Still nuts

[patty]

When getting sober it is not uncommon for women to be afraid of women because of the way they are treated in the culture.

I was curious about what you meant as well, and now I'm more confused. Why are women afraid of other women?

History:) Survival. It is not a moral issue.

Aloha, patty

[Chumly]

"In AA there is what you call thirteen stepping, where men work their program on women."

I'm still not sure I understand what you mean by this. I thought 13 stepping was taking advantage of a new member by (primarily) sexual means. Some people use members of the opposite sex as sponsors, and there isn't necessarily anything wrong with that.

Michael

[yarnpetter]

"In AA there is what you call thirteen stepping, where men work their program on women."

I'm still not sure I understand what you mean by this. I thought 13 stepping was taking advantage of a new member by (primarily) sexual means. Some people use members of the opposite sex as sponsors, and there isn't necessarily anything wrong with that.

Michael

This has always been my understanding of 13th stepping also. I know some people say never to sponsor or be sponsored by someone of the opposite sex but I have found that it can be done successfully -depending on the people.

[patty]

"In AA there is what you call thirteen stepping, where men work their program on women."

I'm still not sure I understand what you mean by this. I thought 13 stepping was taking advantage of a new member by (primarily) sexual means. Some people use members of the opposite sex as sponsors, and there isn't necessarily anything wrong with that.

Michael

Women coming in AA/NA are usually very broken. It was only when Betty Ford entered AA, did the doors of AA finally open. Women alcoholic/addicts have never been treated like male alcoholic/addicts. They were looked at as whores. Men were looked at weak willed.

Michael wrote:

Some people use members of the opposite sex as sponsors, and there isn't necessarily anything wrong with that.

It depends. It is not a moral issue:) Some people are not able to get sober because of the 4th Step.. taking a fearless moral inventory and making amends unless it do more harm. It is easier for the victim to acknowledge the abuse vs. the perpetrator because he/she doesn't think they did or are doing anything wrong. That is why some people stay sick to teach you how to get well as some get well to teach you how to get well.

Women still rely on men to survive. A mother will cognitively distance from her husband violating her child if her personal survival is threatened. Kings have thrown out a young wife for a younger one. Denial is the nature of the disease. That is where the premise of "A man will chase your a--, a woman will save it" comes from. A woman has nothing to offer in the way of "survival" to another woman but she can teach her how to commune with her nature, which is one of giving like the Sun.

Aloha, patty

[secdroid]

Jeff Novick has taken Dr. McDougall's message to heart. He never suggests using any nuts or seeds in any of his recipes on his dvds.

Not entirely true. From the FAST_FOOD_BONUS.pdf file that came with Jeff's first Fast Food DVD:

Unsalted Raw Nuts/Seeds and Nut/Seed Butter

Raw nuts and seeds, and the "butters" made from them, are rich in
nutrients especially minerals. A few of them, like walnuts, flax
seeds and chia seeds are also excellent sources of the omega 3
essential fat. They are also shelf stable and will not spoil easily.
They can also add creaminess and texture to some home made
dressings and dips/spreads and/or soups. I make a salad dressing
that is made from a little tahini (sesame seed butter)mixed with
lemon and water. I also add a small amount of tahini to blended
garbanzo beans to add some texture to my homemade hummus.

However, due to their extremely high calorie density, go very easy
on them. I recommend consuming no more than 1-2 oz a day at
most. Also, if you are struggling with your weight, I recommend
either eliminating them or limiting them even more, to no more
than 1 oz, no more than 1-5x a week. And, when you do use them,
make sure you mix them with something low in calorie density, like
a vegetable or fruit salad.

[patty]

Mahalo for sharing... I stand corrected. Just to clarify, I was referring to the recipes Jeff Novick visually prepared on his _Fast Food_ and _Fast Burgers and Fries_. I missed reading the part about the nuts and nut butters on the recipe cd that came with the _Fast Food_.

Jeff Novick makes it very clear on his _Calorie Density_ dvd, if you eat 1 tablespoon of oil it equates to 1 lb. of broccoli and it isn't easy to overeat a lb. of broccoli but to use more than 1 tablespoon of oil. The differences of calories from a cup carrots or a bowl of carrots doesn't matter, it is the density of the calories that matters.

And I take full responsibility if I am getting in-between someone and their drug.. nuts and seeds are a drug for me. It is just how I see it. Just saying and practicing: Ho'oponopono (I am sorry, Please forgive me, Thank you, I love you)

Aloha, patty

[secdroid]

nuts and seeds are a drug for me

Me, too! A person has to know his/her limitations. I find it easiest to resist temptation when I simply don't keep rich foods in the home. I do keep ground flax seeds for my oatmeal, but one is not likely to binge on that.

