So ... undereating & the metabolism - is it true/possibl

[slugmom]

I don't want to hijack Karin-kiwi's post ...

is it possible for someone to eat McDougall-adherent, or MWL, and eat *too little* -- and slow down the metabolism, so that they're eating MWL foods but not *enough* and not lose weight?

I thought that was the whole danger of crash diets, the whole "If you don't get enough calories, your metabolism compensates"



thanks,
Kim

[Suebee]

Okay so you say and so does Jeff that you can't lower your metabolism. I wonder if these studies were only done on MEN, who have faster metabolisms than women. Also women are geared to have metabolisms that would protect babies they might be carrying and I wouldn't be surprised if that changes things a lot.
Studies of people or rats who eat fewer calories, like the studies Jeff quoted in a post about longevity show that indeed the thyroid hormones are reduced when one lowers one's caloric intake. Well that sure lowers metabolism, doesn't it? So I just don't believe it isn't true.
Many men who replied to Karen also are men and don't understand the frustrations women have in dieting. THEIR monthly hormones do NOT drive them to have weird cravings. Ours do. I think many replies to her were totally insensitive.

[JeffN]

is it possible for someone to eat McDougall-adherent, or MWL, and eat *too little* -- and slow down the metabolism, so that they're eating MWL foods but not *enough* and not lose weight?

No. If anyone thinks this is possible, then when they are in this situation, just stop eating completely and see what happens. Based on this mistaken theory, they should not lose any weight as they will be lowering their caloric intake only further and the body should "compensate" even more, yet we all know they will not only lose weight, but continue to do so till they starve.

However, metabolism is relative to body mass, so if you lose weight, you will have less mass and a slightly less metabolism but relevant to the amount of mass. The principle of energy balance will still (and always) work.

I thought that was the whole danger of crash diets, the whole "If you don't get enough calories, your metabolism compensates"

Then how do you explain all the rapid and consistant weight loss in all the starvation experiments, concentration camps, prisoner of war camps and hunger strikes? Never, ever, did we have one of them stop losing weight (let alone gain weight) or "compensate" cause they slowed their metabolism down to much.

http://www.drmcdougall.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=7419

http://www.drmcdougall.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=9962

Realize that this "supposed" phenomenon only occurs in free-living humans who self-report their dietary intake and activity output. It has never happened in 70 years of tightly controlled experiments on every animal ever tested.

The only reason it "appears" to happen is that the tools we have to measure caloric intake and output are poor at best. Trying harder does not make the tools work better. In addition, the are issues like fluid balance, etc, that may contribute to fluctuations in weight that have nothing to do with caloric balance. THis is why micro-managing your daily caloric input can (and is) so frustrating. Not only are the best tools we have, poor at best, there are other non caloric issues that have a slight day to day (and intra day) effect that we can not measure. This is not saying anyone is lying or cheating. Just that the tools they are using are highly faulty and inaccurate.

We know that trained professionals trying hard can be up to 30% off on caloric in and 50% off on caloric out.

So, someone says they are carefully measuring everything and consume 1500 calories and burn 1800 for a few days. Yet the scale shows they gained weight. Why? In reality they may have consumed anywhere from 1050 to 1950 calories and burned anywhere from 900 to 2700 calories. So, they easily could have been off enough to cause the weight gain.

Then the next few days they say they consume 1800 calories and burn only 1500 but they lost weight. Why? In reality, they may have consume anywhere from 1260 to 2340 calories and burned anywhere from 750 calories to 2250 and could have easily been off enough to lose weight.

In addition, someone creates a caloric deficit for a few days but in doing so they also eat a unusually high level of sodium for them and they retain 4 lbs of water for the few days. In spite of their caloric deficit, they gained weight.

Again, trying harder to micromanage the system does not correct the inherent faults.

The best solution is to abandon this faulty and inaccurate system and follow the principles of calorie density and making the adjustments to the principles as necessary based on the individual situation.


In Health
Jeff

[JeffN]

I wonder if these studies were only done on MEN, who have faster metabolisms than women.

