From: Sally James (188.8.131.52)Subject: Having a tough time Date: September 10, 2013 at 2:32 am PSTDear Dr Graham,I came across your wonderful book and just knew that this was the diet humans should be eating . It is an incredible book and I've read it 3 times!!! Thank you for writing it.I've just having a bit of a tough time and wondered what I'm doing wrong. I'm a 30 year old female and have been 811 for 2 years. I was pretty healthy before I started but my health has been sadly deteriorating in the last year. I become fatigued so easily that I nearly had to give up my job. My hair and nails have become very weak and brittle with dents in them and I've had some worrying blood results.Almost all my vitamins were very low (E, A, B's, C, B12) Also low were zinc and serum iron, magnesium and copper I have a blood report from 2010 where all of these were normal. I'm really panicking and frustrated as I know 811 is the perfect diet. But I can't work out what I'm doing wrong.What I ate yesterday 10oz glass fresh orange juice B: 6 blended bananas with greens L: 4 large mangos D: 10 apples blended Large salad (lots of lettuce, spinach, celery, tomatoes and cucumber )I peed 9 times I swim every other day Bedtime is 9pmThank you so much Dr. DSally James
Everything is wrong with 811 diet! Too much fructose, too much carbohydrates, too little protein and usually of the wrong aminoacid types unless you do a hell of a job of food combining.
Plant based nutrition is second best for humans and can lead to problems for various reasons, one of them is that they produce high oxidative stress, not only due to high carbohydrate and especially high fructose contents, but also because of various phytotoxins, especially in green leafy parts.
Last but not least is the suboptimal vitamin contents, with lack of D3 and K2 being probably the most problematic, and also often skewed microelements. For example some plants such as beans tend to concentrate elements such as aluminum and manganese (especially soy!), and are generally too imbalanced for humans due to the fact that plants stand too far from from us on the evolution thus are too dissimilar (fungi are an even more extreme example). Plant based nutrition requires a special digestive tract adaptation seen in herbivorous animals. Omnivorious animals are not as well equipped and thus require mixed and balanced food. Heretic
H, what do you consider a mixed and balanced diet? What kind of adaptation do non ruminants need? Did our primate ancestors have specially adapted digestive tracts?
The latest I have been reading is that it is precisely because plants have evolved so differently that they are safe to eat. Immune system disorders and other illnesses are due to animal proteins being so closely related to human proteins that they can end up places they shouldn't be.
Isn't the acidity of a carnivore's stomach acid about 10 times that of ours? One reason carnivores need such acidic stomachs to counteract the bacteria that they inevitably consume from eating dead and rotting carcasses. If plants are contaminated from e coli it is from water run off from animal feed lots or unsanitary practices of food handlers. How safe is animal food. It was different when I was young but now we are warned to well cook animal foods and sunny side up eggs are no longer safe to eat.
We can deal with a fairly large amount of fructose and other sugars if we are young and healthy. If not then we are better off without it altogether. Fructose is not essential, neither is sugar or starch. as for that sorry 811 person, we are dealing with an obsession and self-destructive fanaticism. You cannot help her just like you cannot help other people fanatically obsessed or "possessed" by all sorts of fanatical beliefs (and diet is probably the least of the problem here...). People like that are destructive towards themselves and may even pose a threat to others.
IMHO, the best way of dealing with fanatical ideas (or any "meme" ideas, for that matter...) is to challenge them openly BEFORE they become too entrenched in the minds and destroy the lives of too many people.
"we are dealing with an obsession and self-destructive fanaticism. You cannot help her just like you cannot help other people fanatically obsessed or "possessed" by all sorts of fanatical beliefs (and diet is probably the least of the problem here...). People like that are destructive towards themselves and may even pose a threat to others.
IMHO, the best way of dealing with fanatical ideas (or any "meme" ideas, for that matter...) is to challenge them openly BEFORE they become too entrenched in the minds and destroy the lives of too many people. "
Come on....thats way too extreme....shes just a person with a different view of diet than we have...and who knows...she could be right...though I find that unlikely
There are many who would use the same language to describe you (because of your diet) or those of us on the McDougall/Fuhrman style diets.