I make my hummus the no oil, no tahini Esselstyn way and find that I don't really miss the tahini. I use no oil, no nut salad dressings.

For me, it is simply easier to get used to having no added nuts, oils, and very minimal sweeteners so that my tastes can completely change.

[patty]

nuts and seeds are a drug for me

Me, too! A person has to know his/her limitations. I find it easiest to resist temptation when I simply don't keep rich foods in the home. I do keep ground flax seeds for my oatmeal, but one is not likely to binge on that.

I make my hummus the no oil, no tahini Esselstyn way and find that I don't really miss the tahini. I use no oil, no nut salad dressings.

For me, it is simply easier to get used to having no added nuts, oils, and very minimal sweeteners so that my tastes can completely change.

It is good to hear:) I see you well and healthy! When I first made my transition to Dr. McDougall's site from Dr. Fuhrman's Jeff Novick was very kind to explain to me about the nuts and seeds. I was amazed how it is difficult to let go a new habit vs. a old one. When I was on Dr. Fuhrman's online site I developed the habit. And in letting them go and allowing the starch, I lost the last 20 pounds, which 6 I regained when my cousin visited and bought some peanut butter. She had a tumor removed that grew on her panaceas and has to eat small meals. She now only has half a panaceas. She feels the tumor was caused from the soy she had been eating, and is still in denial about the consequences of animal products. In watching her eat I felt she eats like someone who has had gastric bypass.

I have let go all soy because of the fat. It was amazing how quickly I got caught up using nuts/seeds and soy milk again, though on Fuhrman's program I never used nut butters What helped me to get off them was making a sorbet smoothie with rice milk. And eating more beans with my starch. It must be the fat in the beans that I am now attracted too... yikes the biological metabolic dollar tof fat/oil is still alive and vibrant. It took two of Jeff Novick's nuts dvds for me to understand I will be Ok without nuts and seeds.

Mahalo for your response. I am so grateful for Dr. McDougall going deep enough to feel and know the body's biological metabolical dollar of fat/oil unconscious, comes into sync with the conscious mind by being starchcentered. It is a gift that keeps on giving:) We are very Blessed to know our desires and health needs can be met on 3.00 or less One day at a time.

Aloha, patty

[secdroid]

I have let go all soy because of the fat. It was amazing how quickly I got caught up using nuts/seeds and soy milk again, though on Fuhrman's program I never used nut butters What helped me to get off them was making a sorbet smoothie with rice milk. And eating more beans with my starch. It must be the fat in the beans that I am now attracted too... yikes the biological metabolic dollar tof fat/oil is still alive and vibrant.

I used to use soy milk with my oatmeal, but now just eat oatmeal with flax seed, thinned with water. No plant-based milk substitute. Oatmeal is still 13% fat, so no problems there!

I find edamame enjoyable as part of my diet, but don't use tofu or tempeh, let alone "foods" made with isolated soy protein. More and more, I find whole foods preferable.

IMHO, Jeff Nelson of VegSource did an excellent job in summarizing the best evidence about nuts in -- http://www.vegsource.com/news/2012/07/c ... -nuts.html

Dr. Fuhrman has to use nuts to provide sufficient calories in his relatively low starch diet. It works for some/many people. Might be advisable for vegan athletes who need calories.

McDougall/Esselstyn/Ornish/Novick use starches for satiety and limit the nuts and seeds. This approach works better for me. Less temptation to over-consume calories by those of us who don't need any extra calories.

[CHEF AJ]

Actually I bought the book on the recommendation of Chef AJ. That's why I am confused. If True North recommended Chef AJ cut out the nuts, why did she recommend the Bravo! cookbook? I like Chef AJ and I am not criticizing her at all. I am just confused about the issue of nuts.

I am so sorry if you bought the book on my recommendation and didn't like it. I would be happy to buy it back from you if you mail it to a non-profit organization out here.

Love & Kale,
Chef AJ

[veggylvr]

And this whole "nuts increase nutrient absorption" thing I keep hearing about. Have any doctors actually treated patients for poor carateniod absorption? But I bet they have treated lots of folks for obesity and it's complications. Why is this even such a big deal?

I've been thinking this too - how absurd it is that we westerners are so overly concerned about nutrient deficiencies when there are cultures starving from not getting enough calories or quality foods, and we're so obese. Our problem isn't a lack of nutrients or poor absorbtion of nutrients. Our main and only problem is simply not putting enough nutrient-rich food into our mouths. Even then, almost no one is suffering from deficiencies.

