The data seems loaded on the side of nuts....the only question I ever have is what quantity to eat.Fuhrman says about 1/4 cup.I like to have walnuts,almonds and pecans....it only takes one of two nuts of each kind to make up a handful.
I have to admit I probably eat a half cup or more.
EG,Don't be a stranger from the debate board.I think everyone would like to see the EG-Heretic debates continue.
EG, the site is interesting but I think they misinterpret when they say humans are meant to eat an exclusively plant diet. That is not the same thing as plant based. Fish and eggs certainly meet the requirement of something that can be swallowed in small pieces and chewed easily. So do insects and some larvae.
Also, there is plenty of evidence for McDougall's insistence on starches. Why the amylase in our saliva if not for digesting starches?
Dr. McDougall has been curing people for 30 years. He is rightfully very proud of and sold on his starch based program, without nuts. But when Dr. McDougall espouses the virtues of a starch based diet, I don't believe him. If being a starch based diet were a real virtue in a diet, then I was perfect during my last two years of strict Pritikin diet. Of course, a diet emphasizing starch is vastly improved over the SAD, and most people improve on the McDougall diet. My heredity is familial type A LDL profile, high LDL, the worst kind, small dense, and low HDL, primarily the only bad kind of HDL. I guess this does not mesh well with a high starch diet.
My biggest mistake on Pritikin was not to emphasize salads and vegetables. Since I was running 4 miles a day, 7 days a week, I thought I needed more calories than salads and veggies offered, so I did not emphasize them. I emphasized starches, primarily brown rice, potatoes, oatmeal, whole wheat (shredded wheat), sourdough bread. If more starches improves a diet, then how could I have significant progression of my IMT? I developed lipid inclusions in my artery walls. I was very low fat, no nuts, no dairy, 0-6 oz fish, poultry or meat per Week. Few beans.
On Fuhrman, I ate 3-4 oz nuts and seeds daily, ate 1 pound raw and 1 pound cooked veggies. 2-3 cups of beans daily. No change in fruit (3-6 pieces). No change in fish, poultry or meat (0-6 oz per week). I reduced the exercise to 2 miles a day, 7 days a week.
My IMT reversed on Fuhrman. Here is a link (1) showing that an Ornish group of heart patients out performed standard medical care heart patients, with greater reduction in angina, etc, but IMT of both groups remained constant. (Thanks, jc, for that link! ) So, my IMT reversal is actually pretty cool, huh?
Dr. McDougall is frustrated that the medical establishment continues to ignore him. The answer of how to get the deserved attention is actually quite easy. Whatever it would take for Dr. McDougall to understand the improvements that Dr. Fuhrman has made over the McDougall program, the same thing would make probably make regular doctors recognize McDougall.
And, oh, thanks again, jc, for showing me about PubMed. I wasn't aware of it, before you pointed it out.
Re: I think they misinterpret when they say humans are meant to eat an exclusively plant diet.
I agree. In fact, they are absolutely wrong. Our reliance on vitamin B12 proves that we had at least a small amount of meat in our diet. Due to lactose intolerance, we know that dairy was not the source of B12 for most groups. The vegetarian's insistence that we get enough B12 from dirty vegetables, etc, has a religious or cult like furvor, not science. Indeed, famous raw foodists (T. C. Fry, for example) actually died of a B12 deficiency.
I have never endeavored to be totally vegan. I am totally vegan except for social occasions, traveling, and an occasional 1-2 oz fish, poultry or meat that my wife cooks.
On the other hand, some people with serious medical conditions make the best and most rapid improvements strictly vegan. Dr. Fuhrman is a vegan. Some people, though, do not thrive on a vegan diet, and need either a particular supplement, or a small amount of animal.
Nothing more satisfying than biting a cow's butt. I look forward to it sometimes.
re starches. When it is said that healthy people live long on a starch based diet I do not think the starch is primarily wheat bread but starchy vegetables. If you were eating primarily rice, potatoes, oatmeal, whole wheat products then that doesn't seem to be the starch based diet of long lived populations. Healthy populations such as the tarahumara ate corn, beans,squash and greens along with some fish and game. Pritikin knew this yet his diet was often interpreted as relying heavily on wheat and other grains. What did he serve when you were at his live in center?
The traditional Japanese diet contained rice as a staple but also some fish and lots of vegetables and sea vegetables.
I have seen pictures of the buffet table at McDougall's live in center and it looked to me like the diners start out with salads and vegetables and eat the starchy vegetables to make sure their appetites are satisfied. I did not see them sitting down to eat lots of breads. The okinawans were longer lived than the Japanese and traditionally ate a diet consisting mostly of sweetpotatoes--also not heavy on bread.
I would like to see more studies that back up your experience.....Fuhrman vs McDougall....and I would like to see how McDougall would deal with the data from the study I posted.
While I beleive the Fuhrman diet is far superior to the McDougall diet there is still not enough in the way of science to establish that case just yet.
I know its a remore possibility but it is possible your experience with TIM regression is not something universal to others....it may only apply to you....I doubt it but it is a possibilty we have to consider.
Thanks, folks, for correcting me about flour products. McDougall discourages flour products. Pritikin did not make that connection, that flour products are low nutrient. Even today, pasta is on the menu at the Pritikin center. Of course, 2 large salads a day are primary at the Pritikin Center. McDougall discourages all dairy products, and Pritikin allows non-fat dairy products in moderation.
The differences between McDougall and Fuhrman are not large, especially if the starchy vegetables are emphasized by McDougall. Fuhrman makes a point of maximizing nutrients, but McDougall has followed this lead.
