New Stanford diet report

[vman]

So the new Stanford report on diets places the Ornish and Esselstyn (and by extension McDougall) in tier 3 for heart health, below vegetarian and pescatarian, because they restrict “heart healthy” fats and can lead to deficiencies. Here we are decades since Ornish, and 20 years since Esselstyn’s first study, decades of Dr. McDougall’s work, and still the academic world remains unconvinced, and there doesn’t seem to be any kind of robust rebuttal when these type of reports come out, as they seem to do on a regular basis. At least reports like this are headed in the right general direction, but it seems the no added fats angle has been thoroughly quashed by what passes as establishment nutrition science these days. Too bad.

[JeffN]

The new U.S. News Report- The 10 Best Diets for Your Heart in 2024

https://health.usnews.com/wellness/food ... rt?onepage

The top 10 includes Pritikin, Ornish and Vegan, which is the same as last year (and several before)

Jeff

[vman]

That’s always good to see Jeff, but even there, the Med diet comes out above partly because of the obsession with healthy fats. It’s interesting that the paleo based no-oil movement seems to be getting some traction lately. For a society that is so quick to eliminate food types on a whim (msg, carbs, gluten, etc) it’s amazing to me that oiks are just now entering the no-go zone, but from the Paleo side. It’s almost if vegans are some of the strongest proponents of healthy fats now, as can be witnessed at almost every vegan restaurant where oils and added fats make it almost impossible for any of us to partake. This diet would be so much easier to maintain if the vegan world would get off the added fats addiction. As it is, it pretty much consigns us to picking off the edges of menus or foregoing the social aspects of dining out. I still think the failure to convince even a small portion of the mainstream vegan community and restaurant owners of the dangers of added fats makes this diet far harder for many people than it should be. Rankings that show oil heavy med diets on top certainly aren’t ideal in that regard.

[JeffN]

>>>That’s always good to see Jeff,

My only point is that it is out there and does get some recognition.

Since I have been on these boards, I have always made the argument that this will never be mainstream and the percent of people who truly adopt and maintain this will be low. I have posted several long threads presenting the data and following the trends over time.

There may have been an increase for a while but if you check trend data, vegan is trending down and whatever you want to call what we do (McDougall, Ornish, Esselstyn, Pritikin, etc), had its peak around 2011 due to a little perfect storm, but has been trending down since.

PCRM, a longterm hardcore promoter of a vegan diet, is now using the word Plant Based in most all their promo material, studies, articles, etc. Yet, plant based does not represent what they, or we, do, or does not automatically imply healthy.

There is a message in all of this and what we see that is more than just oil/fat but has to do with human nature and the power of the food industry and misleading marketing and advertising.

In Health
Jeff

[vman]

Yes, no question that things have been trending down. Fewer centers offering Ornish and Chips programs, complete about face at Whole Foods, the steady rise of the healthy fats narrative. Seems like the Health Starts Here thing at Whole Foods was probably the peak of the wave. Now we have things like Leafside that look and act like this, but are 40% fat. Sad result is that people like my friend in post cardiac rehab is dissuaded to try it by the fact that two longtime vegans were in his post heart attack class, so he dismisses the whole plant based thing right there, as did his instructors. If it didn’t help them he figures, why should he bother. Who knows, maybe the paleo crowd will succeed with their anti-oil movement and we’ll see the amount of oil in foods start to decline. That would be ironic.

[JeffN]

>>>> Yes, no question that things have been trending down. Fewer centers offering Ornish and Chips programs, complete about face at Whole Foods, the steady rise of the healthy fats narrative. Seems like the Health Starts Here thing at Whole Foods was probably the peak of the wave. "

Yes, it was and is a clear message.

Same with this article, which includes a discussion on the topic and on the financial issues, which often do not get addressed.
https://www.drmcdougallforums.com/viewt ... 22&t=43413

Another issue is that even in those who come to us with serious medical issues impacting their quality of life, who usually have higher levels of income and education and success in their life, struggle to do this.

