Marla's CRON-o-meter Chronicle

[Chile]

As I've discussed off-the-board with Marla, I really appreciate this journal and her photos. I tend to make more elaborate food than pictured, similar to the richer recipes she posted years ago on her old recipe site. However, I can and do occasionally go for the simpler meals, too. They are often just as tasty thanks to flavorful fresh produce and wholesome ingredients, even if they don't prove as exciting as heavily spiced or seasoned dishes.

What I have found since she started posting these photos is that my dinners are gravitating more towards what she shows. More steamed vegetables are crowding my "main dish" - usually a higher calorie density dish - onto a smaller part of the plate. Perhaps it shouldn't be surprising that a few pounds have begun falling off this month. It's too bad that Dr. McDougall regrets publishing the Maximum Weight Loss book. I think it presents valuable information about female physiology and weight loss, and many of us benefit from following his suggestion to increase the ratio of vegetables to starch. As Marla has stated time and again this month, her current menu is filling and satisfying. She does not seem to be sacrificing satiety just for the sake of lower calorie density foods.

[Marla]

Chile,

Thank you for your comments. And, congratulations on the weight loss. A big reason why I decided to post photos was to show the proportion of veggies to the "main dish" - not because I think anyone else should do this, but so that I could look back on it later and have a clear, visual record of what very low calorie density (but still starch-based) eating looks like. Well, this is how it looks when I do it; a person could also do it with soups or SNAP meals and it would look completely different.

I can't believe you found my old recipe site. I haven't had administrative access to it for years, so I can't modify it and I can't delete it! Someone told me that they served my zucchini-corn griddle cakes for breakfast at the last McDougall ASW.

[Marla]

Flashback: February 14

Well, I promised that I would post an example of a day when I consumed more calories than I needed while (in my mind!) following the McDougall program. This was Valentine's Day, February 14. Let me walk you through it.

February 14 was a day when I ate breakfast. It was a good breakfast; 1/2 cup (measured dry) of oats with half a banana and a few blueberries. I also had coffee with soymilk and 2 teaspoons of sugar.

I worked out on the treadmill for half an hour, covering about 2 miles. I was proud that I got some exercise even though I was very busy that day with a stressful time-sensitive project. Yay me!

For lunch I had my favorite big salad, plus a plate of crunchy potatoes like I usually have on Friday. Yep, I was being good. I didn't buy any sugary treats for myself at the supermarket, even though it was Valentine's Day and candy was in my face everywhere I went. We had agreed not to go out to dinner, but to have a special dinner at home. I decided that I would make a healthy, McDougall friendly dessert to go with our Valentine's Day dinner of homemade pizza. I also bought a bottle of wine (and candles....but we didn't eat those).

Sipping a little wine while making the pizza made me feel slightly less concerned about the homemade oil-free tortilla chips that I was nibbling on while working in the kitchen. It was okay....they were just whole corn tortillas, baked....and I didn't even eat that many.

While waiting for the pizza dough to rise, I made a nice, healthy dessert: blackberry cobbler. The recipe was mostly berries (which we all know are low in calories), along with a cup of whole-wheat flour and a modest half cup of sugar, plus a little soymilk to moisten it. Completely harmless.

I had just one slice of pizza for dinner (as I usually do), along with lots of steamed asparagus. By the end of dinner I had drunk 2 ordinary-sized glasses of wine, not that much. So, I had plenty of room for blackberry cobbler. I polished off a generous serving and then I went back into the kitchen and ate some more, directly from the pan -- just standing there spooning up cobbler. Before I knew it, 2/3 of the 8" x 8" square pan was gone. Well, an 8" x 8" pan is not that big. And it was mostly berries anyway, with no added fat. I went to bed feeling all virtuous for being so good and NOT having candy on Valentine's Day and NOT going out to eat, and even exercising! True, I had a cup of coffee in the morning....and wine and a few baked tortilla chips...but I'd stuck to a healthy dessert and had eaten well all day long and had plenty of green and yellow vegetables. The following morning, I entered my food into the CRON-o-meter.

OVER 2,800 CALORIES??

And guess how many calories were in that cobbler (the amount that I ate?) OVER NINE HUNDRED!! Oh my. Take a look:



Here is the CRON entry for the cobbler:



Holy heck! There is a reason why flour and sugar (except small amounts on your oatmeal, etc.) aren't allowed on MWL. Now, I admit, if I had eaten a small portion it would have been okay. But honestly....if you cut that cobbler into 9 squares.....I was never going to eat a portion that small. Ironically, the fact that I thought it was "healthy" and on-plan made me feel fine about eating more of it.

