Discussion Board

Dr. McDougall, I'd like to applaud your effort to render an impartial opinion on the health of the current presidential candidates. My own independent research uncovered the same information, and my interpretation of the data was similar. I am sure there will be some ready to see this as a political attack, but how can people make the best decision on who to vote for if they remain uninformed? These are, sadly, tumultuous times.


A retired, Canadian health professional

Me too. I just read the article and thought you managed to keep what could be a potentially inflammatory political topic firmly grounded in the health arena.

Anybody considering voting for McCain is going to have to take his running mate far more seriously than usual - as McCain has arguably one of the highest chances of becoming disabled or dying in the next four years of any presidential candidate in recent history.

Thanks, Dr McDougall. Wouldn't it be good if some of the networks picked up your article and ran with it?

oh, those snack foods are for the press! heck, he has to "butter them up" SOMEHOW!



sorry to see this topic in your newsletter- this has been a bitter and divisive election - just can't escape it!

we're bright adults, and will probably determine our choice for the vote based on the candidate's stands on key issues.

After reading the article, I noticed that one of the references is The Framingham Heart Disease Risk Calculator. An online health assessment thingy! Ooo! Those are usually fun. And I have recent numbers from the Advanced Study Weekend.

So I surfed over to it.

Put my info in:

Age: 48
Gender: male
Total Cholesterol: 117
HDL Cholesterol: 35
Smoker: No
Systolic Blood Pressure: 110ish
Are you currently on any medication to treat high blood pressure? No

Clicked "Calculate Your 10-Year Risk".

"Please go back and enter a cholesterol value in the range of 130-320."

What???!!! I have to lie?

So I go back and put in 130 for Total Cholesterol.

A 48yo non-smoking male with TC 130, HDL 35, systolic bp of 110 and not on bp medication has a 2% chance of dying in the next 10 years. I wonder what my risk factor is?

Then I read the description of the HDL number, which says,



???!!!

So I changed the HDL number to 40 and the risk goes down to 1%.

I think the calculator needs work.

We all look to Dr. McDougall for his medical opinions because he is brilliant. This month's newsletter was terribly dissappointing for me. Shame on you Dr. for using your influence on all of your readers to manipulate. It is beneath you.

The healthiest person on the planet can still be wrong. He'll live longer, make many more decisions, yet still be wrong. Being healthy does not guarantee the ability to lead and make the most intelligent decisions.

The issues are what matter. AMERICANS don't pre judge anyone. Right? not color, gender, religion, handicap, smoker, non-smoker, Carnivore, Ominivore, Herbavore, Junkavore.......

I am so tired of influencial people trying to frighten us common folk. If John McCain won and dropped dead in office, life would go on and the government would not fall apart.

Vote with your own brain, based on your own common sense! The outcome of this election will effect you personnally..........make the decision personal.

McDougall is clearly a liberal...

Anybody care to do a study on who is most likely to be assassinated? That should be of more concern in this election than eating habits.

That's great! The study can't imagine the existence of an American with total cholesterol lower than 130. That's definitely my laugh for the evening.

Thumbs down,Shame on you John McDougall. For using your captive audience as a platform to voice your liberal views. WRONG WRONG WRONG.

Angie

Given that the people who do the assassinating are at the far right and left of the political spectrum and/or sitting in the religious fundamental extremism camps (of Christian, Jewish or Muslim persuasions), and all insanely convinced that their rigid views of the world are right - that's easy to answer. It's not moderates, liberal- or conservative-leaning, that are assassinating people or carrying out the bombings (domestic or international).

How is that relevant, except to say that people considering voting for Obama should also consider how they feel about Biden, since the chances of Obama's being assassinated are higher than McCain's? Same point as for McCain - if you vote for him you ought to be comfortable with the relatively high chance that at some point Palin is going to be the one sitting in his chair, either on a short-term or longer-term basis.

McDougall didn't talk about their politics, just their health and eating habits to the extent he was aware of them, and extrapolating from that who seemed more likely to promote a healthier climate next term. Of course that's not the only thing that matters and of course people will choose which one, two or many issues will influence their choice. But given that McDougall is primarily concerned about the laws and general climate surrounding health and medicine, it's perfectly understandable that he'd be seeing the candidates in this way.

This is his forum and his newsletter - nobody has paid a cent to be here or read it - and he has the right to say what he wants.