These studies were done on men and women.

Besides, if any women thinks she is that different and in that supposed "place" of "slowed down metabolism" then just stop eating completely for a few days and see what happens. They will lose weight 100%. No exceptions.

Also women are geared to have metabolisms that would protect babies they might be carrying and I wouldn't be surprised if that changes things a lot.

This is true, but it never interferes with the fact that if you create a calorie deficit, the person doing so will lose weight.

Lets say for example that a woman's body can adjust 10% (just for arguments sake). So, because of this adjustment that they have not accounted for, they are not losing weight.

So, they were eating 1600 calories and burning 1750 and though they had a deficit. But, their body adjust 10% and instead of burning 1750 calories they were only burning 1575 and so not losing weight. Makes sense.

Ok, so, they are now only burning 1575 and consuming 1600 calories. How do they fix this? By eating more? Of course not.

They have to modify the balance of the equation by eating less, burning more or a little of both. And, because of the adjustment for being a women, it just means they may have to work a little harder at it or create a slightly bigger deficit then they first thought. It does not mean that the principles of energy balance, thermodynamics and physic do not apply to them.

Eating more will never fix this (unless they burn enough to cover the extra calories then eat and then some).

In Health
Jeff

[Melinda]

I think this is a good reason to avoid the scale, and to give less power to it. You will know when you are losing weight when your clothes are looser. Scales can sometimes disappoint someone so much that they go off their eating plan.

[JeffN]

I think this is a good reason to avoid the scale, and to give less power to it. You will know when you are losing weight when your clothes are looser. Scales can sometimes disappoint someone so much that they go off their eating plan.

I agree. Though, I think there is some benefit in weighing yourself occasionally while losing weight as it will give you some marker as to your progress. And, in spite of all the theories and methods people try to use to monitor how they are doing, the scale is the simplest and easiest tool and method. However, over weighing oneself is not a good idea due to all the above issues I mentioned.

I think once a week at most is more than enough to weigh oneself. It gives enough time between weighing where the daily issues/fluctuations won;t matter and where one can see some progress.

In Health
Jeff

[slugmom]

I'm not trying to argue, I really would like to understand all this. I honestly thought, all this time, that there was some level of intake that wasn't *not eating* (not fasting, total abstaining from food) but was just under what the body really needed that caused your metabolism to slow down some ... and that was what was wrong with 'yo-yo dieting', in part - that each time you yoed down you'd slow your metabolism ... and that somehow part of how McDougalling worked was by feeding your body 'clean fuels' as opposed to fatty greasy refined fuels, your metabolism kicked back up.

SO. I understand what you're saying, but ...

what about the section in the MWL book where he talks about why you really couldn't eat too many potatoes? That you'd really need to eat *way* in excess before it started packing on fat?

If it's about calorie density, and you keep your foods under - what was it you've said, 600 cal/lb - the threshold where you consistently see weight loss ... is it still possible to overeat those foods?

It sounds like you're saying all the weighing and measuring and calorie calculations don't work because they're too imprecise, and that it really comes down to getting less even though you can't accurately measure and figure out what less is.

But ... okay, I'm ~135 lbs. Rough estimate of basal metabolic rate would be 1350 then, right? A large potato is ~298 calories. It wouldn't be that hard for me to eat 6 a day. That would be ~1700 calories. So unless I exercised away the difference I would gain weight if I ate 6 potatoes a day? If I ate 8 a day?

Again, I'm really not trying to be argumentative. I just don't understand. All this time and in reading the MWL book I thought there was more to it than JUST the 'trick' that MWL foods are nutrient dense but low in calories. That I could truly go ahead and eat freely of MWL foods and lose weight until I was down to about where my body should be.

(yes, I know, MWL encourages at least 1/3 green and yellow veggies ... but I thought there was an 'even if you just ate potatoes you'd lose weight' argument in there)

I understand you're saying we don't need to weigh and measure because it doesn't really give us all that accurate info and we get bogged down in micromanaging irrelevant details. But. I guess I'm still confused on this and feel disillusioned.

