Moderators: JeffN, f1jim, John McDougall, carolve, Heather McDougall
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
he is limited by the studies that he reads.
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.
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
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.
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.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 38 guests