Dr. McDougall's Online Discussion Board

Didi there are people that live till their 90's on the SAD diet and had no major problems. That doesn't mean the SAD diet is a good diet to embark on. We don't use, as McDougall alluded to in the interview, a test case of one to determine anything about a diet. Heretic is a test case of one. His Optimal diet, promoted by the Polish doctor that can't prove his claims of being nominated for the Nobel prize or publish any data in a bona fide medical journal should be enough for most people. Heretic could drop dead of a massive cardiac event and who would know?
We have to fall back on that pillar of science, the peer reviewed data in a genuine body of research. Anecdotes even here on the forum pages mean little to people deciding on a nutritional path and that's as it should be. Dr. McDougall welcomes the stories of improved health and turned around lives but knows we need more than that to make nutritional decisions. We need the body of history coupled with empirical data, not just wonderful stories of improved health.
Jimmy Moore hasn't got it. Heretic hasn't got it. Atkins didn't have it. Cordain didn't have it. It's musical chairs with history and the real data. Dr. McDougall should be rightly outraged at the dangerous misinformation these people promote. It might get them 15 minutes of fame, it might get them a career to live on but the truth is they are killing people with their advice. There is no nice way to put it otherwise.
f1jim

Hi,

Quick intro- I'm new, and do not follow or think what this site suggests is ideal, so I will try to be polite n a house that isn't mine.

For those that are bringing up the LC or Paleo community for being overweight or whatever other critiques, is ignoring the large body of evidence of those that do well on it.

I eat the following daily: 3-9 whole eggs, beef, bacon, butter, coconut oil, along with fruits and veggies... I tend to keep carbs low and follow a mostly Paleo approach.

I'm 5'8 160 at 12% body fat, my lipid #s which many don't really know much about (LDL is a poor marker for heart health, but I digress)... my lipid panel TC 157, HDL 71, LDL 77 (more LDLa than LDLb), triglycerides 45 and an A1C in the low 5s... And, no genes are not on my side, both my parents have had heart attacks before age 50.

One thing I'd like people to focus on, is less demonizing real foods and let's focus on what has really changed in our diets and around the world, and it isn't animal products. We need to stop blaming real foods, or even macros, rather focus on the processed foods...

The podcast interview was hard to listen to, McDougal was rather disrespectful, I have never heard a vegan activist in his position come off in such a way. I can maybe understand to a degree since I'm sure he puts up with a lot from those that oppose his views, as I have been there. At the same time, not a very professional interview IMO.

Glad it was done, just wasn't very informative.

Let's not forget nutritional science is continually showing the benefits of animal products in the diet, even when low-carbing and the n=1s are exploding to more than just n=1

With all due respect we believe the data continues to pile up showing the dangers of animal products and the increasing benefits of whole foods, plant based eating. either of us is probably going to have our minds changed by this exchange but I appreciate your expressing your views here.
f1jim

didi wrote:... Jimmy Moore is his own argument against an Atkins diet but time will tell about his "nutritional" ketosis diet. (What does nutritional ketosis mean, anyway?) Arriving at a state that resembles starvation while still eating?

It's lowering carbs (usually to <5% of calories) and protein (usually ~10% of calories) so that blood ketones stay in a preferred range. JM checks his blood with a ketone meter twice a day and he also checks his blood sugar every day while he maintains a diet of 85% fat. Fun!

BTW, he started the nutty ketosis after gaining a ton of weight eating nothing but hamburger steaks and diet coke and failing to lose it on an all egg diet that was recommended by two prominent low-carb doctors (Michael and Mary Dan Eades of Protein Power infamy).

I do think that Dr. McDougall benefited JM's audience. There are a lot of struggling low-carbers who are probably very ready to try something new. The "look at all the fat low-carb gurus" argument feels mean, but I admit that it's the reason I gave up that nonsense. They have a lot of noise and pseudoscience on their side that confuses the heck out of people, but in the end you have to ask if you want to take diet advice from an obese person.

f1jim wrote:With all due respect we believe the data continues to pile up showing the dangers of animal products and the increasing benefits of whole foods, plant based eating. either of us is probably going to have our minds changed by this exchange but I appreciate your expressing your views here.
f1jim

HA- I agree, thanks for being cool, I'm sure we could get into a Pubmed link war, but we will obviously stick to our guns... nutrition the new religion

Mark , So your purpose here is what ?

nutrition the new religion

Then Paleo and Low Carb must be like Heaven's Gate & Branch Davidians?

