Everyday Systems

I have been absent for two months. Of all things, episode 686 arrived on my Facebook page this afternoon. I thought some might be interested in the Jimmy Moore podcast since Reinhard was interviewed a few years back.

http://www.thelivinlowcarbshow.com/shownotes/

Enjoy the "banter" between Dr. McDougall and Jimmy Moore.

O43

I clicked on the link and listened to the podcast but it was mostly a discussion of a high fat low carb book. I was interested in hearing Dr McDoougall since I did his program for several years but never did find him on the podcast. What did I do wrong?

Jammin' Jan wrote:I clicked on the link and listened to the podcast but it was mostly a discussion of a high fat low carb book. I was interested in hearing Dr McDoougall since I did his program for several years but never did find him on the podcast. What did I do wrong?

If you scroll down to 686 there's a picture of Dr. McDougall. Below that there's a bar that you can click to play the podcast. It did take a minute to show up.

Okay, thanks, I'll go look for that. I'm on an iPod so I don't always see everything.

Wow, I really enjoyed listening to that! Dr. McDougall was contentious, confrontational and personally insulting. He misrepresented the "large successful" population studies he like to cite so often and also his own program. Jimmy Moore was a gracious and well-mannered host.

I much prefer No-S moderation to either camp. It is a reasonable approach to eating.

Thank you so much for posting this. Personally, because of my own history, it was very meaningful to me.

BrightAngel wrote:
McDougal came across as
a prejudiced, know-it-all, judgmental, opiniated, uncaring and rude medical doctor,
with little understanding of the basic personal dynamics of obese people.

Jammin' Jan wrote:Wow, I really enjoyed listening to that! Dr. McDougall was contentious, confrontational and personally insulting.

You both said pretty much what I was thinking; the only thing I could think to say was "offensive."

I do agree that throughout the world people have relied on a starch-based diet for thousands of years. But to one degree or another they've also relied more on meat, dairy, eggs, and fats than he would like to acknowledge.

Until relatively recently in human history (about 100 years) people ate seasonally and locally. What accompanied the grains (or what the grains accompanied) depended on what was available and affordable. Depending on the time of year, it was more of one thing, less of another.

Don't think I could listen to the whole thing, but I scrolled down below it and saw the blurb for an interview with a supposed eating disorder specialist who claims "virtually anyone can overcome carbohydrate addiction in just a matter of days with a simple dietary intervention." Hoo, I want to buy stock in that. I can't say what she's promising, but it kills me what people claim is "simple." Unless your motivation is extremely high, or you are an incredibly rational human being, there is nothing simple about permanently changing food habits. Baumeister of Willpower fame says it is right up there with heroin and cocaine for difficulty in habit change.

I think, while either diet can work, it takes a very focused individual to do either. I'm not sure the case for moderation is taken with either approach and in his book Dr. McDougall writes that you can eat all the types of food he endorses, as much as you want, without repercussions. Although, I wouldn't look forward to such bland meals for long.

Having noted that, when I did hard core Atkins, I got sick of steak. So, again for me, moderation appears to be the best option. I seem to not be able to do all or nothing eating plans.

What I think both diets have in common, and Jimmy Moore seemed to be trying to direct the conversation in that way, was that primitive cultures get fat eating refined foods and soft drinks. Dr. McDougall didn't seem to want to have anything to do with that course of questioning. However, I can't imagine him sitting down to a plate of doughnuts and bear claws.

I think both men missed something: it's not only what people eat but what they DON'T eat that is important.

Michael Pollan wrote: Populations that eat a so-called Western diet -- generally defined as a diet consisting of lots of processed foods and meat, lots of added fat and sugar, lots of refined grains, lots of everything except vegetables, fruits, and whole grains -- invariably suffer from high rates of the so-called Western diseases: obesity, type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and cancer. Virtually all of the obesity and type 2 diabetes, 80 percent of the cardiovascular disease and more than a third of all cancers can be linked to this diet.

Bold italics mine.

If grocery carts are any indication there are a lot of people whose diets are exactly like Pollan describes.

I don't happen to believe that refined grains are evil. Asians have been eating white rice and those along the Mediterranean and in northern Europe have been eating refined grains for many, many years. However, they have also included vegetables, fruits, and other whole grains in their diets. They aren't diets made up exclusively of refined grains and processed foods. Most also use sugar -- but it's not in everything. A couple of years ago I picked up a package of sausage and looked at the ingredients. Not only was sugar included, it was in the top 5 ingredients.

