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 AlwaysAgnes » Wed Aug 01, 2012 1:15 am

Mark Simon wrote:If we analyzed your diet and you were eating as recommended, we could see which foods were actually contributing the most magnesium, and it would not be nuts -- unless you were eating way more nuts than anyone recommends. So that is the point. Nutrient density is a standard used that makes the most sense.



It might be pinto beans and cumin. :lol:


You wrote:
But in terms of magnesium, nuts are actually a poor source and score fairly low in regard to nutrient density. To make it appear nuts are good sources of magnesium, Dr. Greger compares foods by weight or volume. But as we well know, using weight or volume to compare foods is an outdated food industry trick and does not give the real picture. The correct comparison is the amount of nutrients per calorie.

http://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/Magnes ... fessional/ says
*DV = Daily Value. DVs are reference numbers developed by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to help consumers determine if a food contains a lot or a little of a specific nutrient. The DV for magnesium is 400 milligrams (mg). Most food labels do not list a food's magnesium content. The percent DV (%DV) listed on the table above indicates the percentage of the DV provided in one serving. A food providing 5% of the DV or less per serving is a low source while a food that provides 10–19% of the DV is a good source. A food that provides 20% or more of the DV is high in that nutrient. It is important to remember that foods that provide lower percentages of the DV also contribute to a healthful diet. For foods not listed in this table, please refer to the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Nutrient Database Web site.

Gotta do away with that FDA. Troublemakers.
You don't have to wait to be happy.
AlwaysAgnes
 
Posts: 3436
Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2011 12:45 pm

Re: Debunking Michael Greger

Postby carollynne » Wed Aug 01, 2012 3:57 am

We eat a lot of greens and beans in my family, so I know we are getting plenty of nutrition. My husband is now on board and loves spinach. But he always did! I buy a huge tub of spinach every other day, and during the cool months can go outside and pick some to. But seriously have you ever seen how a huge amount of spinach will cook down to so little? I never honestly measured it, but I think we are eating way more than say 2 cups of spinach. 3 cups?? probably not, but with all the rest of the whole foods that we do consume, like broccoli and brown rice, potatoes, etc, that we do eat, hope we are doing ok.
I have lost about 60 lbs and never thought I'd be in the 150s ever again. cured my NAFLD!! Feel great!! Wt loss is so good for the knees and back, ankle, that I know I will never start back to the SAD way of eating again.
carollynne
 
Posts: 1492
Joined: Sun Feb 13, 2011 7:42 am

Re: Debunking Michael Greger

Postby Acura » Wed Aug 01, 2012 5:57 am

Mark Simon wrote: My central point is that nuts are not a "super food" that can "prevent heart attacks" or otherwise are especially good for your heart, other than when replacing animal products and junk food.

So all in all, nuts are not giving you more cardio protection than the other healthy foods in your McDougall diet. .


That's a point well made. If someone says nuts are cardioprotective then we need to see the evidence. In your thinking nuts are just like any other plant foods(not a super food) except high in calories and if you are eating variety of plant foods, they are not must.
CC
Acura
 
Posts: 868
Joined: Wed Aug 18, 2010 8:07 am

Re: Debunking Michael Greger

Postby f1jim » Wed Aug 01, 2012 7:45 am

This is all true. To take this all one step further you can make the argument that a plant based diet isn't cardio protective it's cardio normal and anything else is cardio damaging. The norm should be the plant based diet when consumed as your day to day source of calories will maintain NORMAL cardiac and vascular function. Replacing that diet with one that includes meat and dairy along with added oils attacks that normal functioning. We see the plant based alternatives to SAD as a way to treat chronic illnesses but they are really our way to maintain our normal processes. Our normal processes have been under attack for so long we have lost sight of normal functioning.
We sometimes end up debating where that point is where we lose normal functioning and cross over into damage. Some use the figure of 10% as a threshold. Others, like Dr. Esselstyn maintain that any deviation from our best diet is damaging. He uses the analogy of people putting thimblefuls of gasoline on a fire you are trying to put out. All of our doctors more or less agree that 100 plant based is probably the healthiest option outside of some relatively rare exceptions. Genetics and history may determine that crossover point to a large extent. I personally hate living on the edge when it comes to my health. I'll take some criticism over having people stare at me when I am in a serious medical state anytime.
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

