Calorie Density and Nutrient Density

[MikeyG]

Dear Jeff,

I hope that this message finds you very well.

You've had a variety of threads about balancing calorie density and nutrient density, particularly this one:

Finding The Sweet Spot: Balancing Calorie Density, Nutrient Density & Satiety
viewtopic.php?f=22&t=22432&p=217427

However, it seems possible that if we go too high in calorie density to try to meet greater caloric needs or promote more lasting satiety, we can crowd out nutrition for the day.

Thus, for those of us hoping to manage higher activity levels, or feeding children, have you found an approach that allows individuals to meet their calorie needs while also meeting their nutritional requirements?

For example, if someone were to use your SNAP template at home, either individually or with a family, would it be beneficial to encourage children, or the highly active, to eat a sufficient amount of the SNAP meals, which include generous servings of more nutrient dense foods, before resorting to higher caloric density foods to round out their calorie needs? (Either by increasing the ratio of starches to fruits/vegetables, or by supplementing with higher calorie dense foods, like flour products, dried fruits, or high fat plant foods, I presume?)

You were kind enough to share the open kitchen model you had with your daughter, here:
viewtopic.php?p=583169#p583169

... where you made sure there were flour products, dried fruit, and high-fat plant foods available to help meet her greater caloric needs as a very active child.

Were there ever issues with her filling up on the more calorie dense foods you had available and not leaving enough room for the more nutrient dense items? With your posts about hidden hunger showing no visible warning signs or symptoms, it seems that if an individual were to be going too low in nutrient density for optimal health, there would no real symptoms until the issues became very severe.

(Hidden Hunger: viewtopic.php?p=579235#p579235 )

Thus, for those of us hoping to achieve excellent results on the McDougall program, while also maintaining higher activity levels, I would be very interested to know if you have identified any strategies to balance nutrient density and calorie density.

Thanks, as always, for all of your insight, Jeff. I hope that you are having an excellent day.

Warmly,
Michael

[JeffN]

Hi Michael

There is a “myth” of nutrient density that often pops up around here, which is says the diet we recommend is not nutrient dense enough and/or making it more nutrient dense is better.

Let me be clear, the diet we recommend here, whether one is following the regular program or the MWL program is nutrient dense, period. Trying to make it more nutrient dense is missing the point. And in trying to do so, you may end up with a diet too low in calorie density & satiety

If you ever read the mainstream health organization discussions on this, they say the main reason the American diet is lacking in nutrients is not because the plants they eat are somehow lacking in nutrition, the reason the American diet is lacking in nutrients is because they don’t consume enough plants and because the ones they do consume, are overly processed. The solution is including more minimally processed plants. The most nutrient dense foods are vegetables, fruits, whole grains, legumes, and pulses. Trying to design a diet based on just the foods rated to be the highest in nutrient density amongst these foods is missing the point.

It is just like how one can tae calorie density to far, miss the whole point, and end up with a diet of only leafy greens and non-starchy vegetables. Whether it is calorie density or nutrient density, we only need it to be good enough, not some made up idealistic goal of perfection, especially when, like with nutrient density, it is based on a fudged scoring systems (ie, ANDI).

The populations experiencing hidden hunger are not consuming a diet like the one recommended here. Their hidden hunger is not the result of pushing the calorie density of the diet we recommend, higher.

This was the point of the article of mine you linked to. In it, I even state in all 4 examples that each one is high in nutrient density.

There are several discussions in this forum on this topic showing the fallacy behind trying to make a diet based predominately (or exclusviely) of minimally processed plants more nutrient dense. Specifically see the one on How Much Kale Does It Take To Reach Nutrient Nirvana, which is listed in the FAQ, Doug Lise addressed it in a video, saying those who are caught up in that myth have "lost their way" and are “majoring in minor details.”

So, to answer your question, my daughter was always consuming a diet that was more then adequate in nutrient density, with or without the more calorie dense foods and with or without whole grain flour products.

I Hope that helps

In Health
Jeff

[MikeyG]

Thanks, Jeff.

The occasional recommendations I have seen to check the Cron-O-Meter to make sure we are consistently hitting our RDAs, or at least coming close to doing so, is what has had me concerned in the past, I think.

It seems like your SNAP meals have been designed to fall in line with our daily nutrient needs, even at around 1500 calories total, so I guess we have added insurance there if we were to follow your template.

Interestingly, scurvy, caused by a deficiency in water-soluble Vitamin C, takes up to a month to show symptoms, it appears:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMHT0030286/

So while I was a little concerned about Dr. Lisle's assessment that nutritional deficiencies are likely extremely rare due to the body's ability to compensate, even on something as potentially deficient as a mono-diet, it would seem it does take quite awhile for something like that to manifest, even with water-soluble vitamins.

In addition, variety is a key part of your recommendations, even if Dr. McDougall does occasionally seem more non-chalant, so I would think that has a built-in safety mechanism.

