Skip to content
beans and kidney function
avatar
DoloresTeresa posted:
McDougall says that in order to preserve kidney function you should eliminate animal protein and limit (and maybe eliminate) beans, peas and other legumes. Fuhrman recommends lots of beans. I thought beans were safe because they contain plant protein. Any opinions?

Dolored
Reply
 
avatar
xring responded:
When I started Fuhrman's program in 1-09, I only ate animal protein rarely & substituted beans instead. I did not limit them after testing my BG & finding that they did not spike me. Since then, I've heard many doctors & CDE's say "Beans are the king of foods - more fiber than any other food, protein, carbs, starch; omega fats, etc."

As for kidney function, I've read that protein should be limited for someone with kidney disease but I think that applies to excess protein which is found in animal foods - which have much more protein than beans have.

Besides, my salads would be much less appetizing without the beans.
Politicians should serve two terms. One in office and one in prison.
 
avatar
DoloresTeresa replied to xring's response:
Thanks, X. McDougall apparently thinks otherwise. The thing is that your kidneys can be pretty far gone before the blood test for kidney impairment shows it. I tend to agree with you and hope I am right. Compared to all the other plant foods I eat, volume-wise at least, the amount is small. However calorie wise there are days when beans could be up to one third of my calories. I think I put them in everything but my breakfast oatmeal.

Dolores
 
avatar
jc3737 replied to DoloresTeresa's response:
I'm hoping McDougall is wrong about beans....I'm now up to 3 cups of beans per day....a cup with every meal....so I'm betting he is wrong...i can find NO sci data that suggests he is correct about limiting beans.

Despite what both Fuhrman and McDougall say the differences between the two are very important.

Is there any real evidence fot the nutrient scale that Fuhrman advocates....I can't find any....Can we eat lots of fruit....maybe not if it feeds candida or cancer growth.....nuts are probably good given the research data,as long as not overdone..

Should starches be limited and vegetables increased in place of starches....I can find tons of data in favor of vegetables but none that suggests limiting starches....and none that shows a HEAVY emphasis on vegetables in place of starches is good... as opposed to a more moderate amount..

Can we get enough calories from vegetables alone or do we need satches?

And is real low fat (as McDougall advocates) healthy or is Fuhrman right that we need more fat and a real low fat diet has problems.

These are important questions that need to be resolved.My diet is somewhere in the middle...I use recommendation from both....but would like to see much more more sci data form neutral parties.
 
avatar
EngineerGuy replied to jc3737's response:
Hi jc,
Hi Dolores,

I applaud your consumption of beans. I also eat 2-3 cups daily.

In 1976, Dr. James Anderson published a study on diabetics. I know the story behind it, because I heard it on audio cassette tapes I purchased from a nutrition conference Pritikin had set up.

Nathan Pritikin raised money from the NIH to fund a study on diabetics using his diet. Pritikin scoured the country, but no medical researchers were interested. Pritikin had to return the money to the NIH !!

Finally Pritikin found Dr. James Anderson at the University of Kentucky Medical Center, and Pritikin raised the money again from the NIH. Pritkin had to hound Dr. Anderson to finally get the study started. Dr. Anderson's diet was not quite the diet Pritikin wanted. Dr. Anderson's diet was very high in BEANs (which is why I mention it now).

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/941870
The study was done in a metabolic lab, where the patients received all their food. These patients had already reached their ideal weight on the ADA recommended diet of the time. WEIGHT LOSS AND EXERCISE INCREASE WERE NOT PART OF THE STUDY !! ONLY A CHANGE IN DIET. And, the diet was very high in beans.

These diabetics had already reached their ideal weight, and still required insulin (8 men) or sulfonylureas (5 men) for several years prior. In 2 weeks, all 5 got off sulfonylureas, 4 got off insulin, 1 reduced insulin, and 3 on 40 to 55 units of insulin, were unchanged. Again, this is without weight loss or increase in exercise. Pretty amazing stuff.

Re: "but would like to see much more more sci data form neutral parties."

I appreciate your sentiment, but I would frame the question differently. Why doesn't the Harvard Health News Letter, and similar, publicize these more effective programs (Fuhrman, McDougall, Pritikin, etc.) It isn't because they are not medically documented or recognized. Consider that Medicare has finally recognized Ornish and Pritikin, and will cover part of their lifestyle training, for example, for heart patients that qualify, for goodness sake! Who is a neutral party?

