You guys DrFuhrman has responded in his blog! Here is
What he had to say. Im disappointed I would have liked to see
Something to indicate the study was Reliable or point out some flaw in McDougall logic. But thats not what happened. I guess McDougall is right.
Fuhrman: It never ceases to amaze me how much the conventional population wants to bury their head in the sand and deny everything about nutritarian eating that can reverse and prevent disease and extend human lifespan. The commenters that find their way to this blog to “teach” their world view of nutrition and aim to contradict mine with the most convoluted arguments is a perfect example. Any study that shows high glycemic foods, meats, oils, increased eating frequency, high protein intake, some will look to find flaws in the studies to disavow any need to make dietary changes. A little knowledge goes a long way to inflict confusion. Keep in mind it is never just one study that begets my advice. Many of the commenters above illuminate the attempt people make to rationalize their dietary preferences with merely a shred of support on their side. Here they are defending that an almost empty calorie, low fiber, high glycemic, processed food, (with no significant micronutrient load) is not really a harmful actor, in spite of its link to breast cancer and diabetes in multiple studies and that it has the profile of foods that drive cancer development.
Certainly you can believe anything you want and go ahead, eat every hour, eat all the meat, cheese, oil, white rice and olive oil you want, it is your right. However, my work is not geared for the mass market; it is designed to inform people of the ideal diet-style to push the envelope of human longevity in those seeking such information (and to maximize weight loss and disease reversal). In other words, I do not water-down the recommendations to make it more widely acceptable.
This blog mostly exists to support those who understand my basic scientific principles and teachings. I appreciate the commenters who have read Eat To Live or some of my other books, so they at least have a framework to understand the basic premises of nutritarian nutrition, including micronutrient density, phytochemicals, food addiction, caloric restriction, resistant starch, metabolic efficiency, and the effect of foods on cancer-promoting hormones, such as insulin and IGF-1.
Yes, Asians are more sensitive to a high glycemic diet than those of European descent, but so are overweight Americans with metabolic syndrome, diabetic, or diabetic prone. For example in Korea, they always ate white rice, but now with more processed foods and all that white rice (40 percent of calories), they have almost double the diabetes risk at the same body weight as Americans. That does not exonerate white rice. Certainly without the processed foods and fast foods, the rice alone (with much more vegetables) would not cause as much disease, but that is still not the point, it is a weakness, not a strength in the diet.
So Beth, the article you linked was biased and faulty, please do not post those opinions here. David, regardless if ice cream or bacon is worse, that does not make white rice a healthy, longevity promoting food. The Chinese diet is not one we aim to emulate to maximize longevity, but we can learn something from those studies, in spite of their limitations. Dianne, you are on the wrong website, this is not the Halleluiah Diet. Natalie, your nutritional rationalizations are dangerous and everything in moderation is the perfect formula for cancer. I use science, logic and evidence to enable people to live considerably longer and better than our primitive ancestors and for those who choose to, to maximize their protection against cancer.
people say they have to be motivated before
They do something. I say do it and the motivation