Why no fat?

[Calix]

Hello fellow travellers,

I'm about 6 weeks into McDougalling again and feeling great. I lost 50 lbs on MWL 10 years ago (I thought the section on "Have you lost too much weight?" was ridiculous until it happened to me!) and maintained it for about 5 years. Less vigilance in food choices, combined with no longer biking to work and becoming hypothyroid, did a whammy on my "bottom line." So here I am, ready to lose weight and feel better again. That is all my way of saying "I am not asking this question to challenge McDougall." I'm a huge believer in all things McDougall.

So, here's my question: Why does fat have to stay below 10% of calories eaten? If I am eating raw veggies and fruit, beans, potatoes, and whole grains and my overall calorie intake is low enough for weight loss (ie 1200-1500 per day), why is it important that my fat intake be less than 10%? Why should I worry about using a little spritz of olive oil on salad or in a saute pan?

I'm sure there is a reasonable explanation, probably related to lipogenesis and insulin levels. But I've looked in MWL book, searched the Forum and the site, but I can't seem to find the rationale for this part of the program. Can anyone provide references for me to learn from?

Thanks!

[stephanie]

I don't remember where exactly Dr. McD addresses this, but you might try checking out Caldwell Esselstyn's new book on heart disease. As a cardiologist, he is even more vigilant about no added fat/high-fat plant foods than Dr. McD, and he did a long-term study on heart disease reversal doing a low-fat vegan diet. I read it a month or two ago and found it very interesting.

Welcome back to McDougalling--glad to hear you're doing well!

Stephanie

[Carol]

Calix,

Welcome back to the "light" side.

Read Dr. McD's newsletter Aug 2006 (last 2 articles under Favorite Five).
http://www.drmcdougall.com/misc/2006nl/august/060800.htm

Fat makes us fat for one reason. Fat supresses our immune system for another reason. All the fat we need is found in the plant foods we consume, is yet another reason. As part of this program, he stresses limiting even the plant foods that are high in fat like nuts, avocados, coconut, tofu, etc. Fat is simply not a health food.

Personally, I have plenty on me that I would love to donate. HA! (OK, that was my attempt at bad McD humor).

[Poppy]

Hi Calix,
I'm so excited to see that you actually got to the point of losing too much weight... whenever I read the 'what if I've lost too much weight' I just can't imagine that ever, ever, being true of me!!! I lost a lot of weight many years ago, but now it seems a very distant memory I have 35 pounds to go.. I know it's not as bad as it could be, but it's still a challenge. I've lost 8lbs in just over two months. How long did it take you and how much did you lose? Sorry if I'm too nosy!!

[chrisv]

Hi Calix, welcome back to McDougalling. I am not familiar with a 'Have you lost too much weight?' section. Where can I find that? I thought medically less weight was better, if your diet is healthy.

[DianeR]

I am not familiar with a 'Have you lost too much weight?' section. Where can I find that? I thought medically less weight was better, if your diet is healthy.

I believe the reference is to this article:
http://www.nealhendrickson.com/mcdougal ... weight.htm

It is possible to be underweight and to have health issues because of that. Of course, telling if someone is underweight is another issue. Hence the Kempner chart in that article -- those healthy weights are below the standard BMI charts now in use. In other words, the whole "18.5 BMI is healthy, below that is unhealthy" conclusion you see on charts today isn't necessarily true.

Since I got down to a Kempner chart level -- and I was hearing back that some relatives thought I was too skinny and it wasn't healthy -- I did some research on this. I couldn't find an exact, optimum BMI or body fat percentage for health. The 18.5 cutoff is based on studies that are arguable (people might get sick, lose weight & then die -- this doesn't make the weight responsible for their death or indicate that a healthy person of that weight is endangered).

Body fat percentage is probably a better measure. There is a certain minimum amount called "essential fat" that one's body needs to function properly, which is higher for women.

The next level up is labeled "athletic," which probably isn't optimum if you aren't working out that way. Above that is "ideal" -- but I don't know if I agree. I like being at the athletic level

With my new and demanding exercise program in the last few weeks, I've put on several pounds, but my body fat percentage is down too. So I've just gained muscle (as shown by caliper measurement and the fact that the only size increase I see with a tape measure are my biceps). I'm now just at the bottom range of "normal weight" BMI, but no doubt healthier than I was before.

