Debunking Michael Greger

For those questions and discussions on the McDougall program that don’t seem to fit in any other forum.

Moderators: JeffN, f1jim, John McDougall, carolve, Heather McDougall

Re: Debunking Michael Greger

Postby bcmike » Wed Jun 19, 2013 5:33 am

Hi,
This subject has me dizzy--only thing i can say is--i'm a nut junkie,
it's like heroin to me, love them. I cannot go to the store and buy 1/2 lb. cause if i do i'll eat em in a day. Sprouted almonds-sprouted walnuts-sprouted pumpkin seeds are my fav's (though i'll eat any that don't move) After listening to Dr Greger and his weight video, i could
understand it as i do not gain an ounce. I'd guess i'm good for 1 lb. per week (minimum) One of these days i'll stop em and see if i lose
weight--i'd doubt it. I do not have any weight problems, 6'4"--180
lbs. Rest of my diet is "mostly" McDougall compliant.
bcmike
 
Posts: 169
Joined: Sat Nov 15, 2008 8:17 am

Re: Debunking Michael Greger

Postby colonyofcells » Wed Jun 19, 2013 11:14 am

For america's health problems, I suspect processed food, flour, sugar, oil and salt plus lots of money to buy tons of animal products. I am not too afraid of unprocessed vegan food like nuts, seeds, olive, avocado, coconut, cacao, etc. but we should all strive for variety rather than eat tons of avocados every day. There are traditional diets that relied more on nuts and some islanders ate tons of coconuts bec our ancestors could not afford to be too choosy about available food and they did mostly ok even on fatty unprocessed vegan foods. I do admire the traditional okinawa diet which has almost no nuts/seeds and very little fruit bec. prewar and wartime they were poor and only sweet potato was cheap. My mother told me that she experienced famines in China in the early 1930s and they had to eat sweet potato. Dried starch always preserves better and was always cheaper than fruits so many traditional diets can't be high in fruits. Many vegans do rely on chia/flax seed powder for omega 3. My sprouted chia seed powder has about 4 grams of fat in 3 tablespoons. The epa/dha supplement is 1 gram of fat per capsule. Hemp seed is popular with some vegan athletes and it is about 10 grams of fat in 3 tablespoons. Okinawa diet also had soy products so I don't worry about the fat in soy too much. I enjoy slightly processed soy like tempeh and natto where I can still see the actual soy beans.
colonyofcells
 
Posts: 6377
Joined: Sun Apr 14, 2013 2:14 pm
Location: san mateo ca

Re: Debunking Michael Greger

Postby f1jim » Wed Jun 19, 2013 11:41 am

Typically, islanders used a starch like taro for the majority of their calories. Coconuts were not the main source of calories.
f1jim
While adopting this diet and lifestyle program I have reversed my heart disease, high cholesterol, hypertension, and lost 54 lbs. You can follow my story at https://www.drmcdougall.com/james-brown/
User avatar
f1jim
 
Posts: 11349
Joined: Sun Feb 17, 2008 4:45 pm
Location: Pacifica, CA

Top Health-Promoting Programs

Postby suchy » Sun Jun 28, 2015 11:53 pm

Dear Professor Mark Simon,

In reference to your blog-post from July 31, 2012 (viewtopic.php?t=31052) where you mentioned that you’re “interested in healthy plant-based diets and have read and followed all the experts over time,” would you please be kind to list your top picks for nutritional programs enabling maintenance of weight and maximizing health & longevity?

