Discussion Board

I don't doubt the science behind his nutritional guidelines, only some of his views for implementing them (someone else earlier in this thread stated they would like to see the science behind the sexual abuse/early puberty link claim-- and actually, so would I). But if you want to focus on the Egypt article only, I think his Egypt article is based on an entirely flawed premise where McDougall stated the uprising was caused by food shortages caused by the have's (i.e. presumably the wealthy American meat-eaters). Who do you think he meant by gluttons? Americans, of course, because we're the ones eating the "rich food." But that uprising was caused by radicals wanting power and had nothing to do with food. The uprising there is not a pro-vegetarian movement, by the way! I find it really strange how McDougall managed to twist his health message around this political uprising.

I've read Diet For A Small Planet and understand the premise behind the cost of raising meat for food (anyone with a brain stem can see it takes an enormous amount of grain/water to raise meat animals, not making for an effective or even healthy rate of return when all is said and done; plus the waste management is often not handled well, either, and often leads to pollution and spread of disease). But I really don't see how the "gluttons" (McDougall's term) are taking food out of the mouths of the poor, just the same. Even if the entire world went vegan, the poor still wouldn't be able to afford their rice and beans. The money doesn't magically transfer over into the hands of the poor from the "gluttons" (even if those gluttons give up meat), no matter what is legislated or taxed. The government collects the taxes and spends it on bureaucracy. Very little of it makes it to the poor. When you're talking about transfer of wealth, you are talking Marxism. Again, Egypt is not about veganism or even vegetarianism!

I suppose we will just have to agree to disagree about Dr. McDougall's motives.

Yes, we can agree to disagree.

I highly recommend reading Dr. McDougall's new book, The Starch Solution. In chapter 6, he explains his views on diet, world health and the environment and possible solutions to some of the problem's people are experiencing today.

I didn't think that book came out until tomorrow. How did you get a copy already? I do plan on reading it, of course. I'm glad he has an updated book coming out.

I ordered it directly from the publisher almost a month ago. You can read my brief review here:

viewtopic.php?f=42&t=28884

Awesome, thanks for the review! I even look forward to reading the chapter you mentioned, though it may give me the screaming mimi's, lol.

I understand your discomfort. I don't like the word "mandate" either. It's a buzzword that ruffles my feathers. The U.S. government has been dictating healthy eating standards for decades, and state and local governments often get their cues from Uncle Sam. Look where that's taken us. I tend to think Dr. McDougall is saying that government mandates have taken away our right to choose healthy foods, when it should be supporting our right to be able to choose healthy foods and to eat the diet Nature designed us to eat if that's what we choose. He's seeing government as the abuser. Our government was created to protect the rights of the individual. Our opportunities (and our right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness) have been limited by government mandate. The sheeple are blind and have strayed far from their roots. They can't choose to graze in green pastures and eat the diet Nature designed them to eat if they're locked in feedlots all their lives and don't even know green pastures exist. So, what will we do to help the sheeple and their lambs? Shall we just watch from a safe distance and hope they somehow figure out that they are in danger and will be able to find a way to escape? The price of freedom is eternal vigilance. Seems to me Dr. McDougall wrote that letter because people in Florida government are pointing fingers at bad sheep (people who fail to report suspected child abusers) and saying there should be stricter criminal penalties. But you know what happens when when we point our finger; three point back. Dr. McDougall is following the law by reporting suspected child abuse. He's calling out the suspected abusers in government, telling them they are co-conspirators to child abuse. He's sounding the alarm, and he's telling the sheep: Wake up! Wake up! Wake up!

That's how I see it, anyway.

What do you think about this?:
https://www.presidentschallenge.org/mot ... ndex.shtml

Maybe it's just poor writing on McDougall's part... I saw him blaming corporate/government collusion in the first half of this month's article, then shifting blame to parents to the point of crying abuse. I realize when you're a hammer, you see everything as a nail (meaning, a surgeon is going to look for solutions to life's problems using surgery; a nutritionist is also going to paint with a brush that frames everything as dietary, hence McDougall's twisted message about Egypt). The laws McDougall are trying to support don't seem to hurt the corporations or the government, however... they ultimately hurt the parents.

I'm still waiting for his book to arrive... I hope he had a good editor to iron out some of these writing kinks/logic flaws.



Funny how they sneak the dairy in there and "some seafood." We all know what McDougall would say about those particular recommendations. At least they didn't frame "lean protein" as meaning meat. It leaves room for beans and high-protein grains. At least they led their list with fruits/vegetables and grains, too. I don't see chicken nuggets on their list, lol.

Here is a very timely article from just this Friday. Do you agree the child should have been taken away from his parents?