To top it all off, my "virtuous" 30 minutes on the treadmill didn't do all that much for me, since the rest of my day was fairly sedentary apart from normal activities. According to Fitbit I burned 1,775 calories that day:



So that is my tale of how I overate by more than 1,000 calories, all while thinking (at the time) that I was being compliant. It could have been so much worse, too, if my meals hadn't been as low in calorie density. It is clear to me how I could easily overeat on a regular basis, gain weight (or not lose), and wonder why. I just wanted to share because it was an "a-ha" moment for me.

By the way, before someone points it out, I know that alcohol and coffee (especially coffee with soymilk and sugar) aren't on plan. But for me, like for many of us, it is easy to sort of put these things in a separate category in our minds and remain in denial about them. We see our compliance in terms of the meals we eat, and make a mental exception for these little extra-curricular indulgences, as if they aren't part of our actual diet. Some of us are so good at this that we can rationalize things like the mini peanut butter cup someone put on our desk at work, the bite of cake we took just to be polite, the cookie that was part of the salad bar, the 3 or 4 potato chips stolen from someone else's plate....but as Dr. Greger says, "your body is never not looking!"

[Chile]

Marla, I'm sorry if linking to your old recipe site was disturbing to you! While thinking about it, though, what you're currently eating, what I usually eat, and comments about your food looking ordinary, I remembered a few more points from the MWL book. At least, I think that's where this memory is coming from...

One was mention that a meal with a lot of variety could lead to overeating. The other was that lots of spices or seasoning could also lead to overeating. The second one may have come from True North rather than the MWL book. In any case, it seems that simpler IS better if the focus is on weight loss. I think the same could be said even if the focus is on health rather than weight loss. After all, overeating is not a healthy behavior.

And your main dishes at dinner have not been ordinary fare every single day. Your curry looked delicious as did the enchiladas. Mmmm, both sound good and I just finished dinner. Yikes, perfect example right there of how delicious food can be dangerous.

[Trinity]

Marla, your chronicle is so impressive! I have always wanted to do something like this, but I lack the discipline required.

I hate to make this a post, but surely I can delete it after receiving a PM from Chile. Chile, I have tried to PM you and it's not going through. I was wondering: where does Dr. McDougall say that he regrets publishing his MWL book? Is it in a video or something? I was very surprised and curious when I read this on your post. Thanks!

[Marla]

Hi Trinity,

I don't mind this being discussed here -- it is an interesting topic. Thanks for your input and your kind comment.

I am aware of a couple of threads here where Dr. McDougall's ambivalent feelings about MWL have been mentioned (at least once by him directly).

Dr. M's buffet table at Santa Rosa looks to me like an eat to live buffet table with starches at the end of the line, after people have chosen greens, vegetables raw and cooked, and soups. If it were starch based it seems the starchy casseroles would be at the beginning of the line where people would choose these first. But I may be mistaken.

I have made that same conclusion and have often threatened to reverse the order on the buffet table so that people eat their salad last like I hear they do in Europe.

I teach the Maximum Weight Loss Program (an approach which emphasizes green and yellow vegetables) less enthusiastically than before because people do not do well in short and long term without the starch.

Short term they don't like the food as well, are hungry between meals, and have intestinal distress (gas and pain and upper acid indigestion).

Long term, without satisfaction delivered by starches, compliance falls off.

I believe in a starch-based diet -- green and yellow vegetables and salads are side dished.

JohnMcDougall, MD
http://drmcdougall.com//forums/viewtopi ... 24#p212124

See also

I have actually heard Dr. McDougall, at one of the ASW's. say he regretted devising the MWL plan as the confusion it caused was high. That doesn't mean it has no value. It does exactly what he says it does and had proven to be a godsend to many people. I just want to make sure that people following both camps understand and appreciate the value of both plans.

However you McDougall enjoy it.
http://drmcdougall.com/forums/viewtopic ... 15#p377004

I don't follow the MWL plan, but I know it very well, and I am surprised that it causes confusion. Eating lots of non-starchy vegetables is only one of its guidelines, and that particular guideline states: "Make green and yellow vegetables one-third to one-half of your meal." He also describes a modification termed the "hasty" approach, which involves eating two-thirds vegetables and one-third starch, but he clearly says "the hasty approach may result in very rapid weight loss, but may not be the wisest approach for permanent weight loss. You may find that satisfaction from the meals may be too low for long-term adherence. However, stoic people who love green and yellow vegetables may find this the best approach, for whatever period they prefer."

Equally important to the plan's effectiveness, however, is the fact that high-fat plant foods and flour products are eliminated, dried fruits are avoided, simple sugars are used very sparingly, and fresh fruits are limited to two per day. It is not just about eating raw and cooked non-starchy vegetables. I don't get the impression that Dr. McDougall "regrets" devising these other guidelines for those who need to lose weight; it is just the non-starchy vegetable rule that some people misunderstand or take too far.