Four months ago, a friend introduced me to a plant-based diet and gave me one of Dr. Fuhrman’s books. I read 4 of his books now and implemented Dr. Fuhrman’s program. I've lost 54 pounds. This weekend I was contemplating registering for Dr. Fuhrman’s Nutritarian Getaway. I do not need to lose more weight (at 6' 5" my BMI is at 21.6 with 7.8% body fat); I was simply hoping to discuss with Dr. Fuhrman a maintenance of a healthy lifestyle. As the Nutritarian Getaway costs a lot of money, I sought out opinions of people unhappy with Dr. Fuhrman’s program so as to feel good about not registering for the Getaway. Among others, I came across your 25 posts on McDougall's Discussion Board. Now I’m wondering what program to start adopting & following next. Is it Dr. McDougall, Dr. Esselstyn, Dr. Barnard, Dr. Campbell… or somebody else promoting more “balanced” nutrient-dense diet? I wonder if other experts have a conflict of interest similar to Dr. Fuhrman by selling/promoting their products vs. summarizing & publishing “good/reliable” science and making it readable/understandable in plain English. Maybe the answer is to simply add more starch & whole-grains to Dr. Fuhrman’s plan and/or to merge Dr. Fuhrman’s plan with Dr. McDougall’s plan or another plant-based whole-food protagonist who “rates” starch & whole-grains on par with beans & other legumes. What are your thoughts?

Thank you for your time & guidance,
Martin
suchy
 
Posts: 2
Joined: Sun Jun 28, 2015 12:00 am

Re: Debunking Michael Greger

Postby MINNIE » Mon Jun 29, 2015 7:41 am

I don't see why is it necessary to say "debunking Dr. Greger" when what is being debunked, or at least argued against, is a claim made in a particular video (or videos). An ad hominem attack is not necessary to make the point that the benefit of eating nuts has probably been overstated.

This is, of course, just one person's thoughts.

I personally find most of the free information of Dr. Greger's site very useful. Much of it is valid, and as no one is perfect, I will accept that some of the content in any book, video, website will be wrong or at least subject to debate.

Being wrong on occasion does not make someone a crank. For example, I follow Dr. McDougall's recommendations to the letter. But it would not bother me if he turned out to be mistaken on a particular fact, or if he changed his opinion based on further information. That wouldn't invalidate all the times he was right. We are all just just human, after all:).

So I say : Thanks, Dr. Greger, for the impressive amount of free and easily readable content you have made available to the public.




PEACE, LOVE & STARCH TO ALL!!!
MINNIE
 
Posts: 1880
Joined: Tue Jun 04, 2013 10:17 am

Re: Top Health-Promoting Programs

Postby openmind » Mon Jun 29, 2015 10:11 am

suchy wrote:Dear Professor Mark Simon,

In reference to your blog-post from July 31, 2012 (viewtopic.php?t=31052) where you mentioned that you’re “interested in healthy plant-based diets and have read and followed all the experts over time,” would you please be kind to list your top picks for nutritional programs enabling maintenance of weight and maximizing health & longevity?

Four months ago, a friend introduced me to a plant-based diet and gave me one of Dr. Fuhrman’s books. I read 4 of his books now and implemented Dr. Fuhrman’s program. I've lost 54 pounds. This weekend I was contemplating registering for Dr. Fuhrman’s Nutritarian Getaway. I do not need to lose more weight (at 6' 5" my BMI is at 21.6 with 7.8% body fat); I was simply hoping to discuss with Dr. Fuhrman a maintenance of a healthy lifestyle. As the Nutritarian Getaway costs a lot of money, I sought out opinions of people unhappy with Dr. Fuhrman’s program so as to feel good about not registering for the Getaway. Among others, I came across your 25 posts on McDougall's Discussion Board. Now I’m wondering what program to start adopting & following next. Is it Dr. McDougall, Dr. Esselstyn, Dr. Barnard, Dr. Campbell… or somebody else promoting more “balanced” nutrient-dense diet? I wonder if other experts have a conflict of interest similar to Dr. Fuhrman by selling/promoting their products vs. summarizing & publishing “good/reliable” science and making it readable/understandable in plain English. Maybe the answer is to simply add more starch & whole-grains to Dr. Fuhrman’s plan and/or to merge Dr. Fuhrman’s plan with Dr. McDougall’s plan or another plant-based whole-food protagonist who “rates” starch & whole-grains on par with beans & other legumes. What are your thoughts?

