What's a non-expert to do?

[Spiral]

Jeff,

I have read your analysis of the documentary "What the Health" and it prompted this question: What's a non-expert to do?

Let's take a hypothetical 40 year old man who has recently been diagnosed with hypertension and type 2 diabetes. He has been told by his physician and his dietician that he needs to keep tight control over his "carbs." His brother-in-law, also a physician, tells him that he should eat grass fed beef several times each week and three eggs each morning.

His vegan co-worker tells him to watch the "Forks Over Knives" documentary and to "go Vegan." But after he watches that documentary, his paleo brother-in-law emails him a link to Denise Minger's blog, which informs him that the data used in that movie was distorted to make animal based foods appear unhealthy.

Something similar happens after he watches "What the Health." He reads a review of that documentary on a web page titled, "Science Based Medicine." Harriet Hall details the distortions made in that movie.

How does this 40 year old man wade through all of the conflicting claims and attempt to make sense of the data? Let's assume that this person isn't very good at analyzing the peer reviewed journal articles available on Pub Med.

Is it just a toss of the coin for most people? People just randomly trying different diets until they finally find one that works? Or do you think even a person with average education and intelligence could determine that someone like Dr. McDougall is more credible and more worth listening to than Dr. Lustig?

[JeffN]

Jeff,

I have read your analysis of the documentary "What the Health" and it prompted this question: What's a non-expert to do?

Let's take a hypothetical 40 year old man who has recently been diagnosed with hypertension and type 2 diabetes. He has been told by his physician and his dietician that he needs to keep tight control over his "carbs." His brother-in-law, also a physician, tells him that he should eat grass fed beef several times each week and three eggs each morning.

His vegan co-worker tells him to watch the "Forks Over Knives" documentary and to "go Vegan." But after he watches that documentary, his paleo brother-in-law emails him a link to Denise Minger's blog, which informs him that the data used in that movie was distorted to make animal based foods appear unhealthy.

Something similar happens after he watches "What the Health." He reads a review of that documentary on a web page titled, "Science Based Medicine." Harriet Hall details the distortions made in that movie.

How does this 40 year old man wade through all of the conflicting claims and attempt to make sense of the data? Let's assume that this person isn't very good at analyzing the peer reviewed journal articles available on Pub Med.

Is it just a toss of the coin for most people? People just randomly trying different diets until they finally find one that works? Or do you think even a person with average education and intelligence could determine that someone like Dr. McDougall is more credible and more worth listening to than Dr. Lustig?

I notice you often post very well thought out responses to questions, topics, issues, etc. So, before I give you my answer, I have three questions for you....

First,

1) If someone came to you and asked you this question, how would you answer it?

2) How did anyone do this before the last 10-15 years? Are you implying this is something new? Are you familiar with the diet wars going back to the early 1800's (and even much earlier)?

3) Are you implying that we don't make any other major decisions in our life and if so, the answers are always clear cut without any confusion, misinformation, corruption, bias, etc? If not, how does anyone ever do this in regard to any other important/major decision in their life?

In Health
Jeff

[Spiral]

I notice you often post very well thought out responses to questions, topics, issues, etc.

Thanks.

So, before I give you my answer, I have three questions for you....

First,

1) If someone came to you and asked you this question, how would you answer it?

I would tell this person to read the views of a variety of people on this topic, note their credentials and accomplishments, consider the plausibility of their arguments and look for logical consistency between claims and results. Then draw a tentative conclusion, while remaining open to new information.

2) How did anyone do this before the last 10-15 years? Are you implying this is something new? Are you familiar with the diet wars going back to the early 1800's (and even much earlier)?

I am not very familiar with the diet wars of the early 1800's. I had no idea that the duel between Aaron Burr and Alexander Hamilton was over the effectiveness of the Atkins diet. (That's a joke.)

But, seriously. I did not know that there were diet wars going on that far back. I thought this was something that perhaps started in the Ancel Keys era.

I acknowledge that this isn't new. As to how anyone did this in, say, the 1970s, I suspect that most people didn't do much of anything except eat what was put in front of them. I remember, as a teenager, seeing a Yoplait Yogurt commercial and thinking that eating yogurt would increase my life expectancy. I think we have always had trouble with separating good information from distortion and half-truth.

3) Are you implying that we don't make any other major decisions in our life and if so, the answers are always clear cut without any confusion, misinformation, corruption, bias, etc? If not, how does anyone ever do this in regard to any other important/major decision in their life?