One large difference remains, however, between Fuhrman and McDougall, Pritikin, Ornish, Esselstyn. Fuhrman believes a low fat vegan diet is unhealthy, and leads to increased risk of essential tremor, Parkinson disease, and cardiac arrhythmia, in older age. He sees many people in his practice with these ailments, following a low fat vegan diet. Fuhrman believes that the incidence of these issues is higher than chance, for the low fat vegan adherents, but data is lacking.
On the other hand, Esselstyn has the best results ever documented for heart patients, using a very strict low fat vegan diet, for heart patients. Esselstyn's 18 people that remained on his diet (of 24 starting), clearly had much much worse heredity than average, for heart disease. 5 of his patients were told they would not live a year. At the 20 year followup, all but 1 is happy and healthy.
Fuhrman has said that a low fat diet increases the chance of death by cardiac arrhythmia(1) (not a heart attack). Indeed, one of Esselstyn's patients died in year 8 of the diet. That patient had extensive heart damage from prior heart attacks, at the start of Esselstyn's study. That patient certainly would not have lived 8 years on standard medical care. His autopsy showed reveral of atherosclerosis, yet he did die of arrhythmia. Would Fuhrman's diet have prevented that? No way to know.
On Pritikin, my heart would "thud" in my chest, occasionally. At least, it seemed like it. Now on Fuhrman, that almost never happens. Is this meaningful? I don't know.
In an arrhythmia the heartbeats may be too slow, too rapid, too irregular, or too early. Rapid arrhythmias (greater than 100 beats per minute) are called tachycardias. Slow arrhythmias (slower than 60 beats per minute) are called bradycardias. Irregular heart rhythms are called fibrillations (as in atrial fibrillation and ventricular fibrillation). When a single heartbeat occurs earlier than normal, it is called a premature contraction.
Based on my experience, I'd have to say nuts are the most misunderstood foods on the planet. I have a terrible weight problem & have always read & been told to avoid nuts because they're high in fat. I've been eating 6-7 handfuls of nuts/day for the past 16 months & I have very large hands. I've had no trouble losing 35 lbs. (not counting the first 20 lbs lost from undiagnosed diabetes). I'm talking about mostly raw nuts, but I do have 1-2 handfuls of roasted, salted peanuts/day. I've been following Dr. Fuhrman's program but I'm sure I'm eating more nuts than recommended & certainly way more than Dr. McDougall recommends. All my blood lipid numbers & blood pressure went from "high risk" to "perfect" according to my doctor who did my labs on 3-31-10.
I think if nuts are high in fat, it must be beneficial fat.
Folks have different responses to nuts, and different overall diets.
Raw nuts are obviously better than salted. EG's diet is so amazing, its no surprise he can eat a few ounces a day. If everything comes out good for xring, he too is likely doing the right thing for himself, but what else is he eating ?
I tried just 4 nuts a day back in September, and in a couple weeks had chest discomfort. But I can eat an ounce of pistachios a day for months without issue. They have the least fat, a better fat balance of MUFAs and PUFAs, and resveratrol. I also usually have them with green or pomegranate tea.
Some doctors will advice against nuts because of the potential for adverse outcomes. If everyone ate like EG everyday, everyone could eat 3-4 ounces of nuts daily. But his coronary arteries are good, and his carotids are vastly improved. I had a dozen inoperable blockages AFTER bypass surgery, and can't aggravate them in any way. Nuts seem a bad idea for me.
Every case is a little different, thus the "practice" of medicine. Statistically, most cases are similar. But the cases that are anomalies require different treatment. Its easier to pay attention at home and adjust things daily than rely on a doctor day in and day out.
Fats can offer nutrients and be heart neutral if the rest of the diet is good, and the person has no stress. Once stress causes arterial damage, and some fat gets oxidized and into foam cells splitting an artery wall, then diet and activities need change.
The safe way to prevent oxidized LDL, is less LDL, which means less fat in the diet, and more exercise. More anti-oxidants, too.
I've recently had to cut back exercise for a few months. My LDL is up about 25%, from 55 to 69. Still low, but bad if that becomes a trend.
"The differences between McDougall and Fuhrman are not large, especially if the starchy vegetables are emphasized by McDougall."
McDougall is sort of "fat phobic" it seems to me. He is pretty adamant that over 10% of calories is high risk and Jeff Novick seems to agree. Yes Jeff says nuts are good but only within that 10% limit so he is really talking about maxing at maybe an ounce per day if you limit the higher fat grains and beans ie oats, garbanzos.
Furhamn ephasizes non-starchy veg as unlimited and the most important center of the diet. He strictly limits starch (veg and grains combined) to one cup per day and suggests eliminating even that for those in process of treating diabetes or dyslipidemia if there is any sign of lack of progress.
Also, McD and Novick are adamantly anti-supplement and Fuhrman is emphatically pro certain ones, esp vitamin D.
They are very similar in that they are both plant based and only real food etc but the balance of both food categories and macronutrients seems very different to me.
When ever I review Dr. McDougall's arguments versus Dr. Furhman's, Dr. Fuhrman always has much better data and understanding of individual variation.
Dr. McDougall says most people have enough D from sunlight, 15 min/day 3 days a week. Studies might support that for a person with no tan, with their first exposure to the sun. But once a person gets some tan, this is way inadequate. Studies show that people frequenting the beach in Australia, were usually deficient. The tan blocks the sunlight.
Jeff Novick agrees to get your blood level of D measured, and adjust to get 35 to 55 ng/ml in the blood. But McDougall just doesn't want to make the connection that most people need a D supplement (in the range of 800 -1500 IU, for most people) to have this blood level. A few people don't need a supplement, and a very few people need a much higher dose.
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.