Re: Debunking Michael Greger

Postby frozenveg » Wed Aug 01, 2012 7:47 am

AlwaysAgnes wrote:Nut wars.
http://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/Magnes ... fessional/

3 cup cooked chard (525g) = 105 calories with 450mg magnesium
3 cup cooked spinach (540g)= 123 calories w/471mg magnesium
1 cup almonds (143g) = 822 calories w/383mg magnesium
1 cup crude wheat bran (58g) = 125 calories w/354mg magnesium
12 cup canned potatoes (540g) =1296 calories w/302mg magnesium
4 cup cooked brown rice (780g) = 864 calories w/335.6mg magnesium
5 cup cooked lentils (990g) = 1150 calories w/356.5mg magnesium
10 cup sliced banana (1500g) = 1330 calories w/405mg magnesium

Just sayin'--there's one item for which I eat that quantity daily...4 cups cooked brown rice. Just sayin'. So everything else I eat is magnesium "gravy" towards my 400 mg RDA! How cool is that?!?
5'3", 74 YO. Started Jan. 11, 2010
Starting weight: 222.6
Current weight: 148.2.0


Success Story:
https://www.drmcdougall.com/articles/st ... -rockwell/
User avatar
frozenveg
 
Posts: 3194
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 1:39 pm
Location: Corvallis, Oregon

Re: Debunking Michael Greger

Postby HealthyMe2010 » Wed Aug 01, 2012 9:40 am

I don't agree at all with comparing two different food types (nuts vs. greens) by calories, because it puts things out of context.

Your example of 100 calories of swiss chard vs. almonds looks pretty decisive, except you miss that 100 calories of swiss chard is 530g (over a pound) of greens vs. 18g of almonds... you have to factor in that we can only eat so much during the day.

It's like pairing two boxers by age, when their weights could differ by 100lbs.
HealthyMe2010
 
Posts: 962
Joined: Wed Apr 07, 2010 12:26 pm

Re: Debunking Michael Greger

Postby Theodore » Wed Aug 01, 2012 2:19 pm

frozenveg wrote:Just sayin'--there's one item for which I eat that quantity daily...4 cups cooked brown rice. Just sayin'. So everything else I eat is magnesium "gravy" towards my 400 mg RDA!

:lol: :nod: :lol:
Never eat anything that has an ass.
Theodore
 
Posts: 427
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 4:25 pm

Re: Debunking Michael Greger

Postby f1jim » Wed Aug 01, 2012 2:34 pm

I am told by our illustrious staff nutritionist that the only nut study getting a B rating is one on walnuts. All the others are C
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

Re: Debunking Michael Greger

Postby HealthyMe2010 » Wed Aug 01, 2012 2:41 pm

f1jim wrote:I am told by our illustrious staff nutritionist that the only nut study getting a B rating is one on walnuts. All the others are C
f1jim


Is there a list of these ratings somewhere?

The article I posted seemed to suggest a variety of nuts offered benefits, but I'm not nut-bound to anything specific :)

EDIT: Looks like many nuts qualified for the "B" rating.

"... the FDA granted permission for peanuts, almonds, hazelnuts, pecans, pistachios and walnuts to carry a label touting their heart-healthy effects. "

http://newhope360.com/fda-permits-qualified-health-claims-nut-labels
HealthyMe2010
 
Posts: 962
Joined: Wed Apr 07, 2010 12:26 pm

Re: Debunking Michael Greger

Postby f1jim » Wed Aug 01, 2012 2:53 pm

Maybe Jeff Novick can clear up much of this with a visit. His input is always valuable.
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

Re: Debunking Michael Greger

Postby dstewart » Wed Aug 01, 2012 3:02 pm

Mark Simon wrote:Bottom line: An ounce a day of nuts does not protect against heart disease, despite what this “doctor” may assert.

