Why NO OIL?

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

Moderators: JeffN, carolve, Heather McDougall

Postby JeffN » Mon Mar 10, 2008 7:43 pm

Jaggu wrote:Do you know if they have to list calories from fat no matter what the weight is.

Also while we are at this, as far as rounding on FAT goes, what does FDA allows? Does it ONLY allow rounding to zero when fat content per serving is less than 0.5 grams? or should we be aware of any other marketing gimmick?


No, they don't. Calories from fat, as in the pam spray, is not listed even though it is 100%.

The IRS tax code is much easier to understand then the FDA food label.

And, because there are so many exceptions and so many loopholes, it is not anything i can answer in a simple response.

However, you can begin to find answers to your question by looking at the official guidelines here.

http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/label.html

http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/foodlab.html

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

Postby Jaggu » Tue Mar 18, 2008 11:37 am

Hi Jeff,

I have watched you video, in your video you gave an example of how they get away with fat free labels.

Let's take for example, you mix 1 Tbsp( approximately 120 calories) of oil with 9 Tbsp of water, according to you, you still consider it as 100% fat because, Oil is 100% fat. If your serving size remained the same (1 Tbsp instead of 10 tbsp ), with (water+oil) mixture example, you will be consuming 120/10 = 12 calories which is not 100% fat. Your fat calories has come down from 120 to 12.

Same goes with skim milk, you seem to think skim milk has 33% calories from fat.

I'm using oil and skim milk as they are classic example and I know their calorie content etc.

Can you clarify this as I can not afford to make any mistake with this basic concept which is so vital.
Jaggu
 

Postby JeffN » Tue Mar 18, 2008 11:55 am

Jaggu wrote:Hi Jeff,

I have watched you video, in your video you gave an example of how they get away with fat free labels.

Let's take for example, you mix 1 Tbsp( approximately 120 calories) of oil with 9 Tbsp of water, according to you, you still consider it as 100% fat because, Oil is 100% fat. If your serving size remained the same (1 Tbsp instead of 10 tbsp ), with (water+oil) mixture example, you will be consuming 120/10 = 12 calories which is not 100% fat. Your fat calories has come down from 120 to 12.

Same goes with skim milk, you seem to think skim milk has 33% calories from fat.

I'm using oil and skim milk as they are classic example and I know their calorie content etc.

Can you clarify this as I can not afford to make any mistake with this basic concept which is so vital.


Hi Jaggu

My numbers have been reviewed many times over many years and are correct. However, I see the problem in your calculations

If you have 1 TB of oil, the oil is 120 calories and 120 calories from fat. It is 100% fat.

If you know add in 9 TB of water, the water adds no calories and it adds no fat. So, the mixture is still 100% calories from fat.

However, by weight, the product is no longer 100% fat, cause the fat is only making up a small part of the total weight of the mixture

But here is where your error is

If the serving size is 1 TB (or 1/2 oz) , then in the original example of pure oil, the serving is 120 calories and 120 calories from fat and is 100% fat.

But, if we add in 9 TB of water and keep the serving size of 1 TB, the one TB now contains about 1/10 oil and 9/10 water. Correct?

The 1/10 of a TB of oil contribute 12 calories and 12 calories from fat. The 9/10 TB of water contribute 0 calories and 0 calories from fat. The TB now has less total calories and less total calories from fat, because you have diluted it out, but it remains 100% calories from fat.

The calories have come down from 120 to 12 but so has the calories from fat come down from 120 to 12. It is still 100% fat.

Also, I have never said Skim Milk is 33% fat. What I have said is 2% milk is about 33% fat, 1% milk is about 22% fat and skim milk is under 5% fat.

These numbers are all verifiable at the USDA database.

I hope that clarifies it for you.

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

Postby Jaggu » Tue Mar 18, 2008 12:36 pm

Jeff,

Thanks for the explanation. My point was that If serving size remained the same, then you did reduce total CFF intake in case of low fat, fat free, skim or 1%, 2% milk products even if 10TB mixture seems like a 100% fat.

{No of servings}* (CFF/serving) = 10% of daily calorie values= (200-250)

should limit total CFF to 10% is what I think.

