Denise

For those questions and discussions on the McDougall program that don’t seem to fit in any other forum.

Moderators: JeffN, f1jim, John McDougall, carolve, Heather McDougall

Re: Denise

Postby VegMommy » Tue Dec 11, 2012 6:21 pm

Debbie wrote:
VegMommy wrote:
ulialen wrote:...because low carber trick very much in their studies...


I know we've discussed this before and I'm pretty sure we won't ever agree, but I just can't let things like this go. I honestly and truly believe that everybody promoting one diet or another is doing it sincerely.

Isn't it possible for us to enjoy and believe in our diet without impugning those who promote something else?

Man, I keep getting this feeling of dejavu. Like Ive read all this before.....

Im sorry, but low carb studies are weak at best. Seriously, even Atkins own studies showed in order for his diet to actually work they replaced a good amount of animal protein with beans. Or as in his books, people having to add millet to help keep sugars down.

There are lots of studies going back decades that show eating animals harm the body, yet these "wonderful sincere" doctors and authors ignore all this evidence in order to sell books and videos. Oh and we cannot forget all the Atkins nutritional products people eat among all the other brands out there.

It has been said before, eating a plant based diet makes no one rich.


I'm sorry, but most of this is unkind and untrue.

First of all, the "studies going back decades" are observational and not the gold standard in science. Even if you and I believe that those studies are the be all and end all, that doesn't mean that those who DON'T believe the same thing are evil and greedy.

Second, selling books and videos can't be the mark of a charlatan, or Dr. McDougall and Jeff Novak would be amongst their ranks.

Third..."eating a plant based diet makes no one rich." That is true. It is also true that eating a low carb diet makes no one rich. Don't see your point...

Again...if we are right, why must we mock/malign/impugn those who do not follow the same path? It is petty, mean, and most of all unnecessary.

ETA: I don't want to argue the merits of lowcarb vs. McDougall here. I know, I know...I should just skip these threads. But it really ticks me off to see good people mocked and maligned here. I have friends and relatives who are believers in low carb. That is their right. I do not claim to know more than they do. All I know is what feels right for me. Period. And I HATE the mockery/slander of lowcarb advocates that takes place on this forum. There's a BIG difference between saying "I think I'm right and they are wrong" and "I think I'm right and they are LIARS".
Last edited by VegMommy on Tue Dec 11, 2012 6:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.
VegMommy
 

Re: Denise

Postby Debbie » Tue Dec 11, 2012 6:31 pm

VegMommy wrote:
Debbie wrote:Man, I keep getting this feeling of dejavu. Like Ive read all this before.....

Im sorry, but low carb studies are weak at best. Seriously, even Atkins own studies showed in order for his diet to actually work they replaced a good amount of animal protein with beans. Or as in his books, people having to add millet to help keep sugars down.

There are lots of studies going back decades that show eating animals harm the body, yet these "wonderful sincere" doctors and authors ignore all this evidence in order to sell books and videos. Oh and we cannot forget all the Atkins nutritional products people eat among all the other brands out there.

It has been said before, eating a plant based diet makes no one rich.


I'm sorry, but most of this is unkind and untrue.



Second, selling books and videos can't be the mark of a charlatan, or Dr. McDougall and Jeff Novak would be amongst their ranks.


Not sure what was unkind.

As for Dr. McDougall, there is NO requirement to buy a single book of video to follow his plan or get any other info.

And its Novick.
"It's the food" It's always been the food.
User avatar
Debbie
 
Posts: 2257
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 6:09 pm

Re: Denise

Postby VegMommy » Tue Dec 11, 2012 6:44 pm

Debbie wrote:Not sure what was unkind.


these "wonderful sincere" doctors and authors ignore all this evidence in order to sell books and videos.


Not sure what was unkind? The quotes around "wonderful sincere". The suggestions that they "ignore" evidence in order to sell books. That kind of stuff.

