Today I logged my food and calories--see the bottom of the post for a breakdown by food category (some of my nutritarian friends were interested to see how my diet has changed).
I was going to take pictures of all my meals, but I forgot to take my cell phone to work, so lunch is missing.
Breakfast was buckwheat, cinnamon, mango, and a bit of soy milk. I combined buckwheat groats and buckwheat cereal. I won't post a recipe until I improve on it.
Lunch was red beans and rice-yum yum yum yum, steamed broccoli and cauliflower, and baked sweet potato (topped with pumpkin pie spice). Snack was baked kohlrabi and 2 big carrots.
Dinner was potato fries, using Jeff Novick's method for cooking (awesome!):
I seasoned them with Penzey's mural of flavors, and dipped them in soy yogurt. yum yum yum;
and a giant salad: head of romaine, big yellow tomato, cucumber, 1 T ground flaxseed, d'angou pear and some other flavored vinegar). I snacked on this while doing a whole bunch of food prep.
Now this food prep I did is something I'd prefer to do on the weekend. But we decided to go shopping tomorrow at lunch and Wednesday is usually a rush too, so I decided to make a bunch of stuff ahead. I made Jeff Novick's kasha burger which I really like! I just taste-tested it. I pan-grilled (just heated it in a pan) one of them for tomorrow. I'll split it in 2 for collard wraps at lunch and dinner. Here are the other three for later. I'll freeze two and probably eat the other one on Wed. They almost look too much like real burgers...
Then I had to make all the fun toppings. An excellent salsa with a little mango and grapes and corn for added flavor (and used the rest of the tomatoes from the can---I only needed 2 T for the burger recipe). yum yum:
I also prepped onions and cucumbers soaked in a little fruit-infused vinegar. and some fried mushrooms. it will be fun tomorrow!
Here is the calorie summary of today's food: The total was 1465. protein was 60 g (12.5%), fat 12 g (7%).
The percentage of calories from different food groups was:
starches: 626 calories, 43% of total
grains: 293 calories, 20% of total
vegetables: 354 calories; 24% of total (3.55 lbs!)
fruit: 112 calories, 8% of total
seeds: 27 calories, 2%
vinegar: 28 calories, 2%
So you can see that starches and grains dominate the calories even though I ate 3.55 lbs of vegetables. I prefer having starches dominate my calories rather than fruit and nuts. It feels more satiating. It is almost impossible to have non-starchy vegetables dominate your calories.
6 comments:
Hi Barb,
I think that another way of looking at this would be to say that your calories came predominantly from starchy and non-starchy vegetables, because, after all you did get more calories from the non-starchy vegetables than from the grains. According to Dr. Fuhrman's 'Nutritarian Food Plate', we are supposed to get 30-60% of our calories from vegetables (both starchy and non-starchy combined). Somehow you've managed to exceed that 60% because of your emphasis on the starchy vegetables in combination with the sheer magnitude of your consumption of non-starchy vegetables as well. I am truly impressed that you were able to consume 3.5 pounds of non-starchy vegetables. I'm sure part of what made that possible is that you are not filling up on fruits and nuts/seeds.
To me, the amount of fruits and nuts does seem excessively low, and personally I would not find that satisfying. On the other hand, I can also imagine how too much nuts/seeds, or too much fruit, could cause the malaise that you were experiencing. I have been known to knock myself out and get pretty sleepy from eating too large a quantity of nuts/seeds, and I don't eat nearly as much of them as I used to. Also, too much sweet fruit, and in particular dried fruit and dates can unbalance a person from too much sugar. That said, I would not be happy with as little fresh fruit and nuts/seeds as you seem to be satisfied with. I am wondering if it is possible that you might have gone from one extreme (too much avoidance of starches) to another?
That said, I am truly impressed with your consumption of all manner of vegetables! Although you say that you are following closer to a McDougall type of diet now, I don't feel his diet places the same kind of emphasis on requiring you to eat the non-starchy vegetables at all, so I think that your consumption of those vegetables is atypical of people following that plan, and probably shows how much you've been influenced by Dr. Fuhrman. Personally, I know that I never ate any non-starchy vegetables at all when I was following McDougall's plan, because they just aren't as convenient as eating starches and grains. A vegan following a starch-based diet could theoretically get away with eating no non-starchy vegetables at all to speak of.
BTW, the Nutritarian Food Plate does allow 20% or less of calories from Whole Grains in addition to the 30-60% of calories from all manner of vegetables, and the 10-40% of calories from beans (another type of starch). So... all in all, I do feel that one can easily follow the nutritarian plan without feeling at all starch-deprived. I think where people get into trouble is by trying to get too extreme in limiting or avoiding these foods, while overeating on fruit and nuts/seeds. I think that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction, and that somewhere in-between is a happy median
Hi, is this Claudia from the Fuhrman forums? Thanks so much for posting.