I do understand that if something is 100% fat or even 30% fat , even a small amount can easily jack up your CFF %.

But technically, if you only consumed 16.66 Tbsps in a day (200/12) (i.e. 1TB oil + 9 TB water), you will be at 10% CFF diet. Is this correct or not?
Jaggu
 

Postby JeffN » Tue Mar 18, 2008 1:23 pm

Jaggu wrote:Jeff,

Thanks for the explanation. My point was that If serving size remained the same, then you did reduce total CFF intake in case of low fat, fat free, skim or 1%, 2% milk products even if 10TB mixture seems like a 100% fat.


I am not sure what you are getting at.

However, yes, if you add one little tiny bit of something that is very high in fat, to a total diet that is very low in fat, then the total diet is still very low in percentage of calories from fat and total fat.

And yes, if you have a serving that is pure oil or fat, and you keep the same serving size but dilute out the serving with water, then the the amount of oil/fat goes down. But, that is not a math trick.

However, if you reduce the serving size by adding water, you do not change the percentage of calories from fat. only the total amount of fat in the serving

As I said above, if you take olive oil, which is 100% calories from fat,, it is 100% calories from fat regardless of whether you have a Cup, a Ounce a TB, a Tsp, or 1/10 of a TB. If it is only olive oil, or olive oil and water it is still 100% calories from fat.

If i have 1 TB of oil and the serving size is 1 TB it is 100 calories from fat. If i add 9 TB of water, the total amount of total fat pure serving (TB) is less, but the percentage of calories from fat is still 100%. If I add 1 cup of water, the total amount of total fat is even less, but the percentage of calories from fat is still 100%. Yes, at this point there is very little fat in the TB, but that fat is still 100% calories from fat and the serving is still 100% calories from fat.

Reducing the amount may lower the absolute value but it does not lower the relative value.

And you are missing the point that they are playing a math trick. They are telling you the amount of fat as a percentage of weight which bears no relationship at all to the amount of fat as a percentage of calories.

I mean, I think we all know, if you eat less of something, regardless of whether you do so by diluting it out or just eating less of it, then you eat less of it. :)

Yes, 1 cup of skim milk has less total fat, then 1 cup of 1% milk, and both have less fat then 1 cup of 2% milk, and all have less fat then 1 cup of whole milk. This is common knowledge.

But that is not the point I am making or trying to help people understand. My point is that 2% milk is 33% fat. 1% milk is 23% fat. Yes, if you eat very little of them you get very little fat but how many people know that 2% milk is 33% fat and 1% milk is 23% fat?

:)

BTW, portion control diets and portion control has never worked amongst humans. So, the concept of just eating less, doesnt work, as it goes against everything humans are hard wired for.

Jaggu wrote:But technically, if you only consumed 16.66 Tbsps in a day (200/12) (i.e. 1TB oil + 9 TB water), you will be at 10% CFF diet. Is this correct or not?


If you consume 16.66 TB of a product that is nothing but diluted oil (1/10th dilution), it is the same thing as consuming 1.16 TB of oil straight. There really is no difference.

And yes, If you consume 2000 calories and the total calories from fat are 200 or less, you are at a 10% fat diet, even if you included the 16.66 TB of diluted oil or the 1.16 TB Of straight oil.

The same thing can be said about almonds. Is there room for almonds in a diet and still be able to keep it at 10%? Of course. And lets say you could fit in "X" almonds. Regardless if you eat them straight, or blend them up and add in 2 cups of water first and then eat them, the end result is the same, you can add in "X" almonds and still be under 10%.

BTW, this is exactly how the created many fat free and low fat products, like salad dressings and soup. By, the dilution didnt work, because people though since it was so diluted, they could eat more of it, and more of it then ate. And in the end, they got in more calories and more calories from fat.

So, with all due respect, what is your point? :)

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

Postby Jaggu » Tue Mar 18, 2008 1:58 pm

Jeff,

I'm very much in agreement with what you have been saying with regard to calories from Fat. I agree with you that if you add water to oil, no matter how little or how big, all the calories will come from oil and hence it can be said that resultant mixture has 100% CFF or calories from OIL

The point I want to make is that, this % numbers are very consuming. For e.g. 1 drop of oil will have 100% calories from fat. Doesn't mean if someone swallowed 1 drop of oil, he/she is 10 times overboard.