[tcolin]

Hey vegan vegan:

What you're posting (from Dr. Fuhrman) makes no sense. I don't understand how Dr. Fuhrman is trying to use these studies in relation to AJ. I have read all these nut studies over the past 10 years and this is not rocket science. There is a very good review on nuts that just went up on vegsource, see:

http://www.vegsource.com/news/2012/07/c ... -nuts.html

And it deconstructs what the major studies say, the ones which are used to hype the false idea that nuts are a weight loss food or somehow super foods. Nuts are good, and it's good to include some since variety is helpful, but as Dr. McDougall says, really dial them down if you need to lose weight.

The first study that Dr. Fuhrman is citing is covered in the vegsource article and they actually have a pdf of the full study. I am going to paste what they wrote at vegsource about this:

= = = = =
Here is a brand new study looking at nuts and weight loss, along with a link to the full study itself:

A randomized trial of the effects of an almond-enriched, hypocaloric diet in the treatment of obesity. Foster GD, Shantz KL, Vander Veur SS, Oliver TL, Lent MR, Virus A, Szapary PO, Rader DJ, Zemel BS, Gilden-Tsai A. Am J Clin Nutr. 2012 Jun 27. [Epub ahead of print] PMID:22743313 Free PMC Article http://www.ajcn.org/content/early/2012/ ... 5.full.pdf

This is a study where individuals were put on a calorie-restricted diet in order to lose weight. There were two groups: one ate an almond-enriched diet, the other ate a nut-free diet. 

At the end of 18 months, the almond-enriched dieters lost an average of 8 pounds (3.7 kg), while those who had no nuts in their diets lost an average of 13 pounds (5.9 kg – see Table 2 of study).

So the dieters who didn't add nuts lost 62% more weight than the nut-eaters. 



Interestingly, the study's authors concluded: “There were no differences in weight loss or cardiovascular disease risk factor outcomes between groups at 18 mo.”

But as you can clearly see yourself, the data shows that non-nut-eaters lost 5 pounds more the nut-eaters lost.

It's important to note that this study was paid for by the Almond Board of California and the study's principal author, Gary Foster, serves as an advisory member of the Almond Board. The study is currently being used to promote Almond sales (along with sales of other “healthy snacks” like canned tuna and low-fat milk) through press releases and “news” posts such as http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/2 ... 01850.html
= = = = =

Nowhere in this study does it say, as Dr. Fuhrman claims, anything like, “The reason the first study did not show as much continued weight benefits [in the nut-eating group] is the nature of the unhealthy diet they gave them overall, and the snacking of the nuts and lack of compliance as the study went on.”

What? He posts a study, it disproves his point, and he's claiming that it somehow is the fault of the diet that both of the groups were fed, so it doesn't count? Give me a break. His response makes no sense and he references something not even in the study, as you can see for yourself. If in fact the researchers felt the study was a failure because the participants didn't comply, why would they even publish it?


If Dr. Fuhrman is pointing to that first study, he is correct in the sense that this study helps explain why AJ lost weight when she stopped eating nuts for a period – because nuts can promote weight gain, as the study data clearly shows. They do in just about every study out there, not just the ones that the nut industry pays for. You can read several other nut studies. Most of the nut industry-funded studies on nuts and weight loss are garbage, but unfortunately some researchers like Dr. Fuhrman and Dr. Greger seem to only read the abstracts and don't look at the details.

(And in fact, if you look at the studies and the data tables, you will see that the non-nut-eaters end up with lower cholesterol and better biomarkers for heart disease than those eating the nuts.)

As for Dr. Fuhrman writing: ""Nuts induce weight loss, especially when substituted for high carb calories like white potato. It is fascinating that they increase the absorption of micronutrients and phytonutrients from other foods while at the same time decreasing the absorption of macronutrients from other foods."

Dr. Fuhrman is making up the fact that substituting nuts for potatoes produces weight loss, unless he means French fries. But not whole potatoes, just another thing he is making up. There's a study that showed that diabetic numbers were slightly improved when nuts were substituted for a junky muffin, that's the only "carbohydrate" that's been tested.

The second study Dr. Fuhrman mentions is something already well known. We don't absorb all the calories in nuts. That is true and it's in a number of studies. This second study talks about eating whole nuts, but if you process nuts into salad dressing or nut butter, then the absorption increases and you do get some more calories. The authors of that second study state this as well.

In the many “nuts might be good for weight loss” studies done, the authors all note in the studies that the nut-eaters do not gain AS MUCH weight as would be expected based on the calories from the nuts, but they do gain weight, even in calorie-restricted diets.