Ohio Child Returned to Parents After 50 Pound Weight Loss
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/ohio-child-returned-to-parents-after-50-pound-weight-loss/

Yes, it's a shame this 9-year old boy was 218 pounds (!!) Was taking him away from his parents and placed in foster care (and later an uncle) the solution? All parties involved will live in terror of the gov't's ability to take their kids away from now on. What kind of emotional trauma has this kid gone through just from this social services experience (I'm sure the emotional trauma of being a fat kid was bad, too, but this is worse. There's no sense of safety left for a child when a so-called expert can come along and take you away from your family.) What was this kid told? "You can't go back to your mother until you lose weight" ?? He's now back with his mother, but for a time had "protective supervision" (Twinkee police?)

They don't state much about the mother, other than it appears she didn't have a job. There's no mention of a father. I don't know if we know the whole story about why the boy was taken away, but the article makes it sound like it was because of the excessive weight and health risk. It was kind of the YMCA to offer free memberships to them... that's the kind of pulling together I like to see in a community when there's a problem, rather than have the gov't step in, which I think would cause more trauma down the road. And family, by way of an uncle, was the real champion here, getting this boy to exercise regularly. Yes, the mother must have had issues (was she overweight, too?) It sounded like she needed help-- social services supposedly helped her for a year before taking the child away. Obviously the gov't "help" (or threats?) weren't effective. It came back to family-helping-family being the success story here in the end. I wonder if this kid will grow up to struggle with his weight the rest of his life. He had to lose weight for all the wrong reasons, simply to be able to go home to his mother again.

Not sure what laws you mean. In the Egypt article, I basically see him saying that a global shift to a starch-based diet would solve a lot of problems. You could feed more people, for one. Of course a starch-based diet doesn't guarantee that cruel people or power-hungry politicians will cease to exist, and that they wouldn't still use food to leverage power along with its perks in their own direction. As far as I know, a starch-based diet isn't a cure for greed.

I just came upon this thread and wanted to address your interpretation, yvie, re: Dr. M's point about the damage that is done to our children by a diet loaded with meat and dairy. I think that Dr. M's point was not so much about the diet causing sexual abuse. He is saying that the diet loaded with meat and dairy, pushed by our largest business interests, IS sexual abuse; because it can have the unfortunate results of early maturity, the diet itself constitutes sexual abuse. (He did mention the sad possibilities of the early sexual development, also, but it was more of an aside.)

I am staying out of the political debate, although I think it is interesting the interpretations people bring to the issue. They say more about the person than anything Dr. M was addressing.

Yes, very interesting what we each bring along on the journey. It's easy to forget what's in our bags. Our bags become such a part of us we can't see them unless we squint. Perhaps we become our bags.

Politics is large-scale control drama. So is religion, science, education and business...and I suppose social institutions in general.

http://deoxy.org/9insight.htm :

All humans, because of their upbringing, tend toward one of four control dramas:

Intimidators steal energy from others by threat.
Interrogators steal it by judging and questioning.
Aloof people attract attention (and energy) to themselves by playing coy.
Poor me's make us feel guilty and responsible for them.

If what we focus on grows, what's the best thing to focus on? What is life's ultimate purpose? Why am I here? Synchronicity is fascinating.

Life? Life is difficult, or easy, depending on one's perspective. Have fun. Do the best you can. Whatever that means.

Or it could be we're just seeking truth.

Don't forget, McDougall is bringing his baggage to his articles, too, and if he's going to post something controversial, people may call him out on it. He's been in the hot-seat before and can certainly take the heat.

Overfeeding a child the wrong food is unwise and dangerous but I would hardly call it sexual abuse. That is really stretching a bit. There are pedophiles and others out there doing all kinds of horrible things to kids and to put unwise parents in the same category is, you will forgive me, the height of ridiculous. For parents to feed their kids the very foods that the government provides for school lunches and food which schools sell in order to make money is putting the blame on the wrong people. When the politicians discover a moral compass, then maybe lobbyists for agribusiness will lose the power to dictate policies which are detrimental to the health of all of us. In some places it is actually illegal to grow fruits and vegetables on land that is reserved for crops receiving subsidies like corn, soy, cotton, sugar and maybe one or two others.

Not to mention that there is absolutely no reason to believe that any parent is sure to feed her family a plant based diet when there are so many different types of diets that different people promote as healthful. I am quite sure that a vegan diet might seem a ridiculous fad to most people who are responsible for making food decisions for the family. Even after my heart attack, no one responsible for my medical care suggested I give up meat, dairy, fats or even rich dessert. After my mom's by pass surgery, her food list had her eating one chicken leg, an egg every other day, milk, toast with butter or jam etc. So who is going to tell parents how to feed their kids the most healthful diet?

Didi