I agree with rest of what you said, like people may consume more of something assuming it is fat free or low fat etc etc.
Jaggu
 

Postby JeffN » Tue Mar 18, 2008 2:56 pm

Jaggu

I applaud your efforts to try and understand these issues and clarify things.

Jaggu wrote:The point I want to make is that, this % numbers are very consuming


I think you mean confusing, though this is a consuming topic, but I do disagree. :)

Sure, anything can be confusing if it is taken out of context and not applied correctly. But, my recommendations on how to read a label are using the percentage of fat "in a context" to help people make better choices, understand the true amount of calories from fat, and use that as information in relation to their whole diet.

What is confusing is that all national health organization ask us to limit fat as a percentage of calories, yet, all products marketed in the world list percentage of fat by weight and no one tells anyone that there are 2 different systems being used.

Now, if percentage of calories from fat was so confusing, why would every single health organization (and published study) always refer to fat as a percentage of calories and not as a percentage of weight?

Jaggu wrote:For e.g. 1 drop of oil will have 100% calories from fat. Doesn't mean if someone swallowed 1 drop of oil, he/she is 10 times overboard. .


No, of course not. But can you find me anywhere where I, or anyone else said that or where anyone is thinking that?

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

Postby Jaggu » Tue Mar 18, 2008 5:52 pm

JeffN wrote:Jaggu

No, of course not. But can you find me anywhere where I, or anyone else said that or where anyone is thinking that?

In Health
Jeff Novick, MS, RD


Yes I meant to say confusing instead of consuming. Nobody said that one drop of oil was like going overboard 10 folds. I said that to give an example to clarify this matter in bunch of different ways to ensure I wasn't misunderstanding. This basic understanding is so vital.
Jaggu
 

Postby JeffN » Wed Mar 19, 2008 10:46 am

Jaggu wrote: This basic understanding is so vital.


I agree, and thanks for the great discussion!!

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

Postby Jaggu » Wed Mar 19, 2008 10:57 am

Jeff,

Big thanks to you and others on this subject as well host of other issues that we have been discussing here. Your responses have been a real eye opener, at least for me.
Jaggu
 

Postby hazelrah » Wed Jul 08, 2009 11:57 am

JeffN wrote:Quoting from

Was Dr Atkins right? Dean Ornish, MD
JADA, Issue 4, Pages 537-542 (April 2004)



As stated earlier, a low-fat, whole foods diet has been proven to reverse heart disease using actual measures of coronary atherosclerosis and myocardial perfusion, whereas none of the other three diets has been shown to do so. It was terribly misleading when this abstract made it appear as though the Atkins diet is better for your heart. This is especially incongruous when, as mentioned earlier, the only study to examine blood flow on the Atkins diet found that it actually worsened (35).[/i]



Thank you for taking the time to go over all this. Can you please explain or direct me to a link that explains myocardial perfusion. I guess what I'm trying to understand is the mechanisms we know of that can reduce aterial plaque. Earlier in the thread I was given the impression that the only known thing that can reduce the plaque that is already in the arteries is HDL. From Dr. Esselstyn's success, I find that hard to believe. So I'm wondering what else can remove it. I was also wondering how the cholesterol lowering medications work to reduce cholesterol.

Thanks again,

Mark
User avatar
hazelrah
 
Posts: 2000
Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2009 9:04 pm
Location: Pacifica, CA

Postby Steve » Thu Jul 09, 2009 3:38 am

Hi Hazelrah,

I guess you are seeking detailed scientific information about the mechanism of how the body cleans up our arteries. I am providing a few links below. A newsletter article, a Star McDougallar and a link to Dr. McDougall's program for the Healthy Heart Book. The book is great.