"Stoic people who love green and yellow vegetables." Dr. McDougall has a wonderful sense of humor.

[Marla]

March 29

Saturday morning, I had a soy latte, even though my "rule" is that I can only have one on Sundays. Clearly I need to work on this.

For lunch, I had an Okinawan purple sweet potato! I have bought these in the past and do not think they taste much different from my usual white-fleshed sweet potatoes. This one was very sweet, creamy, and delicious. It was almost like a dessert.



Before I ate it, I had a big bowl of kale cooked in my Instant Pot, sprinkled with nutritional yeast and onion flakes. This time I used two bunches of kale, and that was enough to fill me up. You can see that it fills my big serving bowl, much the same way my salad usually does. I guess that is the volume I need in order to feel satisfied after lunch.



Dinner was Sweet and Sour Lentils (with pineapple - yummy!) and brown rice, plus steamed Chinese broccoli and Brussels Sprouts.



I ate 3.36 pounds of food, with a calorie density of 362 calories per pound. This is still low calorie density, but a little higher than it has been recently...I wonder why? I think it is because the kale with nutritional yeast only weighed .97 of a pound and had a calorie density of 232 calories per pound, whereas my usual salad (including dressing) weighs about one and a half pounds and has a calorie density of 136 calories per pound. I enjoy the salad more than the kale and feel more satisfied by it, actually. Maybe that is because it takes longer to eat and has more variety of textures and flavors. But I will continue to keep cooked greens in my lunch rotation from time to time, just for a change.

Everything looked good in the CRON-o-meter, despite me not adding flaxseed or a Brazil nut. Greens are amazing.

[Trinity]

Thank you, Marla, for the detailed explanation. That is very interesting. I think I may mention it to the folks I counsel as a SS certified instructor.

I can't wait to read the conclusion of your chronicle!

[Marla]

March 30

Sunday! I ate 3.94 pounds of food, with a calorie density of 307 calories per pound.

I started the day with a decaf soy latte, as I usually do on Sunday mornings. Then I went for a walk and enjoyed the beautiful, sunny spring weather we had today. It is supposed to be pouring with rain tomorrow...which we very much need in California's central valley.

For lunch I had my old standby, a salad that was approximately the size of Heathrow airport, followed by a baked Japanese sweet potato. I might be exaggerating slightly about the size of the salad. But not by much.



Dinner was leftover Sweet and Sour Lentils (just as good the second day), with brown rice, steamed red cabbage, and steamed Brussels sprouts. I am pretty full, so I plan to just have a mug of herbal tea tonight - no fruit.



Here's the CRON-o-meter report for today. I can't believe this journal is coming to an end. I plan to post my last day of food tomorrow evening, and then post my results the following morning. Have a healthy day everyone!

[baardmk]

Thanks for the vit.E information. The 0.4 rule in regard to PUFA is very helpful. I checked some typical foods and most of them surpassed that ratio, most of them by a very good margin. Of the foods I checked only potatoes came below at approx. 0.25-0.3. I'll read that fao article some time soon. Interesting stuff.

[Chile]

I need to make a trip to the big Asian supermarket here and see if they have any of these various sweet potatoes you're eating. The one time I was served the purple ones, they were very undercooked (read: still hard!) and extremely dry. That did not leave a positive impression in my mind but I'm willing to try them again when I'm the one doing the cooking.

One of my favorites ways to eat steamed kale is tossed with seasoned rice vinegar - the kind with the sugar and salt added for making sushi. Have you ever tried the kale with plain rice vinegar?

[Marla]

Hiya Chile,

I bake the Asian sweet potatoes for a long time - about an hour at 375-400F -- and then I turn the oven off and leave them in the oven until they cool down. When they have been baked and cooled, and then reheated, that's when they taste best. They are plenty moist. If I undercook them, they are more like you describe. That said, my DH prefers the orange fleshed kind, which I don't go crazy for unless they are in a recipe with other things (I dislike the stringy texture and earthy flavor).

Nope, have not tried kale with plain rice vinegar. I am sure it would be good. I know you also recommend kale tossed with lemon juice and chopped garlic, which sounds good too.

[Greens]

Marla, Thank you so much for posting all the pictures along with the nutritional info!!!! Brilliant. The visual is so very helpful. I am only a little over a year into this journey and looking at your month's posts is very, very helpful. Somehow the words do not have the same impact for me as the pictures. The combination of words and pictures is so much clearer. I always like the flavor of the foods since I started following Dr. M but am inspired to plate them with more attention to "eating first with the eyes." Thanks for the inspiration!