Debbie wrote:As for Dr. McDougall, there is NO requirement to buy a single book of video to follow his plan or get any other info.


True. But all you said in your post was that they sell books and videos. Dr. McDougall and Jeff Novick sell books and videos. What's wrong with that? And there are many low carb sites that put out all the info free of charge. Mark's Daily Apple is one that comes to mind.

Debbie wrote:And its Novick.


Yes..I'm sorry for the mistake. :)
VegMommy
 

Re: Denise

Postby Debbie » Tue Dec 11, 2012 7:03 pm

VegMommy wrote:
Debbie wrote:Not sure what was unkind.


these "wonderful sincere" doctors and authors ignore all this evidence in order to sell books and videos.


Not sure what was unkind? The quotes around "wonderful sincere". The suggestions that they "ignore" evidence in order to sell books. That kind of stuff.


Okay, my bad. They are ALL totally upstanding and just "missed" seeing the evidence, gold standard or not, that has been floating around for decades.
"It's the food" It's always been the food.
User avatar
Debbie
 
Posts: 2257
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 6:09 pm

Re: Denise

Postby rijman » Tue Dec 11, 2012 7:41 pm

VegMommy wrote:ETA: I don't want to argue the merits of lowcarb vs. McDougall here. I know, I know...I should just skip these threads. But it really ticks me off to see good people mocked and maligned here. I have friends and relatives who are believers in low carb. That is their right. I do not claim to know more than they do. All I know is what feels right for me. Period. And I HATE the mockery/slander of lowcarb advocates that takes place on this forum. There's a BIG difference between saying "I think I'm right and they are wrong" and "I think I'm right and they are LIARS".

If Drs. McDougall, Campbell, Esselstyn, Ornish and Barnard are right then the low carb gurus are wrong. I assure you these doctors are not ambiguous about their diet beliefs. It comes down to what you believe. I know what side of the fence I'm on and it's not the side with a 25 yr old blogger with no credentials in the nutrition field putting herself out there as an expert. Ask Dr. McDougall what he thinks of Denise Minger and the low carb gurus, I've heard him discuss this topic and he doesn't waiver on his disdain for their advice. As far as whether or not a low carb barker is deliberately disseminating inaccurate information is not my concern, they are passing on bad information, it's just that simple. Their ignorance is no justification for their actions. If you are going into the public forum and providing diet advice you should be an expert on the topic and I would hope with unbiased intentions, but that's not what we have in the diet industry where a signficant number of studies are funded by special interests and a Harvard study shows there is commonly bias in the results of special interest funded studies, but that's another topic. Well intentioned or not the low carb gurus are doing a disservice to mankind and the planet, whether or not it's deliberate. That's what I believe.
I may be naive.
But I still believe the truth will be revealed if enough light is shined on the subject.
Right now we are dealing with massive ignorance.

John McDougall, MD
(McDougall Discussion Board, posted 7/2/13)
rijman
 
Posts: 1416
Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2009 10:36 pm
Location: San Diego

Re: Denise

Postby healthy-longevity » Tue Dec 11, 2012 7:50 pm

VegMommy wrote:I know we've discussed this before and I'm pretty sure we won't ever agree, but I just can't let things like this go. I honestly and truly believe that everybody promoting one diet or another is doing it sincerely.

Isn't it possible for us to enjoy and believe in our diet without impugning those who promote something else?

VegMommy wrote:There's a difference between defending oneself and attacking others. There's also a big difference between believing others are wrong and believing others are deliberately misleading people.


Perhaps you are coming to such conclusions because you may have not read hundreds of papers related to the claims made by many of these cholesterol skeptics that you appear to be defending in these statements. Reading a limited number of interpretations of the scientific literature will likely convince one that such interpretations are relatively accurate as these interpretations are often well written and appear to be logical to the average person that has not extensively researched the topic at hand.