I guess what I'm saying is that you can't just look at the scale, you have to look at body composition and health. I'm on a celiac board and there are a number of people struggling to gain weight because they don't like the way they look, they feel cold all the time, they get colds all the time, they worry about osteoporosis, you name it. Losing excess fat is one thing; lacking essential body fat or losing muscle or bone is another.

[serenity]

So, here's my question: Why does fat have to stay below 10% of calories eaten? If I am eating raw veggies and fruit, beans, potatoes, and whole grains and my overall calorie intake is low enough for weight loss (ie 1200-1500 per day), why is it important that my fat intake be less than 10%? Why should I worry about using a little spritz of olive oil on salad or in a saute pan?

You might want to see if you can get a hold of Dr. McDougall's earlier book "The McDougall Plan." It is a very good primer on the basics and the "whys" of Dr. McD's recommendations.

The thing to keep in mind is that this is a health supporting plan. Weight loss is one benefit of being healthy, but the focus is on health. I think others have already mentioned Dr. McD's newsletter articles where he discusses fat. Don't forget that extracted, processed oils play a role in heart disease, cancer, diabetes, as well as other ailments.

[Jeanie]

DianeR - I looked at the article you posted. The Kempner chart certainly is low compared to the BMI recommendations I've seen just yesterday. I looked at what would be considered acceptable as being in the "normal" range for a 50yr old woman 5'2" and my gosh it seemed way too high. So, I came to the conclusion that the charts that are posted nowadays are skewed to take into account the 'average' American which is skewed towards too plump.
When I weighed 112 I felt pretty good but I think it's more reasonable to aim for something like 118-120- I'd be happy with that.
Anyway, thanks for the article link.

[Poppy]

If the Kempner chart is too low and the bmi is too high, then what is the best chart to check your weight against? What sort of level on the bmi would be a good desirable weight for a healthy person? I see some at around 18bmi and they look healthy, runners and the like, but what about someone like me who exercises more moderately.. three times a week at the gym for an hour of cardio? I've been around 20bmi before and felt fine, but have heard that to go as low as 19.5 leaves you vulnerable to osteoporosis.. what do you guys think?

[chrisv]

Thanks DianeR, the article makes a lot of sense to me at this point. I can see how it would lower my setpoint to eat less bread, nuts, fruit and exercise more. My thought is anywhere in the range between Kempner and the BMI chart would be a good weight. Poppy, my exercise is like yours, I haven't read anything about osteoporsis risk, but I'm guessing there is no study about it that includes a McD type diet.

[Jeanie]

Hi Poppy,
When I said the BMI seemed way too high what I really meant - and didn't type it in - was that the upper level seemed too high. They say that a BMI between 18.5 and 24.9 is "normal" so I think that if we can get in the middle of that say around 21.7 or maybe between 20 and 21.7 then we should be quite satisfied with that. And, like somebody said, a lot depends on how we feel in our bodies... and if we like how we look. I think that an average woman who doesn't work out but at a moderate level should look like a woman - that is... have some roundness where roundness is natural - like was mentioned "essential fat". Not that women who are athletic and work out more - having a runners body - don't look feminine, please don't misunderstand me! When I was 40 and riding my bicycle over 100 miles/week and completed a 65 mile road rally in 4.3 hours I was quite trim and felt really good - I weighed 108 lbs. and I know what it took to do that - I'm simply not willing or needing to push that hard at this stage of my life....
I'm just meaning that I am, for myself, not unhappy w/ being a little bit squeezy in a couple of places..... Here is an aside: when I was 16 I went to Europe on a summer study program and when I saw all the statues of woman w/ smallish round breasts and round hips w/ a little bit of tummy at the fountains and in the museums I realized that I looked "OK" afterall. Guess that image of "woman as art" has stuck and I don't feel so constrained to be THIN as a gauge of acceptable.....
Sorry for the ramble fingers this morning

[Poppy]

Hi Jeanie,
Thanks, that clarifies things for me... I'd be so thrilled to get to that level again I guess whatever I get to without having to feel hungry or workout toooo hard is where I'll be happy. That should be about the level you said, I reckon.

[DianeR]

... I haven't read anything about osteoporsis risk, but I'm guessing there is no study about it that includes a McD type diet.

That's a good assumption. Also, I think it would make a difference if one does regular weight-bearing exercise. Since so few people actually exercise, the difference in osteoporosis rates with different BMIs just reflects to what extent the bones are stressed, and therefore strengthened, in everyday life.