If it's really just all about the calories, why NOT try to eat as little as possible to lose weight faster?

[Reikiman]

I always try to eat enough calories to get within a couple hundred Kcal of my basal metabolic rate in order to spare as much lean tissue from being metabolized as possible. Am I recommending that you should count calories? Nope. Will address why you don't need to worry about it below.

On this particular program I have opted to EXCEED my BMR. This is the better way to go because it is a very low-fat lifestyle, and since the body has to expend additional calories converting carbohydrate to fat- if you follow all the guidelines- it is virtually impossible to not lose weight. This principle works because the body 'resists' expending its own energy converting carbohydrate to fat. The process is way too involved to write out, but it is an important concept to understand that the body has a natural 'resistance' to expend its own energy in an effort to create additional energy stores (fat). Hope this makes sense- I'm trying

Guess the bottom line here is that I believe it is better to adopt this program as a long term lifestlye- and eat more rather than less so you don't burn too large a percentage of muscle tissue as fuel. I personally believe that ones body will just naturally 'settle' at a level of food that will not only meet BMR requirements, but tends to go a little higher to protect the lean tissue- so you really don't need to count calories or worry about how much (approved) food you are eating. This 'innate' ability within the body will allow you to lose weight rapidly at first, and more slowly towards the end, but eventually will 'settle' itself at ones ideal weight. I also believe that the body's 'innate' ability' to 'settle' on an appropriate level of food is enhanced with regular moderate exercise. Although this is a hypothetical principle, my opinion is that the body has some sort of biofeedback mechanism that tells the appetite control mechanism what to do. In other words, if a person that is 50 pounds overweight goes for a long walk- the body will say to the appestat 'Hey, this guy is carrying a lot more weight than he should. It's bad for my joints and organs. Make sure he eats less.' The beauty of exercise is that it not only improves this 'innate' ability to reach an appropriate caloric setpoint, but it also helps to spare muscle tissue from being used for fuel- and in most cases will increase lean tissue when done regularly.

So anyways- to FINALLY answer your question, the reason you should eat more rather than less is so you spare your muscle tissue from being 'eaten' by the body for fuel. Muscle tissue burns a great deal of calories, and the more you have- the faster you will lose weight- and the easier it will be to maintain an ideal weight once you reach your goals. I know this has been a pretty 'convoluted' post without a lot of focus- but hope it helps

[JeffN]

It sounds like you're saying all the weighing and measuring and calorie calculations don't work because they're too imprecise, and that it really comes down to getting less even though you can't accurately measure and figure out what less is.

Correct.

If you have not read these threads, then I highly encourage you to re-read them.

http://www.drmcdougall.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=7419

http://www.drmcdougall.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=9962

If it's really just all about the calories, why NOT try to eat as little as possible to lose weight faster?

Because only the "weight" is about energy balance/calories. There are still other concerns we need to deal with including hunger, satiety, nutrient intake, bone density, muscle tissue, etc.

So, yes, in regard to weight, it is just all about the calories. But health is not about just weight and that is why I would not recommend an approach such as just eat as little as possible, that just focuses on and tries to solve the weight issue ASAP.

In Health,
Jeff

[JeffN]

Yo-Yo dieting does not negatively effect metabolism. In fact, over 90% of those in the National Weight Control Registry, were long term yo-yo dieters who have now successfully lost and kept their weight off.


Diabetes Obes Metab. 2007 May;9(3):379-85. Weight cycling in a very low-calorie diet programme has no effect on weight loss velocity, blood pressure and serum lipid profile.