Your diet and my diet are considered fanatical by a great many.And they are wrong just as you are wrong in your description of this lady.
I have to agree with H on this one JC, as far as her fanaticism is concerned. I read once that dogma is just a collection of other people's ideas. You would think that doing so poorly she would take a less religious approach to her diet. It is also true that Fuhrman, Esselstyn and McDougall did not receive their information on stone tablets or in a book with golden pages or from any heaven- sent prophet. So it is incumbent upon everyone to do some of his own research and take stock of his own health.
Esselstyn has made a few changes in his recommendations as far as supplements are concerned. McDougall says that he holds certain opinions but reserves the right to change his mind should good solid research come up with something different.
Ultimately each person must decide for himself.
Bye the way. Debate is good. It is good to hear other ideas and to challenge one's own opinions. Often when we argue in favor of or against something it is not necessarily to challenge or promote one's own opinion but rather a means to search out a new idea or convincing argument that might make us change our own minds about something.
I noticed that several months ago Dr TC Campbell posted on the McDougall forum he believed in the Popper method of debating and challenging ones own ideas by trying to disprove ones most cherished beliefs.
As far as fanaticism goes you probably realize we fit into that category as far as most people are concerned so the lady Heretic is discussing has a lot of company....anyone on the McDougall- Fuhrman diet and also the Optimal diet.
But todays fanatic or heretic may be tomorrows genius.
JC, My brother called me a fanatic although he eats the same way I do. I don't cheat. He does.
The person who thinks the raw food diet is the perfect diet and has been on it for two years reports fatigue so bad she almost had to quit her job, dry brittle nails, poor blood work and low nutrients and reports she felt fine before this diet. I can't help feeling her post has to be a joke. If it isn't, one has to wonder why she continues to believe the diet of our unevolved primate ancestors whose habitat must in most cases be confined to a rather narrow one around the equator is the perfect diet for evolved homo sapiens who populate almost the entire planet. It does seem to be working for them.
Neither Heretic nor I report any ill effects of the way we eat despite the huge differences in diet. We are not sick, we do not report inability to function or any fatigue. We do not report any obvious external signs that something is wrong healthwise. I do not know about what H's blood tests show but my own are excellent, a diabetic for 20 years my HbA1c is normal, I am maintaining a normal weight and am even probably losing some. And I am willing to bet either of us would change the way we eat if it wasn't producing good health.
I can't help thinking that a popular definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
While those on the McD, Fuhrman or Optimal diets might be called fanatics by those on the SAD, I really do not think that adhering to a WOE that results in good health fits the definition.
jc, the point is that no matter what anyone thinks about someone else's diet, if that diet is not causing health problems and in fact improves health then one cannot be charged with fanaticism. Maybe in the long run they will be proved wrong but they are not fanatics. I just wonder why someone whose health has suffered for two years insists it isn't the diet. I also wonder about Jimmy Moore who insists that he is healthy despite the weight gain, high cholesterol and necessity to go without food for long periods in order to get the weight down. He also uses glycosolve to keep his blood sugar down.
On the other hand, I do not think you can even accuse those like Jimmy Moore and others who are making money from their promotion of certain diets of fanatacism. Thar's gold in them thar ills.
We don't really know if a diet is causing health problems until many decades have passed.Is it not at least possible that your diet has caused you health problems given your recent episode.More than likely your episode was leftover from your earlier diet(before you changed to a plant based diet) but thats not a given.Its not a given by any means.
We may be on the right track with our plant based diets but if we look at all the problems many have with the McDougall diet we have to keep up our questioning and our doubts....as Popper would advocate.
But the lady we have been discussing is no more a fanatic than we are.She may keep hoping the raw food diet will solve her problems if she just strays on it a bit longer.....just as you kept on the plant based diet (despite coding)hoping a little longer and a little stricter would do the trick.
