Vegetarian verses other diets

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

Postby DianeR » Tue Jan 08, 2008 9:13 am

Wow, thanks for the info, Jeff.

Since I am a gluten intolerant person, I would like to expand upon what you say on the subject.

The 1 in 133 figure is the estimated incidence of celiac disease in the population. (As I recall, a large number of blood donors were tested and this was the frequency they found. Of course, real sick folk probably wouldn't feel like donating blood, so I've always thought that this figure may be a bit low. In Italy, all children are tested and I believe the incidence is a straight 1%). However, what I've heard is that 97% of those people in the US have not been diagnosed.

Unfortunately, many doctors in the US still think that celiac is rare or that there are certain classic symptoms. So among those who have managed to be diagnosed, the average time it takes is 11 years. People report having great difficulty in getting tested, having come up with the possibility of celiac from their own research.

But this is just celiac we are talking about. Celiac is when gluten causes damage to the villi in the small intestine and that damage is observable. (At least this seems to be the most common approach -- some doctors will diagnose from some combo of blood testing, gene tests, and dietary response.) That leaves uncovered those people who react poorly to gluten but the villi haven't been damaged enough for diagnosis AND those who react but the damage is not primarily to the villi.

I've certainly run across many people who get very sick eating gluten but can't get the "celiac" label for any number of reasons. They may have tried going gluten-free, found their symptoms improved, and so don't want to go back on gluten heavily for months so that the blood and biopsy testing would be valid. There are those who don't have the supposedly right genes (although some doubt that all the relevant genes have been identified and there are some diagnosed with celiac that don't have one of the "celiac genes"). There are those who get false negatives because the damage hasn't gotten bad enough for antibodies to show up in the blood or villi damage to be found (false negative rate for the blood test is something like 30% and this is for people who actually have celiac, rather than a preceliac condition). There are those who get negative test results, are told to stop being silly and eat their gluten, for Pete's sake, and then finally, many painful years later, they DO get positive test results and so an official blessing to going gluten-free.

It is like telling a smoker not to quit until lung cancer is diagnosed.

I wouldn't put this category, which probably includes far more people than the classically "celiac," as having a milder form. They can get just as sick from eating gluten and they have to avoid it every bit as much. So I have to quibble with you on that one, Jeff.

Here are a couple articles by gastroenterologists about celiac as merely the tip of the iceberg or a subset of the larger problem of gluten intolerance. I recognize that some doctors disagree. (For them, it is classic celiac, with one of the two recognized genes and a positive biopsy, or nothing.)
http://www.celiac.com/articles/1101/1/G ... Page1.html
http://www.celiac.com/articles/759/1/Ea ... Page1.html

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts. --
Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan
User avatar
DianeR
 
Posts: 1273
Joined: Fri Oct 20, 2006 5:29 am

Postby JeffN » Tue Jan 08, 2008 10:29 am

Diane

I dont think we disagree at all. I was just giving some stats and saying why I avoid it "even though" I do not have the formal diagnosis. So, I think we agree.

It is why I avoid it and why I recommend many of my patients to avoid it. It is interesting to see how many report feeling better in many different ways after having eliminated gluten from their diets. In my own experience I have seen it help not only those with "allergic" reactions but skin problems, joint problems, depression, and ADD and others

Thanks
Jeff
User avatar
JeffN
 
Posts: 9412
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 5:56 am

Postby DianeR » Tue Jan 08, 2008 10:50 am

Thank YOU. I just wanted things to be clear. I didn't think we would have a real disagreement, since I've never disagreed with you yet.

Welcome to McDougall land. I'm glad you are here :D

Do you think it necessary to eliminate all flour products from nongluten grains or to just try to emphasize them in their whole form? Forgive me if you've already answered this somewhere. I read a number of people and sometimes don't remember who said what.

I do sometimes have a dry cereal made from processed grains (not every day) and some dinners with a brown rice pasta or polenta. Maybe I shouldn't say so, but a favorite lunch of mine is a brown rice tortilla I buy (made with oil :eek: ) spread with hummus or refried beans and piled so high with veggies it is hard to hold it together. Should I clean up my act?
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts. --
Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan
User avatar
DianeR
 
Posts: 1273
Joined: Fri Oct 20, 2006 5:29 am

Re: Vegetarian verses other diets

Postby Clary » Tue Jan 08, 2008 11:46 am

Ted W Bishop wrote:I find myself questioning my previous concept of a “good diet” that I have learned at SDSU and from other sources like Dr. Nicholas Perricone.