Do you have some special information about him, indicating that he's not really a doctor? If not, what's with the scare-quotes?
dstewart
 
Posts: 1149
Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2009 9:07 pm

Re: Debunking Michael Greger

Postby AlwaysAgnes » Wed Aug 01, 2012 4:28 pm

f1jim wrote:I am told by our illustrious staff nutritionist that the only nut study getting a B rating is one on walnuts. All the others are C
f1jim



When I'm feelin' nutty, I try to lean towards walnuts.
You don't have to wait to be happy.
AlwaysAgnes
 
Posts: 3436
Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2011 12:45 pm

Re: Debunking Michael Greger

Postby Mark Simon » Wed Aug 01, 2012 9:33 pm


"Industry spends a lot of money trying to produce studies that make their products look as healthy as possible, so that they can assert health claims to help sales."

HealthyMe2010 wrote:

This is a cheap shot from Jeff. Which nut manufacturer does he claim paid for these studies?


I'm not sure why you would question industry funding of nut studies.

Here are some nut studies and their funding sources, most are from the place the nut industry spends a lot of their money, Loma Linda.

The first three were the work primarily of Kris-Etherton, whose work is funded by the nut industry, according to an article about nuts in the CSPI Magazine (Center for Science in the Public Interest) http://www.cspinet.org/nah/11_05/nuts.pdf Her work "is funded all or in part by the Nut Industry." (you can also google “Kris-Etherton” and “fish” and find many studies she's done showing you should be eating fish as well as walnuts, according to Nurses' Health data):

The role of tree nuts and peanuts in the prevention of coronary heart disease: multiple potential mechanisms
Kris-Etherton, P.M., F.B. Hu, E. Ros, J. Sabaté, 2008. The role of tree nuts and peanuts in the prevention of coronary heart disease: multiple potential mechanisms. J Nutr. 138, 1746S-1751.

The effects of nuts on coronary heart disease risk
Kris-Etherton, P.M., G. Zhao, A.E. Binkoski, S.M. Coval, T.D. Etherton, 2001. The effects of nuts on coronary heart disease risk. Nutr Rev. 59:103.

Nuts and their bioactive constituents: effects on serum lipids and other factors that affect disease risk
Kris-Etherton, P.M., S. Yu-Poth, J. Sabaté, H.E. Ratcliffe, G. Zhao, T.D. Etherton, 1999.  Nuts and their bioactive constituents: effects on serum lipids and other factors that affect disease risk. Am J Clin Nutr. 70 (suppl.):504S-11S.

Here is one where lead researcher, Gary Foster, is an adviser to the Almond Board of California:

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.

This study is lead by Sabate, paid advisor for Pistachio Health Board – I believe this study also received nut industry funding:


British Journal of Nutrition (2006), 96, Suppl. 2, S79–S86  Nuts, body weight and insulin resistance.  Sujatha Rajaram* and Joan Sabate´ Department of Nutrition, School of Public Health, Loma Linda University, Loma Linda, CA 92350, USA J Am Coll Nutr. 2002 Jun;21(3):275-83.


Here's one funded by Funded by the almond industry and lead by Almond Board Adviser Fraser and Pistachio Board Adviser Sabate:

Effect on body weight of a free 76 Kilojoule (320 calorie) daily supplement of almonds for six months.
Fraser GE, Bennett HW, Jaceldo KB, Sabaté J.
Center for Health Research, School of Public Health, Loma Linda University, California 92350, USA. [email protected]

Note that these are all short term studies of up to only 18 months. The almond industry can certainly fund mult-year studies, as you would expect. But the problem is that almond eaters in these studies tend to gain around 5 pounds in 18 months, compared to the control group, even the calorie-controlled studies. So doing a 5 year study would probably backfire by showing everyone gaining 10 to 20 pounds during the period, versus the non-nut crowd, and that would be the end of the "nuts are super foods" mantra.