Interestingly, the peak on the trend data was Aug 2011 which was also the month that Bill Clinton appeared on Sanjay Gupta to discuss his experience on the Esselstyn diet and his heart disease. Forks over Knives has come out about 3 months earlier.

>>> Sad result is that people like my friend in post cardiac rehab is dissuaded to try it by the fact that two longtime vegans were in his post heart attack class, so he dismisses the whole plant based thing right there, as did his instructors. If it didn’t help them he figures, why should he bother.

To me, this is the biggest issue. Well meaning, well intentioned people who are suffering from CVD, T2DB, obesity, autoimmune issues etc are going out looking for help, turn to this but they end up consuming the food in restaurants (even the Vegan/PB ones) and buying the food in the grocery stores (even the health food stores) and not realizing they are full of unhealthy fats and excess salt and sugar and are calorie dense and are not getting better and even getting worse and think the diet failed them. Then they share that with their friends and family. It’s the same thing that happened during the low fat craze when the food industry filled the shelves of stores with products like fat free & low fat snack-wells.

Jeff

[pundit999]

It is very difficult to eat whole plants only all the time, in our toxic environment.

Eventually people want to continue to be part of their larger social group. As almost no one else eats this way, you have to make compromises. You don't want to be bringing your food to every party or ask hosts to prepare special food for you.
And you may not have the option to choose a mostly compliant restaurant when you go out with loved ones.

But you can easily do almost 100%. say 95% in terms of calories.
And that is still effective if you are not trying to reverse some autoimmune disease.
I wish there were studies telling you how much benefit you get at 95% etc.

Kind of obvious but there should be a consistent message from all WFPB gurus that even if you can't follow the diet 100%, you still receive an overwhelming portion of the benefit at > 90% , for example.

[pundit999]

The healthy fat advocates are wrong because if you consume 40% of your calories from fat, you are essentially crowding out great nutrients from plants: fiber, vitamins, minerals, flavonoids etc. and many others we have not discovered yet.

Assuming 10% fat is what you get from an WFPB diet with no added oil, the 30% (600 calories on 200 calorie diet) wasted is a lot!
Imagine how much good nutrients you could get in that 600 calories!

And you have to eat high protein foods to get your protein as fat has no protein, stressing your kidneys and bones.

[JeffN]

Kind of obvious but there should be a consistent message from all WFPB gurus that even if you can't follow the diet 100%, you still receive an overwhelming portion of the benefit at > 90% , for example.

I can post the full first page of John's first book, and my first newsletter from 1987 (which is online at my FB page) and both of them say the exact same thing, this is not an all or nothing program and we continue to emphasize that at every program. It is the focus of the several of the lectures including the Weight of the Nation, Dining Out, Meal Planning, Label Reading, Getting Along Without Going Along etc. In fact, I can't find one that isn't. I have had the pleasure of working with virtually all of the leading programs and physicians in this movement and the majority of therm also say the same thing.

Yes, there are many self-proclaimed Guru's out there who promote their own versions of these programs.

That was the topic of another recent post.

Jeff

Johns first book


My first newseltter

[JeffN]

But you can easily do almost 100%. say 95% in terms of calories.
And that is still effective if you are not trying to reverse some autoimmune disease.
I wish there were studies telling you how much benefit you get at 95% etc. Kind of obvious but there should be a consistent message from all WFPB gurus that even if you can't follow the diet 100%, you still receive an overwhelming portion of the benefit at > 90% , for example.

Here you go, (this is not the only one).

Estimating impact of food choices on life expectancy: A modeling study
https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/ ... ed.1003889

Here is a chart showing some of their estimates.


They even created a calculator for you to see the benefit on the different food inputs and allows you to modify them and see the results of different modifications.

"The online Food4HealthyLife calculator enables the instant estimation of the effect on LE (life expectancy) of a range of dietary changes."

https://food4healthylife.org/

Jeff

[pundit999]

Thanks Jeff.