McDougall versus Fuhrman

[EngineerGuy]

Hi folks,

It's not a competition between McDougall, Fuhrman, Pritikin, Esselstyn, Ornish, Barnard or others. The success of one of them supports the success of all of them. We can all benefit from tips from all of them.

If you are meeting your health goals, you are on a perfect program. If you are not meeting your health goals, I recommend working harder, and/or browsing between the different programs.

The important point is to make our message known, so people not familiar with our message, can make a choice for themselves. Unfortunately, the medical and pharmaceutical industry side of things, controls so much of the media and government agencies, that our health message is on its own, to get out.

Best regards, EngineerGuy

[f1jim]

Exactly
It is not a competetion and some of it find it tiresome to read in various places, repeated statements that Dr. McDougalls program has been superceeded by Dr. Fuhrman, and using his own forum as a platform for advancing anothers. Many of us feel that this program offers significant nutritional as well as practical substantive content over others and find the deprecation irksome and annoying.
Both programs are light years ahead of the Western diet and are useful tools to advancing health. This is the position taken here. It would be nice to see it elsewhere.
f1jim

[Starchyme]

Thanks Engineer Guy and Jim. So happy to finally put this to rest. Yes, all the doctors' programs who promote a plant or starch based diet are helping us toward a healthy lifestyle. Each seem to just be a little tweak different which allows for us to choose which suits us best. So hat's off to every single one of them!

[patty]

There is a difference between cash register honesty and emotional honesty. We are all transparent. Dr. Fuhrman by passes calorie density to nutrient density. It wouldn't be a problem if he explained calorie density. Sometimes we have to point the finger to self-realize. Simplicity destroys illusions. It allows objectivity. The world is created by millions of perceptions. We are all the Light before daylight and night.

Aloha, patty

[GeoffreyLevens]

Interestingly, nutrient density and calorie density overlap to a very large degree! If you look at foods in general, almost across the board, the lower the calorie density, the higher the nutrient density and vis versa. There are small variations within that arc, but overall, the lowest cal/highest nutrient contents are the non starchy veg and fruits, then the starchy veg, next come the grains and beans, finally the seeds and nuts. The highest calorie/lowest nutrients come from animal sourced "foods" and the manufactured fake foods trailing along at the rear of the pack with highest calorie density and lowest nutrient density.

The nutrient density view could be called more technical and the calorie density more seat of the pants, intuitive. Either/both ways of looking at food will bring you to much the same place in terms of health, weight loss, disease reversal, etc.

[patty]

Interestingly, nutrient density and calorie density overlap to a very large degree! If you look at foods in general, almost across the board, the lower the calorie density, the higher the nutrient density and vis versa. There are small variations within that arc, but overall, the lowest cal/highest nutrient contents are the non starchy veg and fruits, then the starchy veg, next come the grains and beans, finally the seeds and nuts. The highest calorie/lowest nutrients come from animal sourced "foods" and the manufactured fake foods trailing along at the rear of the pack with highest calorie density and lowest nutrient density.

The nutrient density view could be called more technical and the calorie density more seat of the pants, intuitive. Either/both ways of looking at food will bring you to much the same place in terms of health, weight loss, disease reversal, etc.

Nuts and seeds are on the higher level in the calorie density scale. Jeff Novick's _Calorie Density_ dvds make it very clear.

Aloha, patty

[GeoffreyLevens]

Interestingly, nutrient density and calorie density overlap to a very large degree! If you look at foods in general, almost across the board, the lower the calorie density, the higher the nutrient density and vis versa. There are small variations within that arc, but overall, the lowest cal/highest nutrient contents are the non starchy veg and fruits, then the starchy veg, next come the grains and beans, finally the seeds and nuts. The highest calorie/lowest nutrients come from animal sourced "foods" and the manufactured fake foods trailing along at the rear of the pack with highest calorie density and lowest nutrient density.

The nutrient density view could be called more technical and the calorie density more seat of the pants, intuitive. Either/both ways of looking at food will bring you to much the same place in terms of health, weight loss, disease reversal, etc.

