Diet Debate

To what are you referring?

D

To your thread called "Denise". in that other forum. Instead of criticizing Denise Minger it is better to point out what exactly is supposed to be wrong in her text and why. Saying that somebody has already "proven" her wrong is not enough because that "somebody" could be wrong too, besides that is just somebody's word against somebody else's word. You don't know for sure who is correct untill you discuss specific details and quote specific facts (i.e studies). Besodes, the best way would be simply ask her. She has an access to your other forum, she already posted there and I hope McDougall's cop won't get her banned. 8- It is much better to discuss those topics with her in her presence rather than doing so behind her back and in a personally denigrating manner. She is kind, not bad, her diet is similar to yours, and has got a great sens of humor. Talk to her! You have got a lot in common!

Stan (Heretic)

Where is this conversation? On the McDougall messge board?

http://www.drmcdougall.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=33360

My comment was meant to point out why Dr. McDougall does not call himself a vegan. Just because you abstain from meat does not mean you are eating healthfully. I in no way engaged in any personal attack against Ms. Minger. You will find just the contrary if you read the whole thread. I do not believe she is unintelligent nor that she has evil intentions. I posted her presentation because, personally, I thought it vindicated those who hold the OPPOSITE opinion from hers although some seem to have been offended by my posting it on "their" group. I am amused that you seem to think I was rudely against Ms. Minger (personally) and some on "that other group" thought I was endorsing her opinions and both missed the point of why I posted. I feel that in this and other posts I have been misunderstood so often that I believe I can no longer express myself clearly and wonder if my latest health misadventure is affecting my brain as well as my heart. Not kidding about this.

However, when you give a presentation, you have to expect there will be those who disagree. It seemed to me that Ms Minger pointed out, and rightly so, that all the plant based guys rejected sugar and white flour as elements of a good diet. She implies that this is why they had good results. I personally DO think that this is part of their success. But not all of it. In rejecting highly processed and refined food, both camps are alike. In her talk, she does not explain why meat and fat are healthful. In her manner of presentation she appears to be making fun of high carb low fat research and does indeed appear a bit unpolished and --well--young. Compare her presentation to that of Ron Rosedale which I posted elsewhere on this group.

Dolores

I also referred to the PrimitiveNutrition website of Plant Positive for counter arguments to Denise Minger. I believe Dr. Campbell has also answered her. If anyone is interested, Plant Positive has done lots of research and all I do is ask questions. He can give arguments about her analysis far better than I and I hope if anyone sees flaws in his arguments they would report them. (Wouldn't it be nice if we could edit what we write on this group so we don't have to post another reply?)

Dolores

It was obvious that you were very fair to Ms Minger.I am amazed that you are able to get away with questioning and challenging on the McDougall board.I guess thats because you were already accepted as "one of them".When I tried I was called a troll and was told they were keeping an eye on me and they would decide if I crossed the line.Under that type of threat I gave up on the board but every few weeks I check in to see whats being posted.

I don't agree with Ms Minger but I do like to hear what she has to say....and I agree with Heretic when he says to refute her point by point using science.....don't discuss her lack of science background or call her names....just stick with the science.

If people are reading this and not the posts on the "other" group, I hope they realize I never criticized her background or called her names although some may have been rather strong in their disapproval.

I understand that the other group is a support system for those who have chosen a starch based diet. I think it is inappropriate to challenge their way of eating because it isn't a debate group. There are new people who show up all the time and it would be outside the purpose of their discussion groups to make it look like a debate group.

I have no idea what you may have said that someone over there is keeping a special eye on you. I have never had the impression that you are a rabble rouser! Many of your posts here have either raised questions or answered questions and you (and so many other correspondents here) debate and discuss with the utmost courtesy.

Dolores

The type of support I need the most was/is to resolve questions I have/had about data that is counter to Dr McDougalls ideas.As many of those questions have been resolved over the years my diet has gradually changed to the point that my diet is more "McDougall/Fuhrman" that most of the posters on the McDougall board.(potatoes,beans,vegetables)

The questions I was asking are similar to the ones you ask....you often ask challenging questions that let everyone know you do not blindly accept anything without questioning and analysis.I can understand why you are questioning now since it must seem to you that you did almost everything "right" and still had a cardio incident....you want to find out why.That should be allowed even on a support forum because questioning for the purpose of resolving issues is "support".In fact I can think of no greater type of support than resolving data that may trouble you
.
But the moderators have no way to tell who is just raising questions just to argue and who is trying to find out what the science really says.....so in my opinion they should allow all kinds of debate...(as a type of support)...(so they don't eliminate those really seeking the truth.)

Plant Positive guy responded with lots of omissions and mistakes. I pointed some of them in my previous post here because he, unlike me or you, disallows comments, nor did he post his name. Please keep this in mind when you refer to his material since it may only appear to you to be "true" because of the elimination of any criticism! It's a form of manipulation. Watch out!

Similar story can be witnessed with the "China Study" book wiki where huge number of serious critical comments pointing out a discrepancy between the raw data and the book, were deleted. That gives a viewer an impression of the book being on solid scientific footage. It is a false impression created by deletion of criticisms!


That is the whole point of my post here. I will write it more explicitely:

- It is extremely important to talk about the issues doing so good-naturally and with attutude of fun (or joy or love if you will) rather than uttering disparaging character judgements. There is a value in allowing the other side to point out mistakes and omissions (if any). There is even more value in doing so joyfully.

JC has been talking about that all the time. I am just reminding us about that (thanks JC). This applies to all sides!

There is a tremendous personal and spiritual growth potential in allowing free speech, promoting dialog and exchange of ideas. Insistence on single-mindedness so prevalent in most plant diet forums seems to poison their minds and creates artificial divisions among them!

Regards,

Heretic


P.S.

I like VegMommy's post ( http://drmcdougall.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=33360&start=35 )

Quote:

I'm sorry, but most of this is unkind and untrue.[br>[br>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.[br>[br>Second, selling books and videos can't be the mark of a charlatan, or Dr. McDougall and Jeff Novak would be amongst their ranks.[br>[br>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...[br>[br>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.[br>[br>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".

I really like vegmommy's philosophy.

H, re disagreements. For some reason this reminds me of an assignment my niece had many years ago when in high school. My niece, bye the way, is smart as a whip and taught herself to read when she was three. Super successful. Anyway, the assignment the class was given was to write their opinion of something or other that they had been studying. My niece, normally a straight A student, got a C for this assignment. The reason? The teacher said she had the wrong opinion.

Dolores

Re: I hope if anyone sees flaws in his arguments they would report them.


I do see the flaws in PlantPositive arguments but I cannot reply neither on mcdougall nor on his/her own blogs, because it disallows comments. Besides, PlantParanoid is anonymous and gives no contact!

I wonder why you say you can't contact him? I think his address is plantpositive.com. While he doesn't post any comments from his readers or listeners, he answered me every time I wrote to him.

Dolores