The teaching about Dr. McDougal and a no fat, vegetarian diet to greatly reduce risk of disease and to control it is thought provoking. The largest question I have is it necessary to be vegetarian to accomplish this? Could the similar or the same result be achieved by Dr. Nicholas Perricone approach with limited amount organic meat form wild Salomon and range free Chicken breast and there eggs using the white of the egg primarily.


Dr. McDougall has been generous to supply us with several forums on which to focus upon and discuss specific issues of interest.

I hope no one will be offened by a suggestion that if someone wants to expand Ted W Bishop's post regarding animal products, eggs, fats, Dr. Nicholas Perricone's/Dr.McDougall's teachings, vegetarianism, etc. into another gluten-issues thread that someone interested in that aspect of the discussion will kindly please move that new thread to the Gluten-free Issues section.
Clary
 

Postby DianeR » Tue Jan 08, 2008 12:52 pm

Nope, that doesn't offend me. I just posted here in order to respond to a post that was here. I suppose I could have said, I have a response but it is in another thread I just started. But that seems like it creates work for those who want to read it. I also didn't anticipate an extended discussion. I simply wanted to clarify that "milder" adjective. I don't know if anything remains to be said on the subject.

If so, someone can create a thread on the other forum. I'm fine with that.

Remember, any post, or part of a post, that isn't of interest can be ignored. (Hope that comment doesn't offend you :D ) I'm sure people ignore what I say all the time. :lol:

The question I last asked really doesn't bear on gluten, though, but the general issue of flours versus whole grains. I would think that would be of interest to people generally, not just those who are concerned with gluten.
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts. --
Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan
User avatar
DianeR
 
Posts: 1273
Joined: Fri Oct 20, 2006 5:29 am

Postby groundhogg » Tue Jan 08, 2008 2:19 pm

Well it's good to see some things clarified!

Thanks JeffN, for the answers!!! Thanks, DianeR, for the comments...I'm tired of saying that stuff... :lol: :lol: :lol: -- but yeah...good comments.

I'm finding myself just wondering about all grains at this point...but not committing to any real IDEAS or beliefs yet...just in the state of wondering...what if I didn't eat this, that, etc. Can't help but wonder, sometimes, ya know!

Anyway...no, it's not really practical to move discussions because topics logically lead to other topics, or just expand out a little bit...I mean, it's like ordinary discussion...isn't it? With me it always is...like you say one thing...while I'm thinking about what you said, it reminds me of other stuff either I've thought about, experienced, read about, or heard somebody else talk about...etc., and then I expect that others who respond in turn will also relate things to their own experience and knowledge of the world. It's kind of difficult to limit discussions to ONE topic only...at least for me it is. :D
groundhogg
 

comparing "healthy" diets

Postby spuds » Tue Jan 08, 2008 6:50 pm

Hi Ted. (I hope you are still following this string.)Dr. Esselsyn has compared Dr. Ornish's eating plan with his own plan. Both had heart patients following their guidelines and while the Ornish patients still had problems like chest pains etc., Esselstyn patients had no more problems and apparently thrived while following his plan. The Esselsyn patients were told by previous doctors there was no hope(going to die soon), but they lived 20 years on this plan, and not just barely getting along. There is Jordan Rubin who includes organic meat and dairy in fairly large amounts(my opinion) and has had people regain health. I wonder if a heart patient at the brink of death would recover and thrive on his plan? Maybe, or maybe not.
spuds
 
Posts: 7
Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2007 8:33 pm
Location: MOL, ohio

Postby DianeR » Wed Jan 09, 2008 10:34 am

Jeff, you provided a link to Quackwatch. Any idea as to why the McDougall Newsletter is shown among "nonrecommended periodicals" in Quackwatch? These are said to be "publications untrustworthy because they promote misinformation, espouse unscientific theories, contain unsubstantiated advice, and/or fail to distinguish between reliable and unreliable sources of advice." I find this mention very surprising.

Searching did not yield an explanatory article.

Looking at what is recommended, I find Skeptical Briefs. This is the publication that just had an article about how there is no connection between diet and heart disease. If I remember correctly, the same guy has had articles about how bad vegan diets are and how there is no such thing as global warming. His only qualification is that he is a "science writer." The contrary viewpoints show up in letters to the editor, but then he is given the last word.
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts. --
Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan
User avatar
DianeR
 
Posts: 1273
Joined: Fri Oct 20, 2006 5:29 am

Esselstyn-Ornish comparison

Postby PamM » Wed Jan 09, 2008 10:47 am

Spuds, do you have a reference for where Esselstyn did that comparison? I'd like to read more about that.