Review and analysis of 25 intervention levels, funded by nut industry, as are the authors:


Nut Consumption and Blood Lipid Levels A Pooled Analysis of 25 Intervention Trials FREE
Joan Sabaté, MD, DrPH; Keiji Oda, MA, MPH; Emilio Ros, MD, PhD
Arch Intern Med. 2010;170(9):821-827

If you click on this one at http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article ... eid=415912

And click on “author affiliations,” you will read this:


Financial Disclosure: Drs Sabaté and Ros have received research funding from the California Walnut Commission, the Almond Board of California, the National Peanut Board, and the International Tree Nut Council; they are also unpaid members of the Scientific Advisory Council of the California Walnut Commission. Dr Sabaté received an honorarium as a member of the Pistachio Scientific Advisory Board.

Here is more info about Dr. Sabate:

http://www.pistachiohealth.com/consumer ... C3%A9-joan

And a page under construction for him (the “about” page of the site)

http://www.originalhealthnut.org/ohn/in ... an-sabate/

on an industry-sponsored website of the California Walnut Commission. He receives money to promote a variety of nuts. Any conflicts? Yes, and as I said they are disclosed with the studies, and with a note that the funders did not influence the study designs or outcomes – of course! That was done by their (often) paid advisers, who rely on the nut industry to fund their work. No funds for a study, these Loma Linda researchers would have to find other sources for income. Not to be crass, but just realistic.

I could go on and on, but I think you get the point. The nut industry, like the dairy industry and many others, funds studies in hope they will promote sales.

I also want to make another point about the studies that HealthyMe2010 introduced in an earlier post.

I think a couple of them were already taken apart in the article on vegsource and shown to be very low quality, in terms of what they may mean to people already on a healthy plant-based diet.

Regarding the studies based on the Nurse's Health Study and Iowa Women's Health Study. I have looked and they are merely theoretical estimates about the effects of one food on the impact of disease in these pools of women. This is one of the weakest kinds of study. If a group of healthy people eat less meat, exercise more, don't smoke, eat more vegetables and nuts, is it the nuts that caused their health benefits?

Now, if you wish to base your diet info on this level of research, then it follows directly that you should be adding eggs, olive oil and fish to your McDougall, Fuhrman or Esselstyn diet. Why? Because the same theoretical estimates have been drawn from these same data that show reductions in disease with these foods.

You can go to the Nurse's Study website and take your pick:

http://www.channing.harvard.edu/nhs/?page_id=197

You will see that you should be eating the Mediterranean Diet, according to the Nurses' Health Study. What are you doing on the McDougall discussion forum! You should know that the Nurses' Health Study has shown a significant reduction in CHD through these foods.


Wait, is a low-fat plant-based diet better? I personally think so. Are adding fish and nuts to my diet going to reduce my chance of a heart attack, because the Nurses' Health Study suggests it will? I believe my risk of CHD is already plenty low, because I eat a very clean diet, and all my numbers, at age 65, are better than anyone I know including people half my age. I eat nuts because I like them, not because I believe I must in order to take my risk even lower. I have no foods in my diet that promote heart disease that I could substitute for the nuts, if I were trying to do that. Only people in the Nurses' Study who eat junky processed carbs and meat have foods to substitute.

Here's data from Nurses' Health study saying fish, poultry and low-fat dairy instead of meat, lower mortality:

We estimated that substitutions of 1 serving per day of other foods (including fish, poultry, nuts, legumes, low-fat dairy, and whole grains) for 1 serving per day of red meat were associated with a 7% to 19% lower mortality risk.

http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article ... id=1134845

Here's another from Nurses' Study, fish reduces heart disease:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11939867

Here's the Nurses' study telling that lowering fat doesn't matter to heart disease or cancer, only switching from saturated to unsaturated matters:

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionso ... s/low-fat/

Really? How about if you lose all animal foods, not just go “low fat animal” but plant-based and lower fat? Would I be healthier? The Nurses' Study is completely silent on that question. The Adventist Study can give us a bit more information, because it looks like the vegans live longer than the vegetarians who live longer than the nonvegetarians. It must be the amount of nuts those Adventist vegans are eating! Right?

