people to get at least 95% right, not 90% :)

In Health
Jeff


I hope that helps. Please have a great day, and thanks for all the good that you do :)
MikeyG
 
Posts: 175
Joined: Tue May 06, 2008 4:01 pm
Location: Salinas, CA

Re: Perspective of Dr. Lisle's "Continuum of Evil"?

Postby JeffN » Sun Aug 02, 2020 6:23 am

Again, I am not recommending this, but making a point.

If one truly got the “95%” right, the occasional 5% is usually not going to matter. But, one must first understand and implement the 95%, 100% and have recovered their health. If not, do not try this! And one must be very aware of their own health, and the pleasure trap and keep these “extreme” exceptions, “extremely” rare.

The irony in this is that when you get to the point where these rare indulgence may not matter, many lose their interest in indulging because of the way it makes them feel. It’s lost it’s appeal (Four hours after eating maximally, the participants felt sleepy/lethargic).

1) Mass media article

Pizza study shows body copes surprisingly well with one-off calorie indulgence
MedicalXpress

https://medicalxpress.com/news/2020-07- ... e-off.html

A new study, which involved participants eating pizza well after feeling 'full' in order to test what immediate effects this had on the body, finds that our metabolism is surprisingly good at coping with over-indulgence.

Researchers with the Centre for Nutrition, Exercise and Metabolism at the University of Bath compared the effects of normal eating (i.e. 'eat until you are comfortably full') with maximal eating (i.e. 'eat until you cannot manage another bite').

They found that the young, healthy men (aged 22—37) who volunteered for the trial consumed almost twice as much pizza when pushing beyond their usual limits, doubling their calorie intake


2) Abstract

J. (2020). Physiological responses to maximal eating in men. British Journal of Nutrition, 124(4), 407-417. doi:10.1017/S000711452000127

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals ... 276295A4D8

This study investigated metabolic, endocrine, appetite and mood responses to a maximal eating occasion in fourteen men (mean: age 28 (sd 5) years, body mass 77·2 (sd 6·6) kg and BMI 24·2 (sd 2·2) kg/m2) who completed two trials in a randomised crossover design. On each occasion, participants ate a homogenous mixed-macronutrient meal (pizza). On one occasion, they ate until ‘comfortably full’ (ad libitum) and on the other, until they ‘could not eat another bite’ (maximal). Mean energy intake was double in the maximal (13 024 (95 % CI 10 964, 15 084) kJ; 3113 (95 % CI 2620, 3605) kcal) compared with the ad libitum trial (6627 (95 % CI 5708, 7547) kJ; 1584 (95 % CI 1364, 1804) kcal). Serum insulin incremental AUC (iAUC) increased approximately 1·5-fold in the maximal compared with ad libitum trial (mean: ad libitum 43·8 (95 % CI 28·3, 59·3) nmol/l × 240 min and maximal 67·7 (95 % CI 47·0, 88·5) nmol/l × 240 min, P < 0·01), but glucose iAUC did not differ between trials (ad libitum94·3 (95 % CI 30·3, 158·2) mmol/l × 240 min and maximal 126·5 (95 % CI 76·9, 176·0) mmol/l × 240 min, P = 0·19). TAG iAUC was approximately 1·5-fold greater in the maximal v. ad libitum trial (ad libitum 98·6 (95 % CI 69·9, 127·2) mmol/l × 240 min and maximal 146·4 (95 % CI 88·6, 204·1) mmol/l × 240 min, P < 0·01). Total glucagon-like peptide-1, glucose-dependent insulinotropic peptide and peptide tyrosine–tyrosine iAUC were greater in the maximal compared with ad libitum trial (P < 0·05). Total ghrelin concentrations decreased to a similar extent, but AUC was slightly lower in the maximal v. ad libitum trial (P = 0·02). There were marked differences on appetite and mood between trials, most notably maximal eating caused a prolonged increase in lethargy. Healthy men have the capacity to eat twice the energy content required to achieve comfortable fullness at a single meal. Postprandial glycaemia is well regulated following initial overeating, with elevated postprandial insulinaemia probably contributing.
User avatar
JeffN
 
Posts: 9412
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 5:56 am


Return to Jeff Novick, RD

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests



Welcome!

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