Here is someone with Loma Linda (where a lot of the nut research is done) talking about this in her own blog:

http://lindsaywestbrook.wordpress.com/tag/nuts/

Quoting from her page:

= = = =
"When participants replaced a food item and ate a serving of nuts each day while maintaining the same caloric intake, weight did not change"

"Then, when participants were simply asked to add nuts to their regular food intake, there was weight gain, but less than expected (only 0.6 kg instead of 3.6 kg)."
= = = =

So it's well known that all the calories in whole nuts aren't absorbed. That's nothing new. But rather than gaining 8 pounds in six months based on nut consumption in that study the blogger is citing, participants only gained 1.5 pounds. So from the review she's citing, nuts add around 3 pounds a year on average when added to your diet, unless you're controlling for calories or exercising a lot. And that's what the Loma Linda nut research experts found.

(You see the same phenomena when someone switches to a low-fat, high fiber diet, about 15% of calories they would be expected to absorb using the Atwater calorie estimating system, are not actually absorbed, see: http://www.ajcn.org/content/86/6/1649.full )

So now here is what is new and not part of any study: Dr. Fuhrman seems to have a personal theory that goes like this: If you eat nuts (which contain fat), since fat helps absorb nutrients, and since with nuts you are not absorbing all the calories, only maybe 60 to 70% of them, by eating nuts you are increasing your absorption of nutrients without increasing net calories (and that's assuming you control your hunger and not eat to satiety as in the McDougall diet).

Now, Dr. Fuhrman's theory continues, vegans are probably lacking in absorption of adequate nutrients. Huh? Says who? Healthy vegans are eating nothing but nutrient-rich plant foods, and are eating as much or more than what the longest-lived populations around the world have eaten. How would they be lacking in nutrients? What is the evidence? (Dr. Fuhrman has none.)

And then Dr. Fuhrman makes another leap, that if there is an alleged “lack of absorption” in the vegan diet, this lack must inevitably contribute to some potential ill health of vegans, down the road. (Again, he's just making that up, no evidence for it.)

To put Dr. Fuhrman's theory another way, a way he might see as most effective: “You won't absorb enough nutrients on a McDougall diet, so you will end up dying prematurely as a result! And the solution is to eat my particular brand of diet, buy my books, buy my supplements, add nuts, follow all my instructions, and then you will absorb more nutrients and live longer!”



The only problem with that is that, as I said, there is zero evidence for it. It's something someone might make up to try to compete in the marketplace, and convince possible customers who don't actually check the studies you post, that you are a Diet Guru who has The Truth, and all others should be ignored.

Isn’t that Dr. Fuhrman's message? He keeps talking about all his patients that he has helped but the only study on weight he's gotten published was very poorly done, and of no real value. Dr. Colin Campbell actually REMOVED his name from Dr. Fuhrman's weight loss study in a retraction published this winter in the same scientific journal Dr. Campbell got it published in.

Dr. Campbell's reason for “disassociating” himself from Dr. Fuhrman's study was that the study contains “major errors that discredit the otherwise impressive health benefits of a whole food plant-based dietary lifestyle,”

Got that? So if Dr. Campbell is running away from Dr. Fuhrman's “science” as fast as he can, are the rest of us all supposed to just believe Dr. Fuhrman when he comes up with these kooky, self-serving theories?

Campbell Response


I only recently learned of this post and it is accurate, except for one thing. I did not proactively publish Dr. Fuhrman’s paper as this might suggest.

About 5-8 years ago, I was expressing general interest in Dr. Joel Fuhrman’s work, as I did with a few other clinicians, inviting him to Cornell to give a lecture (as I did for 32 others) and including him in a group of seven to consider a research proposal on how to advance this field. He then asked that I help him publish in a peer-reviewed journal some case histories of his patients and their body weight loss. He thought that my long years of publishing over 350 experimental research papers might help (he had no such papers). I did so because I thought that he had something that needed airing in the professional literature. I agreed for him to use my name as a co-author (but in a secondary place in the list, although later it was mysteriously changed in the journal’s archives to my being first author--leading others to falsely believe that I had done the study).

His manuscript, submitted to two lead journals, was turned down. A couple years later, I became curious and asked him what had become of the manuscript. He replied that it had been submitted to yet another journal, albeit much lower quality, and was being published (in May 2008). Fast forward to the Fall of 2011, when I was reminded by a friend who had used those results and who informed me that something was amiss in the way that Dr. Fuhrman was promoting the findings.