Nuts and seeds are on the higher level in the calorie density scale. Jeff Novick's _Calorie Density_ dvds make it very clear.

Aloha, patty

Yes, exactly! Higher calorie density = lower nutrient density... Of all the plant based foods they are the highest in calories and the lowest in nutrients and so the very least of them should be eaten.

[patty]

Interestingly, nutrient density and calorie density overlap to a very large degree! If you look at foods in general, almost across the board, the lower the calorie density, the higher the nutrient density and vis versa. There are small variations within that arc, but overall, the lowest cal/highest nutrient contents are the non starchy veg and fruits, then the starchy veg, next come the grains and beans, finally the seeds and nuts. The highest calorie/lowest nutrients come from animal sourced "foods" and the manufactured fake foods trailing along at the rear of the pack with highest calorie density and lowest nutrient density.

The nutrient density view could be called more technical and the calorie density more seat of the pants, intuitive. Either/both ways of looking at food will bring you to much the same place in terms of health, weight loss, disease reversal, etc.

Nuts and seeds are on the higher level in the calorie density scale. Jeff Novick's _Calorie Density_ dvds make it very clear.

Aloha, patty

Yes, exactly! Higher calorie density = lower nutrient density... Of all the plant based foods they are the highest in calories and the lowest in nutrients and so the very least of them should be eaten.

In not understanding how calorie density works, again nutrient density in my perspective is just a spin, by having too many nuts you completely throw low calorie density out with the baby in the bath water. They can be limited or not even needed. It is the same old story of no one makes money off food, unless you market it. Dr. Fuhrman is marketing a belief system. Today I am still weighing and measuring the need for nuts and seeds. The fact that of availability in my ancestors makes me question the fact that they are needed. Other than being nuttier in a fruit cake... where I can relax and be here:)

Aloha, patty

[GeoffreyLevens]

In not understanding how calorie density works, again nutrient density in my perspective is just a spin, by having too many nuts you completely throw low calorie density out with the baby in the bath water. They can be limited or not even needed.

Yes, I think you are not understanding. Cal density is calories per weight ie calories/pound. Nutrient density is nutrients/calorie. Foods that have lowest calorie density, fresh veg and fruits, also top the list of foods with highest nutrient density. These are the ones to eat a lot of.

Nuts and seeds have very high calorie density, many calories/pound and relatively low nutrient density. These are foods you want to only eat a very small amount of and many people may not eat any of them and still do fine. So yes, by definition, limited or not needed when looked at either through the calorie density screen or the nutrient density screen.

Which ever way you look at food, calorie density or nutrient density, you end up with foods ranked pretty much in the same order of how much of them you want to eat.

[patty]

In not understanding how calorie density works, again nutrient density in my perspective is just a spin, by having too many nuts you completely throw low calorie density out with the baby in the bath water. They can be limited or not even needed.

Yes, I think you are not understanding. Cal density is calories per weight ie calories/pound. Nutrient density is nutrients/calorie. Foods that have lowest calorie density, fresh veg and fruits, also top the list of foods with highest nutrient density. These are the ones to eat a lot of.

Nuts and seeds have very high calorie density, many calories/pound and relatively low nutrient density. These are foods you want to only eat a very small amount of and many people may not eat any of them and still do fine. So yes, by definition, limited or not needed when looked at either through the calorie density screen or the nutrient density screen.

Which ever way you look at food, calorie density or nutrient density, you end up with foods ranked pretty much in the same order of how much of them you want to eat.

Mahalo for explaining to me what I don't understand. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand there is a difference between calorie density and nutrient density:) Once you understand low calorie density then you can be objective to nutrient density. It is misleading to be told to eat 1 lb of raw and 1 lb of cooked veggies, 4 fruits, cup of beans, 1 oz of seeds and nuts and not being told the formula for calorie density. It sets you up to the possibility to eat more veggies/fruits than you normally would eat vs. just understanding you eat the same amount of weight of food daily, and it is the calories that vary.