Also, please note that sci data is mostly from studies that Fuhrman and others quote. Consider the website www.resistantstarch.com . Consider the long list of references that Fuhrman presents. Consider the studies that were published about the Fuhrman diet. 33% average cholesterol reduction - more than most statin studies. Long term weight loss 53 pounds average over 2 years, the best results ever published for any diet ever, in a medical or nutritional journal.

For those reading, check the second article.
http://www.diseaseproof.com/archives/cat-diabetes.html

Best regards, EngineerGuy
 
avatar
jc3737 replied to EngineerGuy's response:
Hi EG,Health Newsletters(like the Harvard Letter).Why they don't mention the plant based diets that cure diabetes i have no idea....i think they are so caught up in their own little world that they can't see past it.

Doesn't Dr Fuhrman recommend against too many starchy vegetables?

We talk a great deal about diabetes and cardio disease but very little about cancer...which is very close to cardio disease as a killer.Correct me if i'm wrong but the reason Dr Fuhrman recommends so many non starchy vegetables is because they have a higher nutritional value than starches and cancer fighting nutrients.Does he have any evidence that this approach(more vegetables(especially green leafy) in place of starches)is effective in fighting cancer?The studies i find only shows very small benefits to even tons of vegetables.He may know about some more dramatic and powerful studies.
 
avatar
DoloresTeresa replied to jc3737's response:
For diabetics, Fuhrman and McDougall both recommend limiting fruit. And Fuhrman at least, recommends lower glycemic fruits. I was surprised at this. Does anyone on this group limit fruit? To how many a day? Mirkin recommends eating fruit only with a meal. Sometimes when I am hungry between meals I will have a piece of fruit which holds me over till the next meal.

Dolores
 
avatar
jc3737 replied to DoloresTeresa's response:
I have been eating tons of fruit to up my potassium level(which was nearing the danderous level(low)....but it caused me off and on digestive trouble the entire time.Now that my K level is normal (and my blood pressure down)I have greatly cut down on fruit and some days have none(a recent experiment)....It may just be pure coincidence but my digestion is much better when I totally eliminate all fruit..

I have always thought that the warnings to limit sugar did not include the natural sugar in fruit but that idea may be wrong.Ill let you know how the experiment turns out in a few months.
 
avatar
DoloresTeresa replied to jc3737's response:
On Jeff Novick's discussion group on the McDougall website he does a very thorough explanation of nutrients in food and what they mean. Evidently, the anti oxidant power of foods was tested in the lab in test tubes, not in the body. It turns out that some plants with very high anti oxidant power in the test tube actually do not react in the body in the same way. Others with high anti oxidant power might have a positive effect in the body but not because of their anti oxidants. Other foods with relatively no anti oxidant power in the laboratory test do something positive when eaten. It is a very long explanation but is very eye opening. He cites references.

Fuhrman can be a bit confusing. Firstly, many people believe Fuhrman is against eating starches. His Eat to Live book is a six week plan for rapid weight loss. I have heard him say he eats plenty of starches himself but he doesn't need to lose weight. McDougall's maximum weight loss plan is an awful lot like Fuhrman's six week plan in that he recommends less fruit and more green and yellow vegetables while reducing starches a bit. I suspect that Fuhrman's Lifetime plan and McDougall's Maximum weight loss plan are very similar but Fuhrman's plan seems even less strict than McDougall's in that he allows some animal protein and dairy in the 10 per cent of the plan that allows other foods.

Dolores
 
avatar
jc3737 replied to DoloresTeresa's response:
Thanks for clearing that up.I don't need to loose any more weight so I'll keep on with the starches,and its good to know Fuhrman considers that OK.
 
avatar
DoloresTeresa replied to jc3737's response:
jc, azuki beans have a huge amount of potassium.

Dolores


Spotlight: Member Stories

I'm 33 years old and live in Chicago. I'm a Biology undergrad at Loyola and hope to go on to medical school or an MS/RD program. I follow a v...More

Helpful Tips

Killer Athlete's Foot Cure
If you have athlete's foot, gently wash the affected area. I usually got it between my toes. Use a hair dryer on warm, to dry the foot for ... More
Was this Helpful?
12 of 21 found this helpful

Related News

There was an error with this newsfeed

Report Problems With Your Medications to the FDA

FDAYou are encouraged to report negative side effects of prescription drugs to the FDA. Visit the FDA MedWatch website or call 1-800-FDA-1088.