Thx. Pam
PamM
 
Posts: 149
Joined: Thu Oct 19, 2006 7:55 pm

Postby groundhogg » Wed Jan 09, 2008 12:43 pm

In my opinion, Quack watch is as quacky as the quacks they're watching. I mean, who's left to quack while the others are busy watching...in others words...too quacky for me. The whole AMA is too quacky for me, not to mention the dropouts or others not fitting into their equack-tion! :P
groundhogg
 

Ornish-Esselstyn

Postby spuds » Wed Jan 09, 2008 1:17 pm

PamM--That info is in Dr. Esselstyn's book "Prevent and Reverse Heart Disease," chapter 11. At first I said Dr. McD said it--I was remembering wrong--sorry about that. Spuds
spuds
 
Posts: 7
Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2007 8:33 pm
Location: MOL, ohio

Postby PamM » Wed Jan 09, 2008 1:23 pm

Thanks much, Spuds; I will check that out.
Pam
PamM
 
Posts: 149
Joined: Thu Oct 19, 2006 7:55 pm

Postby JeffN » Wed Jan 09, 2008 1:45 pm

My post is not about the quality of Quackwatch but to have provided a link to readily available source of information that was of value in helping one determine the quality of the info they were trying to evaluate.

While I understand and respect your opinions of quackwatch, do not let that interfere with the information about Dr. Perricone, which is accurate. After all, if an article by Dr McDougall was posted on the National Cattlemans Association website (or quackwatch), would that make it less valuable? Or more valuable? Or would you value an article just because it was posted on someones website who you respect, regardless of the merits and quality of the information in the article?

Do not let your view of the messenger, interfere with your ability to evaluate the quality of the message. Judge the message on its on inherent value and merit. Otherwise you fall for the exact same trap that you hold many of those who are on the "other" side, to be guilty off. As my original post showed, many people on both sides, make claims that are not accurate. Dr Atkins may have gotten many things wrong but he also got some things right.

I am more than happy to discuss any of the issues in the article surrounding Dr. Perricones misinformation and erroneous claims about diet/health.

In Health
Jeff
User avatar
JeffN
 
Posts: 9412
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 5:56 am

Postby DianeR » Wed Jan 09, 2008 2:01 pm

Don't get me wrong. I read what was said on Quackwatch about Dr. Perricone and found it convincing. I've read other things on that site before and agreed. If I sat down and read everything there I would probably agree with most of it.

I was just surprised to see the McDougall Newsletter dismissed, with no explanation. And then I go to the "recommended" list and saw a periodical that has been publishing some twaddle about nutrition, along with some excellent articles about other things.

I should have been clearer than I wasn't trying to defend Perricone, whom I hadn't even heard of before this thread.
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts. --
Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan
User avatar
DianeR
 
Posts: 1273
Joined: Fri Oct 20, 2006 5:29 am

Common denominator of animal protein and plant seeds?

Postby Burgess » Wed Jan 09, 2008 4:53 pm

DianeR wrote:In addition to the overall protein load, there is the fact that animal protein is higher in sulfur-containing amino acids, which require more buffering. I've seen studies that show that the nature of the protein one consumes is important. For instance:
http://www.vegsource.com/articles/prote ... _study.htm

DianeR, as you know, I have had -itis problems resulting from all animal products (except fats) and, in the plant world, all "seeds" (grains, nuts, legumes, and so forth). The Potential Renal Acid Load rankings have been perfect predictors for me. (The acidity-producers cause problems; the alkalinity-producers don't.)

I am still perplexed in not knowing what might be a common denominator (if there is one) between animal products (just proteins?) and seeds (grains, etc.). Is it possible that both animal proteins generally and seeds generally are rich in sulfur-containing acids?

I can, perhaps, determine this for myself, but I have no clue as to where to go--or whether I, as a non-scientist, could interpret the information once I get there.

Is there some site which (1) identifies which amino acids commonly found in foods are high in sulfur and (2) ranks them by amount or type of sulfur components?

I may be grasping at straws. My hope is that some day I will find a common-denominator that will make my unscientific, but so far successful inductions one step more general and thus be a simpler guide to which foods to eat.

P. S. -- Perhaps I misinterpreted it, but in some passages of the study you linked to the distinction made by the author seems to be "fruits and vegetables" versus animal products. (In other passages the distinction seems to be animal vs. plant proteins.) "Fruits and vegetables," in the common meaning of the terms, excludes the very things that cause me problems: seed-based foods such as grains, legumes, and nuts, as well as animal products.
Burgess Laughlin, Star McDougaller
My books: http://www.reasonversusmysticism.com
My health weblog: http://anti-itisdiet.blogspot.com
User avatar
Burgess
 
Posts: 1463
Joined: Sat Nov 18, 2006 11:20 am
Location: Shelton, Washington

PreviousNext

Return to The Lounge

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests



Welcome!

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