[Marla]

3,500 Calories = a pound....or does it?

Have you ever heard of Wishnofsky's Rule? No? But I bet you've heard the familiar idea that overeating by 3,500 calories equates to a pound of body weight gained, and undereating by 3,500 calories equates to a pound of body weight lost. This is the formula people are referring to when they say that you can lose a pound a week by eating 500 fewer calories per day (assuming you are currently at a stable weight). The 3,500 calorie equation was published in 1958, and named after researcher Max Wishnofsky.

If weight gain or loss involved only fat, an increase or decrease in energy intake of 4,090 kcal would result in the gain or loss of a pound. If it involved only protein (muscle), each pound gained or lost would require an increase or decrease of 1,820 kcal. Wishnofsky's Rule assumes that the gain or loss averages about 75% fat and 25% muscle, which gives us the figure of 3,500 calories per pound of body weight. On the surface, the rule provides a convenient estimate. It is still being used by physicians, popular weight loss programs, nutrition textbooks (I have a friend currently enrolled in a nutrition course, who confirmed this), and the online media.

However, the 3,500 calorie rule is not very accurate. Firstly, it doesn't take into account differences in sex, age, height, weight and body composition that translate into differences in metabolic rate. Secondly, it assumes that for a given reduction in caloric intake, body weight decreases in a linear fashion over time, which does not in fact occur. As an individual loses weight, energy expenditure drops due to decreased body mass: when you weigh less, you burn fewer calories, and your weight loss will slow down. Other metabolic adaptions to weight loss have also been proposed which may factor into this inevitable slowdown in weight loss as a person gets closer to his or her target weight. A paper published last year in the International Journal of Obesity compared predicted against actual weight loss in seven weight loss experiments conducted in confinement under total supervision or objectively measured energy intake, and found that "the majority of subjects exhibited substantially less weight loss than the amount predicted by the 3500-kcal rule" (http://www.nature.com/ijo/journal/v37/n ... 1351a.html). In 2011, a panel of experts convened by the American Society of Nutrition and the International Life Sciences Institute met and developed a consensus statement entitled “Energy Balance and Its Components: Implications for Body Weight Regulation,” which recommends that the 3,500 calorie rule should no longer be used (http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/95/4/989.full).

So it seems that the 3,500 calorie equation has now been replaced by "dynamic" energy balance models that take metabolic adaptation into account. These dynamic models supposedly yield much more realistic predictions of weight loss.

As I explained at the beginning of this journal, one of my objectives was to conduct an experiment on myself in order to learn whether I am, in fact, "normal" when it comes to my rate of weight loss. Short of undergoing metabolic testing, it seemed to me that the best way to find out would be to track my caloric intake and expenditure, and compare my weight change to what these standard models would predict. I do understand (as Jeff Novick has cautioned many times) that the tools and methods I have used to measure both "calories in" and "calories out" are inherently inaccurate, but I have done all I can to minimize the margin of error, and have weighed, measured, and tracked with the utmost diligence. Besides, this is all for fun and I am not taking the results too seriously.

Here, then, is a spreadsheet showing my caloric intake and expenditure for every day of this month; my average caloric deficit per day; and my predicted weight change based on the 3,500 calorie rule. It says I should have lost almost 9 pounds this month. Tomorrow I will fill in my final weight, and find out how my actual weight change compares to the prediction.



Here also, for comparison, is a graph generated by one of the more "realistic" dynamic models. It says I should have lost 6.3 pounds.



Whatever happens, it will be interesting!

[Marla]

March 31

My last CRON-o-meter report and meal pix for the month!

Today I consumed 3.61 pounds of food, with a calorie density of 297 calories per pound, and a deliciousness rating of 9.6 out of 10 (Okay, I'm getting silly now; I really do think it is time to quit).

With some difficulty, I resisted the urge to have coffee this morning. There is no doubt that this is an addiction and that having it once a week is still keeping me in the coffee pleasure trap. Every morning I wake up and debate whether I should have coffee or herbal tea....there shouldn't be any debate. So, I think the Sunday morning coffee is going to have to go.

For lunch I had my giant green salad with raw and cooked veggies, and half of a large baked Japanese sweet potato. I have to be careful with the large ones because I tend to eat the whole thing if I'm not thinking (and that would be more than I need).



For dinner, I made a lentil-millet loaf (based on the popular "Nofu loaf" enjoyed by many here). With it, I served mashed potatoes and chickpea gravy, plus steamed carrots and broccoli.



Once again, all nutritional targets were met without the need for added flaxseed or Brazil nuts. I still feel that I would like to add small amounts of both to my diet a few times per week as insurance (for Omega 3's and selenium, respectively).

It's been a really good month. Thanks for sharing the journey with me.