I am sure you have read ETL and EFH and watched Jeff Novick's _Calorie Density_ dvds, read McDougalls or Dr. Shintani's books, who took over Dr. McDougall's practice when he left the islands. Obesity is the natural consequence of not understanding calorie density, not nutrient density. Someone brought a thread up on Ask the Doctor on Dr. Fuhrman's site and the question was: Not losing the second time around?

Aloha, patty

[GeoffreyLevens]

Patty, I do not understand your point.

I just went and looked at that thread and it was started by someone who had gone off the ETL diet, back to SAD and junk food (twice), and had just started ETL for the 3rd time and was impatient for weight loss. The advice given was to stick with it awhile and see what happens. Reasons were given as to why it might take longer to loose more weight after already having lost some and after going back and forth, on and off the diet. The problem the person was having was not due to calorie density, it was due to not sticking to the diet and going back to SAD eating.

The rest of the long thread was other people speculating as to why people go back to SAD... I'm not clear what that had to do with calorie density, babies, bath water...

[dp135]

Thanks Engineer Guy and Jim. So happy to finally put this to rest. Yes, all the doctors' programs who promote a plant or starch based diet are helping us toward a healthy lifestyle. Each seem to just be a little tweak different which allows for us to choose which suits us best. So hat's off to every single one of them!

I agree wholeheartedly. I lost 40 lbs and got loads healthier following Dr. Fuhrman's program for the past year. I started to add more starch and balance my diet for my persobnal taste needs in the last few months but wanted to stay within the healthiest of nutritional plans and started to look at the work of Esselstyn and McDougall.

I personally feel my best with a lot of green veggies but appreciate the recipes with healthy starch components. I also have embraced the less or no oils/nuts/seeds and have a hybrid plan to be sure.

For budgetary reasons I am leaving the Members Forumn there and am thrilled that there is a free forum here filled with folks who care about a whole grain plant based diet.

Dr. Esselstyn's Heart Disease program resonated with me and got my brother who has had a long history of CAD and even a CABG to finally "get it". He was able to adopt the starch based no oils vs the
information he had from me when I did a more ETL plan.

God bless all of them, they all have a plant based diet and are saving lives.

[patty]

Aloha Geoffrey

My point is to point the person to the right direction, to direct communication where they can apply correct action. Dr. Fuhrman skips the core formula of calorie density. With calorie density there is a constant number that doesn't change. Each person eats the approximately the same amount of weight of food daily (constant number). It is only the calories that vary.

Common sense with awareness of what foods are low calorie density is to increase those foods and decrease high calorie density foods. The catch in not understanding a teaspoon of high calorie density foods is like a pound of low calorie density foods. How many people innocently put a tablespoon of oil in a dish or accept a salad that someone prepares for them? I have never been attracted to nuts, but I had to make sure I would eat a oz a day.

Food is a very complicated issue. In understanding calorie density is like 2 and 2 becomes 22, because again 1 teaspoon of fat equates to 1 lb. Dr. Fuhrman misses the leap, and the then the recipient misses the leap. Collectively our healthcare system is on the event of the horizon, I believe we are making a quantum leap. It is a self-correcting lifestyle that will put it into place but if you don't have the knowledge all the nutrients won't help you as it is a body, mind and social disease. Dr. Fuhrman by passes our intelligence.

Aloha, patty

It is like in AA, you can only do the first half of the first step perfectly. That is true with calorie density too, the rest is a continuous dance of either or (calories in or out).. Understanding calorie density allows you to be in the place of knowing either or and both. Nutrients is like truth it always follows.

[chewy]

are starchy vegetables (potatoes,sweet potatoes,yms,squash) all much lower in calorie density than any grain?so is it best to choose starchy veg instead of grain of one is aiming to lose weight?

[GeoffreyLevens]

Yes, by weight

Sweet potato, cooked, baked in skin, without salt 1 pound 408.6cal
Rice, brown, long-grain, cooked 1 pound 503.9cal

And though not calorie density, also by volume

Sweet potato, cooked, baked in skin, without salt 1 cup 180.0cal
Rice, brown, long-grain, cooked 1 cup 216.4cal