BACKGROUND: Many dieters lose and regain weight many times. It is unclear whether weight cycling is associated with adverse metabolic alterations or becomes more difficult with each attempt. METHODS: From 1988 to 2000, 2474 obese patients enrolled in our outpatient weight loss programme using a very low-calorie diet. Caloric intake consisted of meal replacement supplying 700-800 cal/day. RESULTS: Our search distinguished 480 patients who had restarted the weight reduction programme at least once and up to four times (restarts). All subjects remained on the programme for 2 weeks or more each time. Mean initial weight loss was 21.3 kg for women and 28.8 kg for men. Rate of weight loss on first restart was not different from initial weight loss for women [1.6 vs. 1.4 kg/week; not significant (NS)] or for men (2.2 vs. 2.1 kg/week; NS). Of the 480 patients, 85 women and 51 men entered the programme three times. Rate of weight loss was similar for all three entries (1.4, 1.6 and 2.1 kg/week for first, second and third entry in women, NS; 2.1, 2.1 and 2 kg/week for men, NS). Only 20 women and 18 men entered the programme four times. The rate of weight loss was again similar for both men (NS) and women (NS) during each re-entry. Cardiovascular risk factors including lipid profile and blood pressure were not adversely affected by weight cycling. In fact, lipid levels were lower at each restart. CONCLUSIONS: The present study refutes the hypothesis that repeated dieting makes further dieting efforts more difficult. PMID: 17391166

Int J Eat Disord. 1996 Jan;19(1):5-12.Effects of weight cycling on the resting energy expenditure and body composition of obese women.

OBJECTIVE: Numerous reports have suggested that cycles of weight loss and regain (i.e., weight cycling) are associated with adverse health consequences, a concern that may lead some obese individuals to forgo weight control efforts. The present study examined whether weight cycling was associated with a reduction in resting energy expenditure (REE) and with increases in both total and upper body fat. METHOD: REE, body composition, and body fat distribution were measured before and after weight loss, and following full weight regain, in 12 women who before treatment had a mean (+/- SEM) age of 38.8 +/- 3.4 years and weight of 98.0 +/- 3.2 kg. RESULTS: At the end of treatment, patients lost 18.9 +/- 2.6 kg which was comprised of significant decreases in body fat and fat-free mass of 15.2 +/- 2.2 and 3.7 +/- 0.8 kg, respectively (both ps < .001). REE also fell during this time from 1,631 +/- 82 to 1,501 +/- 51 kcal/d (p < .03). All of these measures, however, returned to their baseline values when patients regained their lost weight. Body fat distribution was unchanged throughout the study. DISCUSSION: These results do not support claims that weight cycling adversely affects REE, body composition, or body fat distribution. PMID: 8640202

Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 1995 Sep;19 Suppl 3:S46-50. Is weight cycling detrimental to health? A review of the literature in humans.

"Weight cycling has been hypothesized to have deleterious metabolic, behavioral and health consequences. The majority of clinical studies in humans do however not support the hypothesis that weight cycling per se influences the amount of velocity of subsequent weight loss. Both natural and experimental weight cycling studies have failed to demonstrate permanent alterations of body composition or body fat distribution. Studies found little evidence that weight cycling affects resting energy expenditure."


J Am Diet Assoc. 1993 Sep;93(9):1025-30. Metabolic and anthropometric changes in female weight cyclers and controls over a 1-year period.

OBJECTIVE: Women who diet to lose weight often regain the weight over time, and the cycle repeats itself. The objective of this study was to identify a group of female weight cyclers and to match them with a control group who had never consciously tried to lose weight. For 1 year, weight patterns, eating habits, metabolic parameters, and body composition were assessed to determine whether there was a relationship between weight cycling and these variables. DESIGN: Measurements were done at baseline and at 6 and 12 months. Changes in weight, diet, and exercise were monitored throughout the year. SETTING: All testing was done at a university physiology laboratory. SUBJECTS/SAMPLES: Nine weight cyclers with a notable history of dieting and food restriction were recruited. Subsequently, nine control subjects were selected and matched for age, height, weight, lean body mass, and exercise habits. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: The observational study included measures of 3-day diet records, skinfold and girth, serum glucose, insulin and triiodothyronine, and resting energy expenditure. STATISTICAL ANALYSES PERFORMED: The main variables were analyzed using a 2 x 3 (diet group x time) analysis of variance with repeated measures on the time factor. Comparison of the means was done by Tukey post hoc test. RESULTS: A 7-point satisfaction scale indicated that the weight cyclers were dissatisfied with their weight compared with the noncyclers (P = .03). Otherwise, there were no differences between groups in dietary intakes or the physiologic variables. APPLICATIONS/CONCLUSIONS: In the parameters measured, a history of weight cycling did not affect the metabolic profiles of the weight cyclers compared with the noncyclers. PMID: 8360407


Now, you may see some studies where weight cycling does appear to increase body weight over time, but that is because when you look closer at the subjects who are gaining weight over time, they are actually eating more, usually binging more, and moving less with each repeated cycle.