Nurses study and eggs:

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionso ... ull-story/

In studies of more than 80,000 female nurses, Harvard researchers found that consuming about an egg a day was not associated with higher risk of heart disease (too few women in the study were eating more than an egg a day to evaluate the effects of higher egg intakes). (35,36) One reason for the lack of association is that eggs are a good source of many nutrients that may counterbalance a slight increase in risk of heart disease.

So to conclude, there are lots and lots of studies showing that eggs, fish, chicken, oils – and nuts – are all healthy and reduce risk of diseases or death, according to these questionnaire-based studies. But that surely is not the end of the story for anyone who has arrived here at the McDougall website.

I was going to give some information about the C grade for nutritional claims that FDA gave for research on all nuts except walnuts, but as I see someone on this string has communicated with Jeff Novick and he may weigh in here, I will defer to his vastly superior qualifications.
Last edited by Mark Simon on Thu Aug 02, 2012 4:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Mark Simon
 
Posts: 26
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2012 9:37 am

Re: Debunking Michael Greger

Postby Mark Simon » Wed Aug 01, 2012 9:54 pm

dstewart wrote:

Mark Simon wrote:
Bottom line: An ounce a day of nuts does not protect against heart disease, despite what this “doctor” may assert.

dstewart wrote:
Do you have some special information about him, indicating that he's not really a doctor? If not, what's with the scare-quotes?


I don't believe he has any patients, but works in an animal rights organization, which is great. He has been very critical and insulting to Dr. McDougall and/or possibly Dr. Esselstyn, and I find that unprofessional. I have asked him on another string to explain who he was referring to and whether he has changed his dismissive view of the low-fat diet in this quote of his:

In response to a question from Dr. Furhman about "other authors" whose work doesn't stand up scientifically, Dr. Greger said:

Dr. Greger: "Yes, I have learned it's always best to seek out the primary sources to review them rather than rely on expert opinion. Too often we hear outdated information that is ego-based and supporting old theories that have been proposed. These include extremely low fat vegan diets, without nuts and seeds, or centering one's diet around white potatoes or white rice. This is just not the best science-based advice."

http://www.diseaseproof.com/archives/in ... er-md.html


As I know Dr. Greger is reading this string, and did reply at one point, I would ask him again to explain: to whom were you referring when you spoke of outdated information we hear "too often" which is "ego-based" such as the low-fat diet, and why is the low-fat diet "not the best science-based advice?" And which doctor is recommending centering one's diet around white potatoes and white rice?

If he expects to come into Dr. McDougall's living room (these discussion boards) while he has leveled insults at Dr. McDougall, I don't believe he should be returned a level of respect, because in that case he is just a spammer here, to promoter his videos and website. The fact that he doesn't answer makes you wonder.
Last edited by Mark Simon on Thu Aug 02, 2012 9:33 am, edited 1 time in total.
Mark Simon
 
Posts: 26
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2012 9:37 am

Re: Debunking Michael Greger

Postby HealthyMe2010 » Wed Aug 01, 2012 10:12 pm

Mark Simon wrote:

"Industry spends a lot of money trying to produce studies that make their products look as healthy as possible, so that they can assert health claims to help sales."

HealthyMe2010 wrote:

This is a cheap shot from Jeff. Which nut manufacturer does he claim paid for these studies?


I'm not sure why you would question industry funding of nut studies.


Great work Mark!

Jeff should have provided sources to back up his claims. I wasn't doubting that someone related to nuts would put money into research (someone has to!), but Jeff implied a fabrication of the results by the industry, and unless he can prove it, it's just fear-mongering a la Dr. Mercola.
HealthyMe2010
 
Posts: 962
Joined: Wed Apr 07, 2010 12:26 pm

PreviousNext

Return to The Lounge

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: AlexM75 and 9 guests



Welcome!

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