One example is the cholesterol skeptics interpretation of a 2010 meta-analysis of prospective cohort that concluded that saturated fat was not associated with coronary heart disease. The majority of these skeptics claimed that this meta-analysis was informative while failing to mention the fact that saturated fat was primarily compared to refined carbohydrates, that the meta-analysis over-adjusted for dietary and serum lipids, that the higher quality studies included in the meta-analysis were more likely to show a positive relationship with coronary heart disease, and the likelihood that participants with high serum cholesterol were likely to reduce intake of saturated fat and dietary cholesterol throughout the follow-up which was not accounted for in the majority of the studies. These limitations would have likely attenuated the findings of this meta-analysis towards null, and resembles the limitations of large studies published by employees tobacco industry in attempt to obscure the association between passive smoking and lung cancer and heart disease.

http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/91/3/497.full
http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/122/9/876
http://www.no-smoke.org/document.php?id=333


Another important point that Dr. McDougall made in the July 2010 newsletter was how the authors of this meta-analysis, like virtually all of the cholesterol skeptics ignore virtually thousands of relevant animal experiments. As Jeremiah Stamler pointed out in the editorial to this meta-analysis:
“In fact, the decisive dietary modification for experimental atherogenesis, the sine qua non or materia peccans(Anitschkow's term), is cholesterol ingestion. This has been the prerequisite since the 1908–1912 breakthrough by Anitschkow et al (a centennial anniversary meriting celebration and discussion) in thousands of experiments in mammalian and avian species—herbivorous, carnivorous, and omnivorous—including nonhuman primates. To neglect this fact in a review about humans is to imply that the Darwinian foundation of biomedical research is invalid and/or that there is a body of substantial contrary evidence in humans. Neither is the case.”

http://www.drmcdougall.com/misc/2010nl/jul/100700.htm
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/91/3/497.full


Also very importantly, using the data from the same studies included in the 2010 meta-analysis, Stamler calculated that saturated fat was associated with a 32% increased risk of fatal coronary heart disease.

Are you able to provide any plausible reasons as to why someone being sincere would not inform their readers about these limitations while claiming that this meta-analysis is informative? Do you agree with the cholesterol skeptics that it is not important to inform readers of Stamler’s finding that saturated fat was associated with an increased risk of fatal coronary heart disease, which in-turn suggests that people who read health blogs and books are not concerned whether they die or not?

Another important point is that evidence has accumulated from over 100 randomized controlled trials and large mendelian randomization studies finding that lowering LDL cholesterol significantly decreases the risk of coronary heart disease and all-cause mortality, independent of changes to HDL cholesterol and triglycerides, and non-lipid effects of specific drugs. To suggest that the cholesterol skeptics are being sincere means to suggest that these studies are flawed, and demands another plausible explanation as to why you believe this is the case.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2645847/
http://content.onlinejacc.org/article.aspx?articleid=1379036


Also importantly is the relevant data that the cholesterol skeptics ignore regarding population studies. This includes evidence of the poor cardiovascular health of the traditional Inuit, and also the nomadic Kirghiz plainsmen who live predominantly on large quantities of organic pasture raised animals foods who experience severe cardiovascular disease at young ages, resembling people who inherit very high cholesterol (Familial Hypercholesterolemia). For more information regarding studies on these populations as well as others, please see my the posts in the links below, and Plant Positive's video series.

http://healthylongevity.blogspot.com/2012/11/traditional-diets-in-asia-pacific-and.html

http://healthylongevity.blogspot.com/2012/08/forks-over-knives-and-healthy-longevity_17.html
User avatar
healthy-longevity
 
Posts: 105
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 3:37 pm

Re: Denise

Postby Theodore » Tue Dec 11, 2012 8:05 pm

Debbie wrote:
VegMommy wrote:
ulialen wrote:...because low carber trick very much in their studies...


I know we've discussed this before and I'm pretty sure we won't ever agree, but I just can't let things like this go. I honestly and truly believe that everybody promoting one diet or another is doing it sincerely.