Paleo & Low Carb are really cult suicide pact at best. I'm glad you brought up the analogy.

sorry for the negative tone of this post, no worries if its deleted. I share in the frustation when I think about the world we could live in if everyone ate starch. The end to needless animal suffering, including the human animal.

I had no intention of being respectful to Jimmy Moore for several reasons and the most important being that the low-carb message is sickening millions of people. The public is confused. I am not here to win a popularity contest.

Besides this is how he invited me to be interviewed for his podcast:

01-03-2012 10:28 PM
Low-fat, high-carb diet guru Dr. John McDougall is back
Low-fat, high-carb diet guru Dr. John McDougall is back with a brand new book called STARCH SOLUTION: http://santarosa.towns.pressdemocrat.com...an-endures ~ He says, "Dr. Atkins died killed him." NOT! This guy is a public disgrace and too chicken to come on my podcast to talk about his blood sugar-spiking high-starch diet.

(the message appears to have been removed from his blog-http://www.livinlowcarbdiscussion.com/showthread.php?tid=7273)

Mark Shields wrote:Hi,

Quick intro- I'm new, and do not follow or think what this site suggests is ideal, so I will try to be polite n a house that isn't mine.

For those that are bringing up the LC or Paleo community for being overweight or whatever other critiques, is ignoring the large body of evidence of those that do well on it.

I eat the following daily: 3-9 whole eggs, beef, bacon, butter, coconut oil, along with fruits and veggies... I tend to keep carbs low and follow a mostly Paleo approach.

I'm 5'8 160 at 12% body fat, my lipid #s which many don't really know much about (LDL is a poor marker for heart health, but I digress)... my lipid panel TC 157, HDL 71, LDL 77 (more LDLa than LDLb), triglycerides 45 and an A1C in the low 5s... And, no genes are not on my side, both my parents have had heart attacks before age 50.

One thing I'd like people to focus on, is less demonizing real foods and let's focus on what has really changed in our diets and around the world, and it isn't animal products. We need to stop blaming real foods, or even macros, rather focus on the processed foods...

The podcast interview was hard to listen to, McDougal was rather disrespectful, I have never heard a vegan activist in his position come off in such a way. I can maybe understand to a degree since I'm sure he puts up with a lot from those that oppose his views, as I have been there. At the same time, not a very professional interview IMO.

Glad it was done, just wasn't very informative.

How long have you been following the diet? Those are decent lipid numbers for a paleo dieter but definitely don't represent the norm in that community. I had a honeymoon period on low carb and lost some weight but my lipids among other things just got worse.
I strongly suggest the plant positive video series to see just how far out and deceptive some of the claims that sisson, wolf and uffe ravonscov have made. I mean, just take a look at the THINC (international cholesterol skeptics) to see just how far on the outskirts these characters are.

You say that we shouldn't demonize real foods but the whole paleo gimmick revolves around demonizing cheap, healthy and sustainable real foods that have supported healthy populations for eons, like oats, legumes, lentils, rice, corn, peas, rye, quiona.etc

Also remember that well before this interview jimmy moore was calling Mcdougall names like a "coward" for not appearing on his podcast previously. I honestly don't blame him for having a bit of attitude towards someone like jimmy who speaks like that yet is following some really extreme bizzare diet that has him drinking butter and doing blood checks 3 times a day

I am sure subsidies weren't brought up:) I don't have the tolerance to listen to someone defending low carb, when the consequences are so devastating. Our country is imploding upon itself, and taking the world with us.

This is from "Healthy Eating Healthy World":

The ties that bind the government to the food industry are also shown in the massive farm subsidies we all hear so much about. By providing incentives to the producers of primarily meat and dairy products, the government enables the U.S. consumer to better afford these products. According to the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM), a nonprofit organization that encourages preventive medicine, conducts clinical research, and advocates higher ethics and competence standards in research, “Between 1995 and 2004, nearly three-quarters of Farm Bill agricultural subsidies for food went for feed crops and direct aid supporting meat and dairy production. Less than half of 1 percent subsidized fruit and vegetable production.”[ 265] Using the Farm Bill subsidy numbers, the PCRM produced the image in Figure 8.1, which explains at least part of the reason salad calories cost more than hamburger calories. Our government is supporting the industries that produce the least healthy foods.

