So far as I know, the only differences between McDougall and fuhrman are that McDougall recommends less fruit than fuhrman (as did Nathan Pritikin if your triglycerides were high), and nuts only on occasion. Everytime I hear McDougall debate someone like fuhrman he never says the Fuhrman diet is not a good diet but that you will have a harder time sticking to the diet without basing it on starches.
Like Pritikin he says that every healthy group of people in the past have based their diet on some kind of starch.
I think for reasons similar to why pastoralists might base their diets on milk and meat. It fits in with their lifestyle. If you are a hunter gatherer, you will forage for vegetables. If you live in one place, a starchy crop provides a lot of easily storable food with plenty of calories to sustain large communities. Today with refrigeration and the ability to get food from all over the place, there is no reason to stay away from all kinds of vegetables. I am quite sure that even Fuhrman would recommend a starch based diet if leafy greens and other vegetables were not easily available.
I wish I knew why McDougall recommended limitations on fruit.You have diabetes...does it raise your blood glucose?It does not raise mine.Every so often I read a warning about getting too much sugar from fruit...its harmful so they say....but most of the science I come across is pro fruit.Where is the science that fruit sugar is harmful.For every bit of info fruit sugar is harmful you find three that say the opposite.Dead says nuts give him angina so that may be the reason for McDougall's recommendation to avoid nuts but all the science I find indicates nuts are very healthy if not overdone.
I can't find any science to back up Fuhrman's scale of nutrient content.He lists greens as a 1000 rating,but good luck trying to find anything that elevates them above carrots or brown rice or much lower rated vegetables.
I agree with his approach to limiting sodium.He is much stricter than McDougall on sodium.Sodium has such a major effect on my blood pressure that I see severe restriction as necessary.
McDougall says to limit beans and Fuhrman says to eat all you want.I can't find any science that implicates plant protein.(I do find some that implicates animal protein)I have even heard Esse say that too much plant protein can be harmful but again...good luck finding any science to back it up.
I think Mcdougall may be right about starches.(remember the posts on resistant starches).I have to combine potatoes,rice and other starches to get enough calories to get through the day.Just vegetables like greens and carrots don't do the job.
I wish I knew who was right...i do not.I just pick and choose the best from each.Maybe through debate and discussion we will get closer to the truth as the years go by.
I just don't worry about how high my blood sugar goes temporarily after eating although it is usually always under two hundred. If it zipped up to 300 I would worry. I have no complications that I know of from diabetes and I am not on any meds at all. Fuhrman and McDougall seem to agree on fruit. In Fuhrman's case his caution seems to be only for diabetics in the amount and in the kind of fruit. I eat lots of bananas, not very low glycemic.
Here is something else I discovered --about me, I can't extrapolate to everyone else. If I go for a few days eating strictly fuhrman with hardly any rice, potatoes etc, when I go back to starches my blood sugars climb very high. But if I eat a serving of starch with most meals, then my blood sugars are more even and do not go as high. McDougall wrote about amylase which digests starch and for which we have more DNA coded than our nearest primate relatives. I think it is a use it or lose it thing. I am just guessing.
I had/have a dozen inoperable 80% blockages down stream from my major blockages that were bypassed.
Pistachios give me no problem at all, I can eat a handful or two daily. And did for most of a year. Now a few times a week. I've posted links from pubmed indicating they are beneficial to either paraoxonase or EPCs, I think. Can't quite remember.
I had some walnuts daily starting a couple months after my CABG in January 2006. A month later I started getting light angina walking after a meal, and got two stents two months later. No nuts since until last year, and tried four nuts daily. After a month I started having light chest discomfort while exercising, discontinued the nuts, and the discomfort disappeared after another month.
I think diet is about nutrient density, high anti-oxidants, improve EPC count and function, HDL, paraoxonase and other beneficial substances. If a person can have minimal stress, they'll have no artery damage. If they have regular high anti-oxidant intake, they may have no ox-LDL. Ox-LDL is the stuff that swells blockages, the source of cardiac incidents and many other vascular problems.
Most people don't have arteries as close to pinching shut or insufficient blood flow as I do, so I am more sensitive to anything potentially bad for the heart. But for me, its seldom theoretical, its real.
On an anti-oxidant continuum, its herbs and spices, fruit, and veggies. For more calories, most people are better off with low fat solutions, starches. They are typically a couple decades behind me in blockage development. Not sure why they'd want to catch up.
People can eat some fats, they just need to moderate it, and keep their anti-oxidants up to prevent or minimize ox-LDL.
If my anti-oxidants are always up, its surprising that a few nuts daily will slowly bring on constriction. Fortunately, it reverses itself. That might be my pomegranates.
I eat fresh plus whole grains, and mainly avoid beef, poultry skin, dairy, and oils. No hydrogenated oils. I try to keep to nuts with the same approximate mufa/pufa ratio as pistachios, peanuts and pecans. But mostly pistachios.
Need to learn to control yourself. And try hunting online for pistachios prepared different ways. Trader Joe's used to carry them in dark chocolate. I try to snack on some at least once a day.
Yes. I can eat pistachios every day, for months and months. I came across another pubmed abstract today that indicates that many of the most beneficial foods all contribute to boost paraoxonase, including pomegranates, blueberries, quercetin and pistachios.
Paraoxonase works with HDL making it more effective, as if your HDL count were significantly higher. That means improved reverse cholesterol transport, in addition to being anti-inflammatory, anti-oxidant, and promotes ox-LDL effusion from macrophages (blockage reduction).
All the high risk factors of heart disease seem to shutdown or block paraoxonase production and function, as well as that of EPCs. Including a high fat diet.
Defense and rebounding appreciated, and I pass the ball out. Poor ball handler, so I try to keep that under wraps and just play without the ball with defense, steals and rebounding position, shoot occasionally.
I can't believe I haven't posted in months!! Great to have you post. I still follow ETL, very happily. Actually, I eat more starches than Fuhrman talks about. I think this is completely consistent with ETL. I include a cup of beans daily, and I think this is completely consistent with McDougall.
The most clear difference , in my mind, is that I include 2 or 3 oz of nuts daily. Also lots of emphasis on fruits and veggies. I completely accept that the phytochemicals in veggies and fruit, are very beneficial and actually essential for optimal health.
Another difference is actually important. I learned that sunlight was very important for Vitamin D, and I realized that I got nearly zero sunlight. So I changed my routine to get 60 to 75 minutes of sunlight at noon 7 days a week, running 4 miles. This is at 4500 feet elevation (more UV) in Salt Lake City. Above 60 degrees, I did not wear a T-shirt. Always a blue sky. After 2 years of this, I got my blood tested for vitamin D, the first time in my life at age 60. It was June. Lots of sunlight. I was taking a supplement with 200 IU of vitamin D, half of the RDA. I was severely deficient, with a blood level of 16. 30 is min. (Dr. McDougall says 20 is min.) My bone density was in osteopenia range, likely due to poor Ca absorption, likely due to long term D deficiency. If Dr McDougall's vitamin D advice is right, my body is wrong. So, I take 2500 IU of D3, and my blood level is about 35. A year after I cured my vitamin D deficiency, my severe lactose intolerance of 30 years, just went away.
And since I got mild cataracts after 2 years of so much sunlight, I never went into sunlight again without dark wrap-around sunglasses. The cataracts went away during the next year. Also, I prefer to avoid the little holes like you see in older person's noses and ears, due to stuff being cut out. So I only get occasional sunlight, and rely on the D3 supplements, which do not cause DNA damage (like sunlight does, thus the skin cancer.)
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.