Thank you for your time & guidance,
Martin


Martin,

I hope you don't mind me jumping in here, since you didn't address this question to me, but I don't think you need to worry too much about the debate about which doctor's approach is better (Fuhrman, McDougall, Esselstyn). The differences amongst all these doctors is relatively small. They all want you to eat mostly whole plant foods, and they all want you to avoid or minimize processed foods and animal products. They all understand that decreasing your calorie density is the way to get to and maintain your ideal weight.

I started with Fuhrman myself in 2010, and I made great strides, dropping about 25 lbs. initially. I found it difficult to maintain his Way of Eating though, and my weight started to creep back up. Sometimes I just wasn't in the mood to make a salad or eat beans, and started to allow too much animal products back into my deit.

Then I came across the Starch Solution, and I've found long term adherence much easier. I cut animal products completely, except for rare special occasions, and made starch the center of my diet, and I lost and additional 10-15 pounds while eating as much delicious food as I've wanted.

But honestly, my diet/WOE is still influenced some by Fuhrman. Every time I look at a plate of spinach, I find it more appetizing just because of the way Furhman reminds us about how many health-promoting micronutrients greens contain.
User avatar
openmind
 
Posts: 682
Joined: Sat Feb 01, 2014 8:13 am

Re: Debunking Michael Greger

Postby colonyofcells » Mon Jun 29, 2015 11:57 am

Dr Greger's recommendations are probably closer to that of the more mainstream vegan nutritionists bec. he is limited by the studies that he reads.
colonyofcells
 
Posts: 6377
Joined: Sun Apr 14, 2013 2:14 pm
Location: san mateo ca

Re: Debunking Michael Greger

Postby Ern2Win » Mon Jun 29, 2015 1:00 pm

he is limited by the studies that he reads.


Dr. Greger reviews ALL English language medical publications covering nutrition. Obviously, he uses his judgement on which studies/articles to highlight in his videos.

What criteria does Dr. Greger use to pick studies to highlight?
More than 10,000 articles are published in English-language medical journals every year on the subject of human nutrition. To choose which ones to make videos about he uses three main principles: novelty, practicality, and engagement. The first question he asks: Is it groundbreaking? If it’s just yet another study showing broccoli is good for you, unless there’s some new unique insight it probably won’t make the cut. The second question: Is it practical? Can the information be used to make real-world kitchen or grocery store decisions? Who cares if there’s some new whortleberry with medicinal properties if it can only be foraged wild in the tundra somewhere. Finally, is there a way to make it interesting? That’s probably the greatest limiting factor. There’s lots of trailblazing new science with hands-on implications, but unless Dr. Greger can find a way to make it captivating, to add humor or intrigue, or solve some mystery, the paper may sadly end up in the recycling bin.
User avatar
Ern2Win
 
Posts: 491
Joined: Mon Jun 02, 2014 7:36 am
Location: Salem, SC

Re: Debunking Michael Greger

Postby dteresa » Mon Jun 29, 2015 1:20 pm

I find it amazing that one person can search through all those published studies, choose which to report on and read thousands of articles, compare them to other studies, search through and verify the references, check the statistics, and verify the results and conclusions while still holding a full time job. Wow.

didi
dteresa
 
Posts: 3735
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 5:22 am

Re: Debunking Michael Greger

Postby Ern2Win » Mon Jun 29, 2015 2:44 pm

dteresa wrote:I find it amazing that one person can search through all those published studies, choose which to report on and read thousands of articles, compare them to other studies, search through and verify the references, check the statistics, and verify the results and conclusions while still holding a full time job. Wow.

didi


He doesn't do it alone. He has been adding professionals to his staff in addition to support from several volunteers to off-load a lot of the day-to-day stuff.
User avatar
Ern2Win
 