A great many on the McDougall site consider Heretic a fanatic and some even said so... and even called me his attack dog when I jumped in to defend him.I was not defending his diet but his right to point out countering evidence to be discussed and anayzed.
The McDougall forum is a support forum for those on the MCDouall diet or who are considering the diet.....and the only real support is to work through all the doubts and counter information.Dr TC Campbell recognized that we he pointed to the Popper method and siad we need to always trying to disprove what we believe and to constantly challenge the diet.
Heretic was trying to do that and is no more a fanatic than the lady who supports the raw food diet.Many beleive in that diet and many claim success with it.Its not for me but I'm always happy to see challenges to the things I currently believe in.
jc, I was not on a total plant diet because I ate fish, some chicken, olive oil, ice cream, some chips at my daughter's etc. I would read something good about fish and eat fish or something good about olive oil and eat olive oil. After the MI I got serious. I had lots of ham for easter just before the chest pain started.
That some may have problems with the McDougall diet has nothing to do with me. I am doing fine with eating lots and lots of vegetables and fruits and beans and a few starches. Probably fewer starches than most. It would not convince me to change the way I am eating because someone else is not successful at the same diet. H's diet is fine with him. I personally am not interested in persuading anyone but members of my own family whose health I worry about.that this diet is the most healthful. But I like to challenge my own ideas.
Jc, I do not think anyone on the McD website even thinks of Heretic and probably most don't even know who he is. I wouldn't even know where to look for his posts and I am on the site quite a bit. I do think anyone should be able to ask questions and get explanations. But to debate on that group and promote another way of eating and criticizing the starch diet is inappropriate---like standing up during mass at a catholic church and asking people to consider lutheranism. Perhaps acceptable in another situation but not at sunday services.
"It would not convince me to change the way I am eating because someone else is not successful at the same diet"
Other peoples problems are should not convince you of anything and such has never been suggested,.they should be the focus of analysis as advocated by the sci methid promoted by Karl Popper/Einstein.
"Jc, I do not think anyone on the McD website even thinks of Heretic and probably most don't even know who he is"
There was someone who posted on this site(from the McDougall site) not too long ago and asked of Heretic was the one who posted on McDougall years ago....and yes a great many of the old timers remember him especially f1.
"But to debate on that group and promote another way of eating and criticizing the starch diet is inappropriate--
I don't know about promoting another way of eating but according to Popper/Einstein criticising the starch diet is an absolute necessity for real science.To push back and find fault is the onlty real science.....and support for that matter..its the only REAL support..Even Dr TC Campbell said that on the Mcdougall forum.
" But to debate on that group and promote another way of eating and criticizing the starch diet is inappropriate---like standing up during mass at a catholic church and asking people to consider lutheranism. Perhaps acceptable in another situation but not at sunday services"
Again an absolute requirement according to Popper/Einstein.
I once had a relative that stood up in church and argued against what was totally accepted and thought to be an unquestionable premise of many southern churches .....that women and blacks were second class citizens....so there is no such thing as a place where one is not free to disagree argue and debate....or should be.
You are encouraged to report negative side effects of prescription drugs to the FDA. Visit the FDA MedWatch website or call 1-800-FDA-1088.
The opinions expressed in WebMD Communities are solely those of the User, who may or may not have medical or scientific training. These opinions do not represent the opinions of WebMD. Communities are not reviewed by a WebMD physician or any member of the WebMD editorial staff for accuracy, balance, objectivity, or any other reason except for compliance with our Terms and Conditions. Some of these opinions may contain information about treatments or uses of drug products that have not been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. WebMD does not endorse any specific product, service or treatment.
Do not consider Communities as medical advice. Never delay or disregard seeking professional medical advice from your doctor or other qualified healthcare provider because of something you have read on WebMD. You should always speak with your doctor before you start, stop, or change any prescribed part of your care plan or treatment. WebMD understands that reading individual, real-life experiences can be a helpful resource, but it is never a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment from a qualified health care provider. If you think you may have a medical emergency, call your doctor or dial 911 immediately.