Figure 8.1 Why Does a Salad Cost More Than a Big Mac?[ 266] The PCRM goes on to report: “The Farm Bill’s skewed system of subsidies helps explain why unhealthy foods are often cheap and plentiful, while healthy foods are more expensive and less available. The priorities in the subsidy system stand in stark contrast to the federal government’s own advice on nutrition.”[ 267] As with dietary guidelines, there are a lot of politics and a lot of money involved. As Marion Nestle points out, “No matter who owns them, food companies lobby government and agencies, and they become financially enmeshed with experts on nutrition and health.

Aloha, patty

Please look at this research showing the Paleo Diet raises cholesterol in healthy people.
http://kb.osu.edu/dspace/bitstream/handle/1811/54749/Trexler_Denman_Poster.pdf?sequence=1

Well one thing you can say. Despite Jimmy Moore's prior rude tactics bating Dr. McDougall to get him on the show, when he did the interview, he was more than fair.
I'll give him a "A" Grade on that.

I remember when Dr. McDougall had a radio show about 20 years ago, he also brought on many guests with whom he didn't agree and was always fair in hearing them out.

Although I do understand Dr. McDougall agressively keeping the subject matter from straying down the "processed carb" street.
That diversion would have blurred the real debate, by throwing in Twinkies and donuts under the heading of "carbs".

It will be most interesting to see the results of the 1 year study at Oregon Health and Science University, on the MS issue.
Equally interesting will be the numbers and data of the plain old normal readings from those patients. BP, Cholesterol, LDL, HDL etc.

Apparently after a full year, those on the intervention group ended up averaging 15% of calories as fat. That is the lowest average I've seen in a study thus far. So it will be interesting to see the results.
I assume a few in the intervention group were up near 20%, but with most others near, or under the 10% category. I'd hope we might get a look at even the differences between those in the low end and upper end of the intervention group to see if there are differences.
That may be too much to ask, given the numbers in that arm of the study, for drawing any conclusions about the differences in that range.

But it will be wonderful to see the comparison of the control group at 40% with the intervention group at 15% average.
For too long we get these studies that aim the "low fat" arm at 20% fat and then end up at 29% or even well over 30% by the end of 6 months or a year.... Or we get the Meditterainean study where "low fat" was 37%. Making the difference between the control and intervention negligble.

I hope it doesn't take 2 or 3 more years to see the results published.

All in all the Jimmy Moore Show was a good exchange.
Who knows, perhaps a few folks in his audience will have second thoughts.
Though I can imagine what the comments will be on his forums, if he has such.

Rock & Roll.

Amazing contribution by McDougall. I love this interview and I loved McDougalls attitude!

Jimmy Moore was very keen on inuits.

Inuits carry parasites (1) and parasites are known to alter the lipid-metabolism within the host, in experimental (animal)models the presence of parasites have been shown to result in regression of atherosclerotic lesions. The overall health of inuits is very poor (2) and as McDougall noted they hardly live to their 30s. The bone mineral content among inuits is signficantly poorer compared to Americans (3), Inuit mummies as old as 1500 years display clear signs of osteoporosis (4).

Ancel Keys summarized the Inuit nonsense very eloquently:

”The fact is that nothing is really known about the incidence of atherosclerosis and coronary heart disease among Eskimos. According to Ehrström, arteriosclerosis is common among them, reaching an incidence of 29% in North Greenland, but the evidence is dubious, particularly in regard to atherosclerotic heart disease. In any case we could not expect a high incidence of coronary heart disease among primitive Eskimos because few of them attain an age when they would be likely victim of the disease. The majority of Eskimos no longer eat a high-fat diet, and of those who adhere to the old way of life probably not more than a total of 100 or so men are beyond the age of 50, though estimates are difficult in a widely dispersed population who do not know their own ages and are notorious for appearing far older than their years.” –Keys 1957 (5)


1) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20320248

2) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14246293

3) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/4412233

4) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8298320

5) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/13448947

More articles on Inuits.

Low incidence of cardiovascular disease among the Inuit--what is the evidence?
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12535749

A hypothesis on the development of acute myocardial infarction in Greenlanders.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6293041