Posts: 491
Joined: Mon Jun 02, 2014 7:36 am
Location: Salem, SC

Re: Debunking Michael Greger

Postby Jumpstart » Mon Jun 29, 2015 4:53 pm

I don't understand listening to Dr. Greger or for that matter anybody else let alone reading or following a study, any study. There are only two results: either they support our way of eating and that might make you feel a bit better but doesn't provide any new information, OR the other side is it points to something outside what Dr. McDougall teaches and will be ignored, "debunked" as is this nut tread, explained away, or simply derided. The reality is that after over half a million studies completed since Dr. McDougall started his program 35 years ago it hasn't been modified one bit as a result of those studies and I don't as a result expect it to no matter what any individual study or groups of studies concludes. So why bother wasting a lot of time reading and then talking about all this so called scientific stuff: follow the program if you believe in it and get on with the rest of your life instead of fixating on diet research or conflicting opinions. it's almost as if many on the program have doubts about it and need constant reassurance that what they're doing is right.
Jumpstart
 
Posts: 913
Joined: Mon Jun 02, 2014 5:32 pm

Re: Debunking Michael Greger

Postby dailycarbs » Mon Jun 29, 2015 6:08 pm

Jumpstart wrote:I don't understand listening to Dr. Greger or for that matter anybody else let alone reading or following a study, any study. There are only two results: either they support our way of eating and that might make you feel a bit better but doesn't provide any new information, OR the other side is it points to something outside what Dr. McDougall teaches and will be ignored, "debunked" as is this nut tread, explained away, or simply derided. The reality is that after over half a million studies completed since Dr. McDougall started his program 35 years ago it hasn't been modified one bit as a result of those studies and I don't as a result expect it to no matter what any individual study or groups of studies concludes. So why bother wasting a lot of time reading and then talking about all this so called scientific stuff: follow the program if you believe in it and get on with the rest of your life instead of fixating on diet research or conflicting opinions. it's almost as if many on the program have doubts about it and need constant reassurance that what they're doing is right.

:thumbsup:
No single study is going to trump the overwhelming epidemiological data from traditional diets, common sense, and my personal results since adopting this woe.
dailycarbs
 
Posts: 1262
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2015 5:19 am

Re: Debunking Michael Greger

Postby Acura » Tue Jun 30, 2015 8:18 am

dailycarbs wrote:No single study is going to trump the overwhelming epidemiological data from traditional diets, common sense, and my personal results since adopting this woe.


True, however besides food there were many things done or not done by the traditional folks that we don't do today. For e.g. they moved a lot, did laborious work , no GMO foods, less stress. So it wasn't all about the diet alone.

The fact that so many people can still see 'personal results' even today suggests other factors do not matter?
CC
Acura
 
Posts: 868
Joined: Wed Aug 18, 2010 8:07 am

Re: Debunking Michael Greger

Postby Jumpstart » Tue Jun 30, 2015 8:59 am

The Starch Solution has nothing to do with traditional diets. Those aren't vegan and they aren't ultra low fat, nor are they no oils. Traditional diets range from 22% (Okinawa) to 40% (Crete) fat for various sources and they all eat animal products including milk, cheese and various meats plus fish. We eat under ten percent fat and most like myself are closer to six percent even when eating daily oatmeal and our protein from any source is lower on a gram per kilogram of weight basis by a considerable margin. In fact when you compute fat intake on a gram per kilogram weight they eat almost as much fat as America or more. We are nothing like traditional ways of eating. The ONLY thing we have in common is eating considerable amounts of vegetables. The major difference with America is that most in the US don't know what a vegetable is.
Jumpstart
 
Posts: 913
Joined: Mon Jun 02, 2014 5:32 pm

Re: Debunking Michael Greger

Postby arugula » Tue Jun 30, 2015 9:14 am

Image
arugula
 
Posts: 595
Joined: Sat Oct 17, 2009 8:36 am

PreviousNext

Return to The Lounge

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests



Welcome!

Sign up to receive our regular articles, recipes, and news about upcoming events.