Isn't it possible for us to enjoy and believe in our diet without impugning those who promote something else?

Man, I keep getting this feeling of dejavu........

Deja Vu ? More like Deja WTF !
Never eat anything that has an ass.
Theodore
 
Posts: 427
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 4:25 pm

Re: Denise

Postby Debbie » Tue Dec 11, 2012 9:47 pm

VegMommy wrote:ETA: I don't want to argue the merits of lowcarb vs. McDougall here. I know, I know...I should just skip these threads. But it really ticks me off to see good people mocked and maligned here. I have friends and relatives who are believers in low carb. That is their right. I do not claim to know more than they do. All I know is what feels right for me. Period. And I HATE the mockery/slander of lowcarb advocates that takes place on this forum. There's a BIG difference between saying "I think I'm right and they are wrong" and "I think I'm right and they are LIARS".



VegMommy wrote:A commenter on his site mentioned Dr. McDougall recently. His reply was that Dr. McDougall is "a f***ing liar." When asked what the lie was, he replied - (I added the asterisks to clean it up a little) -

That humans evolved on and their primary diet is starch. Utter lying b******t and all you need to do is look at a map of human migration since out of Africa.

He has an agenda and that is number one. I see Paleos adopting starch as part of the diet all over the place and this has taken place over mere years and months.

But they are vegans. By definition, they must continue to be dishonest, filthy liars and as far as I’m concerned they can all eat sh*t and die.
Nice. :roll:

viewtopic.php?p=338564#p338564

Im only pulling this comment here cause you say we on this board call low carb advocates liars, and since this rant is calling Dr. M a liar, I see it fitting to be here too. Which I cant find, but I may be just missing it, so please show me where its been said we call them LIARS.

But what Im curious about is, where is your calling out of this guy who blatantly calls Dr. M an effing liar? Where is the same defense of Dr. M, on whose board you defend these other guys which Dr. M has pretty much called evil, with regard to this guy? I dont see it. So excuse my confusion, please.
"It's the food" It's always been the food.
User avatar
Debbie
 
Posts: 2257
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 6:09 pm

Re: Denise

Postby veggylvr » Tue Dec 11, 2012 9:54 pm

VegMommy wrote:
veggylvr wrote:...Taubes has made millions on his low carb books. Couldn't he use some of this for clinical research to support his claims?...


First of all, I doubt Taubes has made millions off his books. Besides which, Dr. McDougall has published a lot more books than Taubes.

Second, I can't even begin to count how many times I've read something along the lines of "Well, that study was funded by Atkins! What do you expect?"

File under "damned if you do and damned if you don't."


Taubes received a multimillion dollar advance for his first dietary book (I believe it was "Good Calories Bad Calories") after he wrote a NY Times article which misquoted several researchers, making it appear that they supported high fat/low carb diets, when that wasn't what they were saying. A follow up article exposed these distortions, but, by then, Taubes was on his way to commercial success. Of course, he has made millions.

Like you, I tend to believe people are basically well-intentioned, but there's significant evidence to suggest that Taubes isn't. Of course, there's nothing wrong with selling books, as long as they're based on accurate science, not cherry picking and distorting facts.

Actually, it was learning about Taube's tactics that finally led me to throw in the towel on the whole LC diet (thank goodness!). I had believed he was a good guy and very honest, so I was relying on his endorsement of a high fat/low carb diet...effectively betting my health on what this man (and other LC gurus) wrote.