With some difficulty I retrieved a copy of the raw data. Previously, Drs. Sarter and Fuhrman had only provided a summary table of these data—it is rare for secondary authors and reviewers to actually see the raw data. Not only were those data badly miscalculated and misinterpreted but, much worse, Dr. Fuhrman exaggerated in a very public place that this study resulted in "the most sustained weight loss ever recorded in a medical study” (or “in medical history"). This is not factual. Even though Fuhrman was claiming that all of the 56 subjects had lost weight and had kept it off for two years, only 4 had done so. He also said that average weight loss for these subjects was 53 pounds, but upon my calculation of the raw data, it was 34 pounds and then this was only for the individuals who complied. His very public claim that there were 65 patients is false; there were 56 patients. On another very public occasion, he said that there were 100 patients, not the 56 or even the 65 (he was NOT referring to some additional patients beyond the study, as he once claimed).

I decided to submit a letter to the journal (in Sept 2011) withdrawing my support and shared it with Dr. Fuhrman. But to this day, he has refused to acknowledge anything wrong with the paper that I co-authored. Indeed, he continued to use this paper (his only paper) to raise funding from the public for his research. He continues to falsely highlight in a prominent place an average 53-pound weight loss.

More recently, I learned that he also allowed my name to be used in a widely viewed documentary ("Fat, Sick and Nearly Dead"), claiming that I supported his work. My name is placed alongside an image of his food pyramid used to support his work, which I never saw and which I cannot support. Worse, he prominently identifies my institution, Cornell University, in this film (now seen by three million viewers according to the producer), creating a serious professional embarrassment for me.

There is much more to this ongoing nightmare, but this is enough. Destroying the evidence of Fuhrman’s misdeeds, as one of his friends wants to do, does not solve the problem. I simply want it known that I can no longer support anything Dr. Fuhrman says or does. Some have advised that my making this public may hurt this important area of work. But I disagree. Behavior like this only runs the risk of turning this idea into one more food fad for personal gain, a practice that has long plagued the public narrative on food and health. We can do things better and it begins by making a special effort to tell the truth.

[Adrienne]

Thank you Dr Campbell for posting this.

[Mark Simon]

Thank you, Dr. Campbell.

I want to add that you are not the only one who has been treated shabbily by Dr. Fuhrman.

Caldwell Esselstyn MD has been defamed by Dr. Fuhrman in Fuhrman's transparent attempts to set himself above everyone else and be the one true "guru."

Here you will see that Dr. Essesltyn felt compelled to also distance himself from the sheer mendacity of Dr. Fuhrman:

http://www.heartattackproof.com/clarification.htm

It's sad that someone as esteemed as Dr. Esselstyn, who has worked so hard and helped so many, would be the victim of such a dishonest attack.

Just to make some comparison here, Dr. Esselstyn was awarded the Bronze Star for his work during the Vietnam War, he has a gold meal from the 1956 Olympics, he has published 166 papers and articles in the scientific literature, see:

http://www.heartattackproof.com/publications.htm
http://www.heartattackproof.com/cv.htm

Compare that with Dr. Fuhrman, who has one now-discredited study on weight loss which he grossly exaggerates and misrepresents to the public, one study on vegan athletes and two other small studies. That's a total of 4 papers against Dr. Esselstyn's 166.

And it's worth mentioning that the study Dr. Fuhrman did on vegan athletes was designed to evaluate and recommend 4 supplements. it appears that somehow or other, the fact that he SELLS the very same 4 supplements he studied and recommended did not appear in the original article and had to be added as a Correction later. It is a serious financial conflict which it appears Dr. Fuhrman may not have disclosed, for people trying to evaluate his work.

Dr. Fuhrman's second "study" is here:

http://journals.lww.com/acsm-csmr/Abstr ... spx#errata

Here is the Correction, which the journal that published Dr. Fuhrman's supplements study, subsequently published a few months later, about the matter:

"A disclosure omission was detected. The lead author, Joel Fuhrman, MD, profits financially from the sale of supplements promoted in the article."

So on one hand you have a respected researcher and doctor, a decorated veteran and Olympic gold medalist -- Dr Esselstyn -- being spitballed from the peaNUT gallery by a supplement-pusher -- Dr. Fuhrman -- who does research that seems to be only on the things he sells so he can benefit.

Isn't Dr. Fuhrman currently doing a study on DHA? Of course he is -- because he sells it, and maybe he can generate a bunch of ginned up fear and make the sheep who hang on his every word pay him a bunch of money every month for that supplement, too.

[Ltldogg]

Thank you to both Dr. Campbell and Mark Simon. This info is very helpful to me.

Cheers,
Ltldogg