You are right. I was overeating the raw vegetables and I think that caused my malaise. I did get the impression that they were healthier than starches and grains so I emphasized them (overemphasized them). I didn't want to overdue the nuts and fruit because that makes me tired also. I agree that you can eat some starches and grains and still be nutritarian. And I would not say I'm following the McDougall plan. I would not feel good eating a lot of bread and wheat. I probably am closest to what Jeff Novick recommends: lots of vegetables and starches, intact whole grains (not flours), some fruit, limited nuts. I don't feel you need a minimum amount of nuts each day so in that sense I have strayed from the Fuhrman approach. I also have a different view on potatoes. I'm sensitive to blood sugar spikes, from breads, fruit, and yet not at all from potatoes. I think they have a great nutritional profile. In effect, I eat like a nutritarian, with maybe a few more potatoes, and fewer nuts, and no smoothies. I am only slightly different in how I eat probably, but philosophically maybe I am more different. I was thinking as a NET I should represent Fuhrman's views, so if I don't agree with some of the main tenets then I shouldn't post on the forums (as a NET). I thought it was okay to post on my blog, but now I'm wondering if I jumped the gun on that too. After all, I'm still just experimenting--maybe I'll change my mind. Anyway, I don't wish to cause a ruckus. I have respect for Dr. Fuhrman and all the people in the member center.
-barb
Yes, this is Claudia from the member center forums. I guess I should have made that clear. Its just that I'm not used to having many other Claudia's around!
Anyway... there was actually a thread going on the member center forums where we were all arguing about the pros and cons of potatoes (hot topic), and somehow your name came up, and someone referred to you as a former nutritarian, which was news to me, and I was quite surprised, since you were one of the very first NETs. Others were taken by surprise as well.
That really is a bit of a conundrum to have the word NET plastered under your name when you post, and yet to no longer fully represent the Fuhrman approach. I feel that you have been such an integral part of the nutritarian community though that it is strange to think of you not posting on the member forum. Certainly there are many members that aren't totally sold on all the teachings, and yet they post their opinions, but you are the only 'former nutritarian' NET that I have ever known! But I shouldn't really say that. As you have said, you might still change your mind. Someone on the potatoes thread wanted to know if this meant you wouldn't be at the Health Getaway, and I wondered about that too. We've all come to expect to see you there.
As far as having respect for others, that has always come across very clearly in your postings on the member forums, and in that regard I have always considered you a shining example as a NET, because others in that position have not always displayed that same level of respect for others, and I felt it reflected badly. You were always one of the good ones.
HI Claudia,
That's very kind of you. I've always enjoyed your measured posts too. Yes, the NET thing is a bit of a conundrum. I would like to stay as a NET and as a member while I'm still experimenting. Maybe I could post as long as it's not expressing contrary opinions? That's kind of weird but I think somewhat understandable.
I am not going to the Health Getaway. My reasons have nothing to do with recent developments, more that I'm taking a vacation from flying trips and I also decided to work half-time a few months ago so have to live within a budget more now.
-barb
Yes, I think you should definitely continue posting. You are definitely diplomatic enough to know what should and shouldn't be said, and smart enough to stay out of the political fray, so to speak.
You are very knowledgeable, and I'm sure that your posts would continue to be helpful and interesting to others, and you would also be benefited by continuing to be a part of the community. Wasn't it fun discovering soy yogurt together, and hearing about everyones latest new experiment?
BTW, I can kind of understand why you would be drawn to Jeff Novick. In a way I see you as kindred spirits because of your appreciation of convenience and simplicity, and accessibility, and not wanting things to be a lot more complicated than they need tp be. Jeff comes across as very down to earth and full of common sense in his videos with his cousin, which are absolutely hilarious. Personally, I have mixed feelings about him because I feel that he has misrepresented Dr. Fuhrman's program in a negative way, characterizing nutritarians as being on a high fat 'nut-based' diet. That might be true for some people, but definitely not for all nutritarians, and definitely not for me. It also begs the question of what your standard is for 'high-fat', i.e. high fat compared to what? Compared to the lowest of low fat diets, such as the McDougall diet, you could pretty much say that all diets are 'high fat'. Ah... but lets not get me started here!
you are insightful---yes, that is probably why I like JN.
For the most part I think JN is careful not to criticize Fuhrman. He gets asked a lot on the McDougall forums to compare this and that to Fuhrman and he's careful most of the time. Maybe in this case he let loose a bit. However, I do think some or a lot of people do end up eating a high fruit, high nut diet on Fuhrman's program. and there have been occasions when Fuhrman ruffled feathers of others. Here's an example where Dr. Esselstyn felt that Fuhrman misrepesented his work:
http://www.heartattackproof.com/clarification.htm
Yes, there is a difference in opinion between Furhman and most of the other guys about how much fat is ideal. Again, I currently am considering that these other guys are right. :) I'll see how the experiment works out.
-barb
Post a Comment