There is no doubt that we can improve our cardio vascular function. Many folks on this board are perfect examples of this. My understanding is that our bodies produce all the cholesterol we need. When we eat animal products it is like taking a cholesterol pill. The body must remove the excess cholesterol from our blood. The liver helps clean this up. If we overwhelm the liver by eating too much cholesterol it coats and irritates the arteries. The plaques form. The medicines either cause the liver to work harder at removing cholesterol or block the bodies absorbing cholesterol from animal products we eat. The problem is that there are side effects and damage by either method. Loading up your liver is tough on that organ and blocking absorption interferes with our digestive systems. Seems to me the best medicine is avoiding eating the cholesterol at all. Some folks need medicine even after giving up the animal products, but this is a rare condition and in any event they need less medicine if they stop eating the animal products

Here are some links that may help.

http://www.nealhendrickson.com/mcdougal ... losure.htm

http://drmcdougall.com/stars/061200staredna.html

http://drmcdougall.com/store_eb_hh.html

Steve
Steve
 
Posts: 945
Joined: Thu Oct 19, 2006 9:19 pm

Hi

Postby f1jim » Thu Jul 09, 2009 8:13 am

The most thorough explanation I have seen appears in the Advanced Nutrition Series DVD featuring Dr. Caldwell Esselstyn Jr. He really breaks down the process into a series of events, culminating in atherosclerosis. Even the video at his website doesn't explain it as well. In a nutshell, HDL rises to cart off excess LDL to be removed out of the body by binding to fiber.
I think you will find the same DVD helpful in showing perfusion, including full color pictures. His book is excellent in this regard. Clogged arteries and arteries that won't dilate explain why the heart experiences poor blood flow (perfusion) especially under high demand.
f1jim
While adopting this diet and lifestyle program I have reversed my heart disease, high cholesterol, hypertension, and lost 54 lbs. You can follow my story at https://www.drmcdougall.com/james-brown/
User avatar
f1jim
 
Posts: 11349
Joined: Sun Feb 17, 2008 4:45 pm
Location: Pacifica, CA

Mechanisms?

Postby SactoBob » Thu Jul 09, 2009 9:22 am

I doubt that all, or even any, of the mechanisms are known for sure. It has not been that long that anybody even speculated that heart disease could be reversed, and the mainstream medical opinion is still that it cannot be reversed.

To me, the first battle is to make known that this condition can be reversed, and will be reversed with proper execution of lifestyle and diet. Hopefully future scientists will establish the mechanisms. The great thing is that we don't need to know the mechanisms. We have theories, but the important thing is that the reversal is an observable fact. There may be multiple mechanisms involved - which seems to be a theme with proper nutrition according to T. Colin Campbell.

As to the cholesterol meds, my recollectoin is that they inhibit a liver enzyme that is involved in cholesterol synthesis. I hated these meds and am so glad to be off them.

As to the perfusion, that is just an observation of how much blood is getting to the tissues. The test puts a demand on the coronary arteries to supply blood to the muscle. A radioactive marker is put into the blood stream. When you can see that the blood is getting to the tissues, you know that the coronary arteries are supplying it. When the blood is not getting there, the assumption is that the the arteries are clogged, and that is the reason why the blood can't be seen getting to the muscle.
SactoBob
 

Postby hazelrah » Thu Jul 09, 2009 1:25 pm

Thanks to all 3 of you for responding.

I will check out Steve's links and intend to buy the Dr. Esselstyne DVD with the other new DVDs when money becomes less tight. It's been a tough year for disposable income, I'm afraid.

I have no doubt that diet is the most critical component in improving cardio performance in general, but most of the way that it's presented seems stochastic and I was trying to find a more accesible biophysical or biochemical visual to think about it. I used to run 3 or 4 marathons a year and near the end of my training my blood pressure would be on the low side of normal. I simplisitcally thought of this as the circulatory system being pressure washed while it was on hyperdrive in training. That visual doesn't work for diet. From Bob's last stress test I have confidence that with diet I can improve my MAX VO2 and get my body to train again in time.

I was afraid that Jeff might have covered this subject ad nauseum in the forum and I was just too lazy to thoroughly go through it, but I see from you answers that it is still very much a study in progress. Thanks for that as well.

Mark
User avatar
hazelrah
 
Posts: 2000
Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2009 9:04 pm
Location: Pacifica, CA

PreviousNext

Return to Jeff Novick, RD

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 15 guests



Welcome!

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