In Health
Jeff

[Suebee]

What good news Jeff. All these years I've thought it's better that I stay at this weight because yo-yo dieting is so damaging. I'm so glad they have continued to do research on this subject and even happier that you are on top of this so that you can inform us of all the misinformation we have lived with for so many years. I'm sure I'm not going to be the only one jumping up and down with glee.
You've made my day. Thank you!

[JeffN]

What good news Jeff. All these years I've thought it's better that I stay at this weight because yo-yo dieting is so damaging. I'm so glad they have continued to do research on this subject and even happier that you are on top of this so that you can inform us of all the misinformation we have lived with for so many years. I'm sure I'm not going to be the only one jumping up and down with glee.
You've made my day. Thank you!

Let me add to this then...

The ONLY negative effects from yo-yo dieting are from the "methods" of dieting. In other words, as long as all your attempts to diet are done through a healthy eating and exercise program, then there are no negative effects and there may even be some benefit (i will find the references) . However, if your attempts to lose weight are through unhealthy diets, diet pills, laxatives, binging/purging, etc etc, then there can be negative consequences but not so much for the yo-yo effect but from the methods causing the yo-yo effect

Bottom line...

Keep trying.. and keep trying in a healthy way.

In Health
Jeff

[JeffN]

In other words, as long as all your attempts to diet are done through a healthy eating and exercise program, then there are no negative effects and there may even be some benefit (i will find the references) .

Here they are..

In Health
Jeff

The following is a conversation I had with some professional RDs about this topic and I am reprinting it here word for word.....

As I know this is a topic that seems to evoke lots of responses, at many levels, I thought I would take the time to reprint some points from the article,and make some comments, in case anyone wants to dicuss them

And, as I have noted before here on this list many times, I do want to acknowledge that I agree that there are some really bad diets out there and that many people have really bad experiences with diets and many people who do some crazy/dangerous things to lose weight, and there are even some of us (health professionals) that recommend really bad diets........,

but....... that doesnt mean that "all" dieting is bad, or that "dieting" per see is bad or my recommending a very healthy, high carbohydrate, high fiber, nutrient dense and filling meal that "they" will like, for someone trying to lose weight, is somehow insanity. In fact, it seems to me that the article supports such a recommendation.

The article clearly states exactly that..."Among these adolescent dieters, a significant percentage report unhealthy or dangerous weight-loss methods, including use of diet pills, fasting, skipping meals, or using very-low-calorie diets (Table 2). Dieting can be associated with both positive and negative consequences. Dieting adolescents report more health-promoting behavior, such as increasing fruit and vegetable intake, decreasing fat intake, and increasing exercise;"

It also noted that most all the negative consequences of dieting were associated with the these "dangerous" diet habits and not healthy dieting. However, somehow, we want to throw all attempts to diet out. To me, this seems to argue not against dieting, but against unhealthy dietary practices.

I agree.

It says that many of the physical problems are associated with diets that are too low in calories and or the low carb, high fat/protein diets....

"The common theme in many of the reports of morbidity and/ or mortality related to dieting practices is the use of diets that induce ketosis (very-low-calorie diets or low-carbohydrate/high-fat diets)."

And, it was the same for the negative psychological consequences also....

" The most negative patterns of psychosocial and health behavior were found among frequent dieters and purgers.."

And

" Seventy-four percent of patients with bulimia attributed the development of their eating disorder to the inability to maintain a low-carbohydrate diet, leading to carbohydrate craving and subsequent cycles of binging and purging.30 "

That's why I don't recommend a low calorie or a low carb diet nor did I the other day.