Our low-fat phase hasn't helped. When fat is removed from foods, many times "modified food starch" is added to make the texture similar to the higher fat version of the food. Many of these foods are eaten quite liberally because they're "low-fat."

We're getting far more sugar and refined grains in our foods than we're aware of. It all adds up.

We're very black/white in our beliefs about food. I think these two men are perfect examples of that. If a lot of something (sugar, saturated fat) is bad, then so is a little. It has to be some evil nutrient, not just over-consumption of these things. Or the fact that we're not eating other foods.

We're also dietary extremists. Many people believe that you have to do something extreme in order to lose weight or be healthy. Also, I think many people are not only looking for but believe that these extreme diets will provide insurance or a guarantee that they will avoid the diseases associated with the Western diet. There are no guarantees.

When people switch to either of these kinds of diets, most give up or consume much less processed foods*. I think this might be a case of not being able to see the forest for the trees. When you eat more of one thing, you eat less of another. If you're eating more real food (vegetables, fruits, whole grains and, yes, even meat), you're eating less of the highly processed foods. Maybe it's not only what you are eating, but what you aren't eating that is beneficial.

(*I have a problem with the term "processed foods." When you peel or cook a carrot, for example, you've processed it. I think the real problem lies with highly processed, hyper-refined manufactured foods.)

So I guess I'm also arguing for moderation.

The Master called it.

"Why are other diets so lousy?

Most diets today can be divided into two categories:

Pseudoscientific forbidden foods diets that pretend that you can go on being a glutton as long as you confine your gluttony to a particular class of foods while completely excluding others (no agreement on what these particular kinds of foods are, of course).

Diets that require you to be a full time calorie accountant." Reinhard Engels.

When we talk about a diet working, we have to define our terms: does it take weight off or does it lead to a permanent change in eating habits that maintains weight loss? I prefer the second definition. Honestly, very few programs are successful by that standard. To my mind, that is even more of a reason to use No S. Why use what you consider to be torture when it has such a huge failure rate at being sustainable? Disclaimer: having a real health condition should trump everything, IMHO. But I don't have one. If one arises, so be it; I'll consider my options then.

wosnes wrote:Our low-fat phase hasn't helped. When fat is removed from foods, many times "modified food starch" is added to make the texture similar to the higher fat version of the food. Many of these foods are eaten quite liberally because they're "low-fat."

Ugh! I wish I never went through this phase. It really messed me up. I was 15 and right at that impressionable age when this phase was popular. Looking back, I probably didn't consume much less of any calories, and consumed a lot more sugar. Maybe that is why I'm a sugar addict as an adult.

I was a sugar "addict" long before the low-fat admonitions. My older brother is a sweet freak and has always been slim, never followed any fad. But yeah, low fat didn't help. But I don't believe the majority really stuck to it. I think they were mostly like I was: eating compliant meals and then overdoing it on something blatantly non-compliant, like people who won't have a piece of wheat toast but will have cake.

oolala53 wrote:I was a sugar "addict" long before the low-fat admonitions. My older brother is a sweet freak and has always been slim, never followed any fad. But yeah, low fat didn't help. But I don't believe the majority really stuck to it. I think they were mostly like I was: eating compliant meals and then overdoing it on something blatantly non-compliant, like people who won't have a piece of wheat toast but will have cake.

Yeah, wheat toast = carbs (not allowed); low-fat cake = allowed.

I've decided not to engage in diet discussions any more with friends or family. It takes too much energy and is rarely positive. I can only really change me, anyway. It's when people see that change that good things can happen.

I don't think the low-fat phase has passed at all, but I'm not sure if weight or health is the primary issue for most folks. I still see a lot of recipes that call for reduced- or fat-free products.

leafy_greens wrote:

oolala53 wrote:I was a sugar "addict" long before the low-fat admonitions. My older brother is a sweet freak and has always been slim, never followed any fad. But yeah, low fat didn't help. But I don't believe the majority really stuck to it. I think they were mostly like I was: eating compliant meals and then overdoing it on something blatantly non-compliant, like people who won't have a piece of wheat toast but will have cake.

Yeah, wheat toast = carbs (not allowed); low-fat cake = allowed.

I remember the early nineties and every staff meeting someone would bring the awful carrot cake. Somehow we got duped into thinking it was healthy.

"I remember the early nineties and every staff meeting someone would bring the awful carrot cake. Somehow we got duped into thinking it was healthy."

Somehow we got duped into thinking it was good!