Personally, if someone I respected and knew to be right about so many things that seemed to challenge mainstream thinking said something I disagreed with, I'd be stupid to not at least pause to think about what s/he said. I may end up still disagreeing with them, but it's incumbent on me, if I consider myself to be someone who is a rational and intelligent person, to make a sincere attempt to understand where they're coming from. If I do not try to learn new things and challenge my own beliefs to see if they are resilient and can withstand that challenge, then I am willfully blind and ill-informed.

Haven't McDougall and others said it's the ratio that is the important thing, not the raw numbers? You'd think the calculator would use the ratio, especially if they want it to be taken more seriously than the typical "test your health" calculator...

["McDougall didn't talk about their politics, just their health and eating habits to the extent he was aware of them, and extrapolating from that who seemed more likely to promote a healthier climate next term. Of course that's not the only thing that matters and of course people will choose which one, two or many issues will influence their choice. But given that McDougall is primarily concerned about the laws and general climate surrounding health and medicine, it's perfectly understandable that he'd be seeing the candidates in this way.

This is his forum and his newsletter - nobody has paid a cent to be here or read it - and he has the right to say what he wants"

Forgive me for extrapolating, "a healthier climate" of what? I really don't care what the politicians are eating. I want them to do their jobs and give us a healthier economic future.

I also cannot agree that anyone that smokes is considered healthy. PERIOD! Regardless of their trim body and steamed veggie and salmon diet. And let's not forget the excercise. PEOPLE WHO SMOKE ARE NOT HEALTHY!

As for this being Dr. McDougall's forum and newsletter..........you are correct, and he has invited us here to share our thoughts as well. I signed up for a Nutritional Newsletter not a political one, although I welcome the discussion.

Why would basic information be so threatening? Or be seen to promoting a specific platform, for that matter? This is analagous to a doctor providing statistics on treatment options to a patient, so that their choice can be made from a position of empowerment--informed consent, if you will.

Most US citizens have already determined their voting position and would not find this article useful. But for those who are still struggling with their choice, would you begrudge them this information? Shouldn't they be the ones who get to determine if it has value?

I won't argue with you about the smoking - you'd be hard pressed to find anyone more revolted by smoking than I am. But I'm lucky - I've always been nauseated by the smell and thought so was never tempted. I hope that Obama can stay off the cigarettes, whether he becomes president or not.

I could have expressed myself more clearly about the climate of health thing. I meant that the president can exert a great deal of influence on the FDA and other organisations and individuals that create laws about food production, labelling, dietary advice and requirements, school lunch programs, and so on to make them more accountable to science and health rather than corporate interests of the meat, dairy, drug and nutritional supplement industries. The president has the power to significantly affect whether the US healthcare system continues down the route of the ambulance and drugs at the bottom of the cliff (continuing to allow companies to peddle poisonous "food" to us and our children) or the preventative fence at the top (promoting scientifically sound healthy eating). Maintaining the current course is a bottomless black hole into which we can pour billions of dollars and still have people with impaired health dying too young of diseases that are largely caused by lifestyle choices.

I agree it's a stretch to assume that Obama is anything more than a half step closer to McDougall than McCain, without more information than I think any of us has. But I think it's pretty clear that McCain is miles away, based on his diet.

You may choose to focus on who you feel would be better for the economy. Someone else will focus on abortion. Another person will focus on health, or education. Hopefully many will consider more than just a single issue, as they're mostly inter-related anyway. I wouldn't write the health of Americans, individually and as a group, off as being a non-issue, though.

I am sincerely interested in hearing from other American Voters on the Discussion Board:

How many of us here considered, and then voted in the last Presidential Election, on the basis of the health condition of the two candidates?

Thanks.

EDIT:
I meant to ask:

How many of us here considered, and then voted in the last Presidential Election, on the basis of the health conditions AND diets of the two candidates?

The more I learn about food production in the United States and the power of corporations like Monsanto and others in shaping food policy, the more it becomes apparent to me that our daily food choices are shaped at a level beyond just our individual choices. The foods we are able to choose and the way they arrive to us at our markets is shaped by the political history of the twentieth century. I can see that many people don't like these boards to get political, but it seems to me that by choosing to eat outside of the SAD norm, we are all making a political statement whether we embrace it or not. In my opinion, it is through our food purchases that we choose our position against the policies that have brought us overly-processed food products lacking in nutrients.

I think this website is inherently political; however, the food part is a politics we have all come to agree on, more or less, barring the occasional troll. I do think it's hard when people who share our political views on food express other political positions that we dislike. We sort of become trolls to each other when those conversations take place, because they're not usually aimed at building consensus or reaching an understanding. I can understand the aversion to that.