I am posting the summary/conclusion and the section of positive aspects of dieting at the end of my post for those who don't have time to go to the article. In the light of all the negative about dieting on this list, I think they are important. And, as most of the negative comments about dieting is in relation to working with the obese, i find the following comments from the article most interesting...

"Dieting and weight loss in obese teens have several potentially positive health outcomes. "

I do not see this article in anyway as "anti" dieting, or "anti" trying to help people eat better. In fact, it recommends in its conclusion... "When weight loss is necessary, the most appropriate method remains modest caloric restriction incorporating a balanced intake of macronutrients and micronutrients, along with increased physical activity. "

All these points support the recommendations I made the other day here and at other times, and my concern with the other recommendations that were made.

Dieting is not bad. Dieting can be very positive.

Regards

Jeff


From the article...

Psychologic and Physiologic Effects of Dieting in Adolescents SOUTHERN MEDICAL JOURNAL • Vol. 95, No. 9

POSITIVE CONSEQUENCES OF DIETING
Despite potential dire outcomes with improper use, positive health consequences are associated with moderate dieting behavior in adolescents. Moderate dieters, those using all dieting methods except vomiting, diet pills, and extreme calorie-restriction, reported more health-promoting behavior than their nondieting and extreme-dieting (those vomiting or using diet pills) counterparts.9,10 Moderate dieters had increased fruit and vegetable intake, a lowered fat intake, and increased physical activity when compared with the other 2 groups. Those trying to lose weight are more likely to decrease servings of high-fat meats and dessert foods and increase days of hard exercise, compared with nondieters.11 Dieting and weight loss in obese teens have several potentially positive health outcomes. Insulin
resistance, hyperinsulinemia, and high cholesterol levels decrease with weight reduction in obese adolescents.5,19 Escobar et al19 found that altered hepatic insulin clearance in obese children was reversible with weight loss, resulting in near-normalization of serum insulin levels. In addition to correction of abnormal results of serum chemistry tests and insulin resistance, weight loss in morbidly obese subjects decreases upper-airway obstructive symptoms and improves sleep function.5 Although energy restriction with moderate dieting has been associated with decreased linear growth, the decreased linear growth velocity is temporary and not associated with permanent stunting.20 A multidisciplinary weight-reduction (calorie restriction with moderate exercise) program for obese adolescents showed that the majority of subjects were able to sustain normal growth velocity while effectively decreasing body
weight.21

SUMMARY
Approximately 60% of adolescent females and 25% of adolescent males have dieted at some point in their lives (Table 1). Among these adolescent dieters, a significant percentage report unhealthy or dangerous weight-loss methods, including use of diet pills, fasting, skipping meals, or using very-low-calorie diets (Table 2). Dieting can be associated with both
positive and negative consequences. Dieting adolescents report more health-promoting behavior, such as increasing fruit and vegetable intake, decreasing fat intake, and increasing exercise; however, dieting in adolescence is also associated with increased health-risk behavior,
such as alcohol and tobacco use, delinquency, and suicide attempts. Additionally, dieting is often undertaken by adolescents who are not above the ideal or normal body weight for their age and physical stature.

Dieting appears to have more negative than positive consequences on the psychologic health of adolescents. Adolescent weight-loss behavior is associated with poor body image, negative psychosocial risk factors, and possibly decreased coping mechanisms, leading to decreased self-esteem. A strong correlation between dieting and the onset of eating disorders exists. One of the most alarming issues regarding dieting is the report of associated mortality. While many of the reports are anecdotal and the majority of patients diet without sequelae, scientific data support potential adverse physiologic consequences of dieting and weight loss, including loss of electrolytes, minerals and trace metals, histologic changes of the myocardium, as well as the potential adverse effects of free fatty acids on myocardial function. Alterations of electrolytes (sodium, potassium, magnesium, and calcium), minerals, and trace metals may be related to decreased intake (anorexia, deficient diets) or increased losses from the gastrointestinal tract (bulimia or laxative use) and the kidneys (ketosis).