I think I get too caught up in the data (since the USDA nutritional information is readily available) and less on the general recommendations that are commonly made (such as for variety, or a certain number of servings, since that's a little less easy to quantify in terms of health benefits or the ability to avoid deficiency issues.)

Nutritional sufficiency, and calorie adequacy, are both also part of your Healthy Eating Placemat, however, so it seems that we should be putting some effort into all of these areas in terms of health. As you mentioned, though, it's just about being good enough, not maximizing everything at all opportunities, especially since nutrient density (nutrients/calorie) and calorie density (calories/pound) seem to often be at opposite ends of the spectrum, especially when looking at whole natural plant foods.

[Healthy Eating Placemat: viewtopic.php?p=380957#p380957 ]

It just seemed like one could easily go over on the more calorie dense items, like bread, dried fruit, high-fat plant foods, and crowd out the other items. I would think many new McDougallers (and/or WFPB eaters), have experienced issues with that in the past, but likely more in terms of weight, not nutrition, I would think, unless they're really going off the mark and avoiding vegetables and fruits entirely.

As you mentioned, going too low in calories seems like a problem many run into as well, since non-starchy vegetables really aren't a worthwhile energy source, and starvation really isn't compatible with a long, healthy life.

In addition, two slices of Ezekiel bread with 2 Tbsp of almond butter is only about 350 calories, and while very calorie dense, does not seem nutrient poor, nor is it contributing a massive amount to one's daily caloric intake.

Furthermore, both the Healthy Eating Placemat and "Real Dirty Dozen" threads seem to recommend getting the majority of our calories from"a diet based predominately on a variety of minimally processed whole plant foods (fruits, vegetables, starchy vegetables, roots/tubers, intact whole grains and beans)."

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

So I guess as long as we're not getting in the clear majority of our caloric intake from the more calorie dense foods, we're probably in a pretty good place, especially if the diet remained heavily starch-based.

In the Continuum of Evil thread below, you stated that all of these foods are in the A level or B level of your guidelines, so if we included both in our diets, even in significant amounts, we're still getting A's and B's, which you have said is usually more than enough for most people to do well with.

[Continuum of Evil: viewtopic.php?p=554281#p554281 ]

Thanks for helping me get a better perspective on how to easily and comfortably design a sufficiently healthy diet and lifestyle, even with greater calorie needs. As you mentioned in your creating healthy habits thread, it's very easy to get distracted in the current landscape, so I appreciate your consistent emphasis on effective simplicity.

Please have a wonderful day, and thanks, as always, for all that you do.

Warmly,
Michael

[JeffN]

Thanks for helping me get a better perspective on how to easily and comfortably design a sufficiently healthy diet and lifestyle, even with greater calorie needs. As you mentioned in your creating healthy habits thread, it's very easy to get distracted in the current landscape, so I appreciate your consistent emphasis on effective simplicity.

Agreed 100%.

I am glad your post ended with this because it sums up the whole issue.

I was going to respond to several of the above points, because it seemed like you keep wanting to go down the rabbit hole of nutrient density. Be clear, on a minimally (to even moderately) processed plant food diet, even one that includes more of the approved calorie dense items (dried fruits, whole grain flour products, nuts/seeds) nutrient density is not the issue. The major issue in including more calorie dense items, even if moderately processed, is calorie density, and the health concerns that go along with consuming a diet higher in calorie density including the potential for the passive over-consumption of calories which can lead to increased weight, obesity, diabetes, CVD, HTN, Cancer, etc.

To be clear, let me repeat that...

The major issue in including more calorie dense items, even if moderately processed, is calorie density, and the health concerns that go along with consuming a diet higher in calorie density including the potential for the passive over-consumption of calories which can lead to increased weight, obesity, diabetes, CVD, HTN, Cancer, etc.

One of the other health concerns that can come up when someone includes more processed plant foods is the added salt, sugar, refined carbs, fat, sat fat, etc that they may contain.

When the IOM issued their report on Front of Package labels, their recommendations of the nutrients that were of the most concern were, calories, saturated fat, trans fat, sodium and added sugar. Nutrient that were not enough of a concern to be included were protein, vitamins and minerals other than sodium.

Think about that.

In Health
Jeff

[JeffN]

Somehow, in posting my reply to your last post, your last post got deleted.

My apologies!

Howvever, I think you are overthinking this, which is often a problem for many. They want to outsmart the program, or think they know a better way or complicate the simplicity of this.

The answer to your question(s) (if I understand you correctly) is ....

Yes, that is the purpose of the “5 Pillars,” the “Healthy Eating Placemat,” the Principles of Calorie Density,” and the SNAP meals, all adjusted to the individual. That is the simplest, easiest way to go about the program, it is why I created them, why I teach teach then and why I advocate for them in virtually every post and presentation.

In Health
Jeff

[MikeyG]

Thanks, Jeff. I appreciate the emphasis.

I think I just need to get more comfortable adjusting the recommendations on the fly, and determine where I can get creative without deviating too far from the program guidelines.

Thanks, as always, for all the support.

Warmly,
Michael