As much as we want to give the benefit of the doubt, this is too important to be naive. If you read healthylongevity's excellent blog, it becomes pretty clear that Mingers is distorting and omitting facts. Maybe she's in denial, as we all tend to be with views that don't agree with ours, but she represents herself as a semi-expert in dietary science, so she has an obligation to be accurate.
User avatar
veggylvr
 
Posts: 923
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 2:56 pm
Location: Florida

Re: Denise

Postby veggylvr » Tue Dec 11, 2012 10:02 pm

Also, I can't think of a worse justification for suggesting that we shouldn't discuss and critique what these doctors and dietary researchers say - because your family members are low carb? The sad truth is that your family members, and many others, are putting their health at risk, so, if anything, it should matter more.
User avatar
veggylvr
 
Posts: 923
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 2:56 pm
Location: Florida

Re: Denise

Postby veggylvr » Tue Dec 11, 2012 10:26 pm

veggylvr, I am trying to see what there was in what I wrote that made you believe I think I made the wrong choice. However, if I do ever think I made the wrong choice I will do something else.

Didi


The problem with finding definitive answers is that it takes years to develop diabetes, heart disease, cancer etc. Any of us could think we are in good health for years and years--until some illness strikes--both low carbers and starch eaters. For most of us not involved in any study, we just have to do our homework and hope we have made the right choice.


I guess this sounded like you were questioning things, combined with some of your recent posts in other threads. You've seemed somewhat unconvinced that this WOE is right for you. And I suppose the fact that you're linking to Denise Mingers makes me wonder if you're leaning in her direction, but maybe I'm misreading things.

Here is an article about Taubes and how he distorted or ignored the research and misquoted scientists for his NY Times piece. It seems he received a $700,000 contract for his book, not millions, but I still believe he's made millions from book sales, as that was his first dietary book and he's had a few more since then.

http://www.fumento.com/fat/reason.html
User avatar
veggylvr
 
Posts: 923
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 2:56 pm
Location: Florida

Re: Denise

Postby ulialen » Wed Dec 12, 2012 2:31 am

VegMommy wrote:
ulialen wrote:...because low carber trick very much in their studies...


I know we've discussed this before and I'm pretty sure we won't ever agree, but I just can't let things like this go. I honestly and truly believe that everybody promoting one diet or another is doing it sincerely.

Isn't it possible for us to enjoy and believe in our diet without impugning those who promote something else?


As before i respect your opinion, but i honestly and truly believe that low carb promoters trick all their studies.
ulialen
 
Posts: 826
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2012 4:21 pm
Location: Italy

Re: Denise

Postby ulialen » Wed Dec 12, 2012 2:37 am

VegMommy wrote:
veggylvr wrote:...Taubes has made millions on his low carb books. Couldn't he use some of this for clinical research to support his claims?...


First of all, I doubt Taubes has made millions off his books. Besides which, Dr. McDougall has published a lot more books than Taubes.

Second, I can't even begin to count how many times I've read something along the lines of "Well, that study was funded by Atkins! What do you expect?"

File under "damned if you do and damned if you don't."


Not only funded by atkins foundation but the big problem is that they trick the studies.
I can say to you all the manner in which they trick. You can easily find a sample in the healthy-longevity forum or plant positive forum.
It is very easy to say that a study find that carbohidrates are worse than meat when you use only simple sugar or candies (instead that natural carbahydrates as brown rice for example) as carbohidrate.
ulialen
 
Posts: 826
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2012 4:21 pm
Location: Italy

Re: Denise

Postby Erbse » Wed Dec 12, 2012 2:57 am

healthy-longevity forum or plant positive forum.

Do you have links to those?
Erbse
User avatar
Erbse
 
Posts: 526
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 1:01 am

Re: Denise

Postby Theodore » Wed Dec 12, 2012 3:02 am

And what about all the bashing of the China Study that takes place on the paleo / low-carb boards ?

Wait, I almost forgot........

VegMommy wrote:The China Study gets a lot of bashing because it's not very good science.

http://drmcdougall.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=31437&p=315609#p315609
Never eat anything that has an ass.
Theodore
 
Posts: 427
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 4:25 pm

PreviousNext

Return to The Lounge

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests



Welcome!

Sign up to receive our regular articles, recipes, and news about upcoming events.