Given all of the potential consequences of dieting and its associated behaviors, obesity prevention should be the primary intervention point, with improved education of parents, adolescents, and children regarding appropriate eating patterns and behaviors. When weight loss
is necessary, the most appropriate method remains modest caloric restriction incorporating a balanced intake of macronutrients and micronutrients, along with increased physical activity. Considering the previous reports of serious cardiac sequelae, very-low-calorie diets or
ketogenic diets should be undertaken only under a physician’s direct supervision, with a pre-diet ECG and frequent cardiac monitoring during the course of the diet. The common theme in many of the reports of morbidity and/ or mortality related to dieting practices is the use of diets that induce ketosis (very-low-calorie diets or low-carbohydrate/high-fat diets). With very-low-calorie diets, ketosis is induced by inadequate caloric intake and fatty-acid mobilization, while with low-carbohydrate diets, ketosis is induced by decreased insulin-release.When such diets are followed without supplementation, alterations of electrolytes, minerals, and trace elements may result in Q-T prolongation and the potential for cardiac dysrhythmias.

[Quiver0f10]

SO. I understand what you're saying, but ...

what about the section in the MWL book where he talks about why you really couldn't eat too many potatoes? That you'd really need to eat *way* in excess before it started packing on fat?

If it's about calorie density, and you keep your foods under - what was it you've said, 600 cal/lb - the threshold where you consistently see weight loss ... is it still possible to overeat those foods?


But ... okay, I'm ~135 lbs. Rough estimate of basal metabolic rate would be 1350 then, right? A large potato is ~298 calories. It wouldn't be that hard for me to eat 6 a day. That would be ~1700 calories. So unless I exercised away the difference I would gain weight if I ate 6 potatoes a day? If I ate 8 a day?

I'd love to see the above sections answered, because I too have found that if I eat too many potaoes, rice, oats etc, even with eating only MWL foods in addition to the starches, that I will not lose weight and even have gained. I consistantly have to resort back to calorie counting to lose.

[JeffN]

I'd love to see the above sections answered, because I too have found that if I eat too many potaoes, rice, oats etc, even with eating only MWL foods in addition to the starches, that I will not lose weight and even have gained. I consistantly have to resort back to calorie counting to lose.

In the end, calories will always "count" but the problems is just "counting" calories is ineffective because 1) we have very poor tools that are highly inaccurate to count calories with, 2) it eventually and almost always leads to portion control, which leads to hunger, which leads to binging, 3) there are many other factors that may influence the daily fluctuations in weight that we have no way to control for (fluid balance, etc), Even fecal content of the bowels can cause a weight change of several pounds when eliminated if elimination is not regular.

There is just no way to micro manage all these details on a daily basis and that is why trying to micro-manage energy balance on a daily basis is virtually impossible. Some days it will not make any sense and some days it may make too much sense.

This is why calorie density is the much better approach. MWL is based on calorie density. However, the MWL does not recommend living on just starches and gives recommendations for those who are finding the basic recommendations not enough for them to lose weight. We are all individuals and may have different levels of activity, exercise, NEAT, etc. and have to make adjustments accordingly. I reviewed some of these in a recent thread. One of the main recommendations is to increase the volume of vegetables in all your starch based meals to 1/3 to 1/2 of the volume of the plate/bowl.

In regard to calorie density, in my lectures, I say that the group that kept the calorie density of the meals below 400 calories per pound (not 600) all lost weight. Most starches are 500-600 calories per pound with oatmeal being the only exception I know of at around 325. I also say that in the 400-600 calories per pound group, some gained, some lost and some maintained all depending on activity levels, body size, etc. However, these are not cut and dry lines and are taken from averages in studies and may vary slightly depending on the individual.

What doesn't vary is the laws of physics, energy balance and thermodynamics.

I would recommend that instead of calorie counting, lower the caloric density of your meals even further and take into account the other adjustments I recommended in the other recent thread.

In Health
Jeff