Are you also aware of the fact that there are whole other factions in the field of nutrition, such as the Naturally Nutrient Rich coalition, lead by the beef and dairy board? They've been promoting the nutrient dense "nutrient rich" campaign for years now, as something new since 2005 when the dietary guidelines focused on nutrient density as the cornerstone of nutrition.
Then, my question is, why is Dr. Fuhrman playing into the beef and dairy interests by recommending meat, even in small amounts?
That Dr. Fuhrman may have made what appeared to be antagonistic statements, was science-based and because of breaking new ground, not because he intended to be antagonistic. That was not the intent. I know this for fact. Call me on it if you like. It's just a new view things.
It seems like an old view of things to advocate that people need "some" meat in their diets to get enough nutrients. That’s the attitude that we’re up against all the time in transitioning people to a plant-based diet. Especially if one is concerned about preventing cancer and heart disease, and claims to be science-based, why advocate any degree of meat consumption? The science doesn't support this, and it's much more serious than allowing nuts or not.
I believe, a reason why Dr.Fuhrman puts vegetables at the base of his pyramid or promotes them in such large quantities on his plate, is simple... For example: when you make a salad, does it start with greens or potatoes? For most people it’s greens, because they are the most nutrient-rich foods, the lowest in calories and you can eat them in the largest volume without consuming excess calories.
That shouldn't start a fight between "greens or potatoes"! Should it?
It does if you imply that eating starches like “white rice or white potato” will cause diabetes. No one here takes issue with Dr. Fuhrman making greens the base of his pyramid. The only negative thing I’ve ever heard expressed here is that his approach leaves people hungrier than if they ate more starch. And we’ve often seen this in the people who come here after following Dr. Fuhrman and say they're much more satisfied, and therefore able to stick with it.
But we're not against his basic dietary approach. It's Dr. Fuhrman who has repeatedly made comments about Dr. McDougall’s approach, implying that it's nutritionally inadequate or possibly even detrimental.
I think he’s also fostered this antagonistic view on his board, which has been divisive.
Hopefully, Dr. Fuhrman has been humbled by all this, and maybe he didn’t realize how his comments came across to his peers. It’s great that he’s excited about his learning, but he needs to make sure he doesn’t get so carried away that he throws his esteemed colleagues under the bus. These doctors have been doing this a very long time, with great success, and they're also well aware of the science.
It’s almost like a teenager who thinks his parents don’t know anything, because he has all the “new” knowledge, so there’s the dismissive eye-rolling and comments (“that’s silly!”).
But again, I don’t see anything new in aligning with the meat and dairy industries, and their apologists, the low carb/paleo crowd. I wish Dr. Fuhrman would address why he is doing that.
