Denise

[VegMommy]

...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."

[rijman]

...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?

I believe it comes to your faith and convictions. If you truly believe the plant based diet is best for humanity do you stand idly by while others peddle their diet information that must be wrong if yours is right? Do you sit by and let them have their say and attacks without defending yourself or your diet? Dr. T. Colin Campbell decided not to sit back and ignore Ms. Minger, he responded to her attacks on his work and recommended diet. I have no problem with someone educating themselves and standing up for what they believe in, Denise Minger does it and so do many in the plant based community. I personally believe Denise Minger and her community are doing a disservice to humanity and the world. It's up to each of us to decide our level of involvement in what we believe, I know where Drs. McDougall, Campbell, Esselstyn, Ornish and Barnard stand and they aren't sitting idly by, they are fighting the good fight each and every day to better the world based on their beliefs.

Regarding a persons sincerity, that means nothing if it leads to damaging results. Terrorists are sincere in their efforts doing what they believe is right for their people including sacrificing their lives. Sincerity doesn't make them right. (I stand by this point while acknowledging I watch Homeland)

[VegMommy]

Do you sit by and let them have their say and attacks without defending yourself or your diet?

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.

[Salley]

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.

[Debbie]

...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.

[VegMommy]

...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".

[Debbie]

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.

[VegMommy]

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.

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.

And its Novick.

Yes..I'm sorry for the mistake.

[Debbie]

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.

[rijman]

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.

[healthy-longevity]

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?

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

[Theodore]

...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 !

[Debbie]

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".

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.

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.

[veggylvr]

...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.

[veggylvr]

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.