When I purchased my last car, I didn't have perfect information. And I knew that the car dealer wanted to get as much money out of me as possible. Buying a house seems like even more of a roll of the dice. So, I suppose expecting everyone to have perfect knowledge of nutrition is unrealistic. We have to muddle through the best we can. This even includes the researchers and health care professionals.

[JeffN]

So, before I give you my answer, I have three questions for you....

First,

1) If someone came to you and asked you this question, how would you answer it?

I would tell this person to read the views of a variety of people on this topic, note their credentials and accomplishments, consider the plausibility of their arguments and look for logical consistency between claims and results. Then draw a tentative conclusion, while remaining open to new information.

Sounds like an excellent plan to me.

2) How did anyone do this before the last 10-15 years? Are you implying this is something new? Are you familiar with the diet wars going back to the early 1800's (and even much earlier)?

I am not very familiar with the diet wars of the early 1800's. I had no idea that the duel between Aaron Burr and Alexander Hamilton was over the effectiveness of the Atkins diet. (That's a joke.)

But, seriously. I did not know that there were diet wars going on that far back. I thought this was something that perhaps started in the Ancel Keys era.

I acknowledge that this isn't new. As to how anyone did this in, say, the 1970s, I suspect that most people didn't do much of anything except eat what was put in front of them. I remember, as a teenager, seeing a Yoplait Yogurt commercial and thinking that eating yogurt would increase my life expectancy. I think we have always had trouble with separating good information from distortion and half-truth.?

I agree with you on this. We have always had trouble with separating good information from distortion and half-truth. I think social media has made the process more difficult, for reasons I describe in other threads, but it has always existed.

Yes, the diet wars have gone on for centuries. Here a few articles that look back at some of it

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/22/weeki ... ubz=0&_r=0

http://nymag.com/news/intelligencer/topic/diets-2013-3/

http://www.neatorama.com/2010/09/09/the ... -of-diets/

3) Are you implying that we don't make any other major decisions in our life and if so, the answers are always clear cut without any confusion, misinformation, corruption, bias, etc? If not, how does anyone ever do this in regard to any other important/major decision in their life?

When I purchased my last car, I didn't have perfect information. And I knew that the car dealer wanted to get as much money out of me as possible. Buying a house seems like even more of a roll of the dice. So, I suppose expecting everyone to have perfect knowledge of nutrition is unrealistic. We have to muddle through the best we can. This even includes the researchers and health care professionals.

I agree. We see the same issues in so many areas like real estate, car buying (which is a minefield), financial advice (which may be worse then nutrition advice), and in so many other areas where we have choices. Granted, some are more important to your immediate and longterm health but all of these are extremely difficult yet we do them on a regular basis.

You can easily find a list of the 10 worst cars to own, cars that have poor performance, poor safety rating, etc, and then see how many are not only on the road and selling, but have been for decades. Yet, the info on how bad these cars are, is readily available for free.

Financial may be harder and I think is as confusing if not more so then nutrition and health. Turn on the CNBC during the day or listen to the news and about 1/3 of the news is that we are heading into a bear market, about another 1/3 is saying the bull is raging strong and has many years to go and another 1/3 are cautious. This happens every day. There are 100's of news shows, newsletters, and personalities all promising you the secret to financial success, the market and they all have different advice. Yet, look at the national figures on individual debt, savings, retirement etc and we are doing poorly with many people have very little savings or retirement.

All these industries are ripe with corruption, misinformation, misleading claims, hucksters, etc.

So what do you do?

We have to do our best to develop and use critical thinking skills, we have to learn how to identify and evaluate information and we have to learn how to identify and evaluate true experts.

Perhaps education is a main issue. Not just education in general but also education on how to think critically. Which opens another can of worms as we have to have the time and financial resources to do this.

It is not easy and social media has made it much harder.

But in regard to this way of life, so has this movement...

On one hand, many are quick to criticize those who do not agree with them because they lack professional experience or credentials. Yet, on the other hand, they quickly promote many who agree with them as experts even though many also lack professional experience or credentials.

Many are willing to quickly dismiss most any study regardless of how well it was done if it disagrees with them, yet they are just as quick to tout any study that agrees with them, regardless of its quality.

Many will quickly criticize "their" exaggerations yet use many exaggerations themselves.

Many will quickly dismiss any study they don't like due to funding yet quickly accept any study they do like, regardless of funding

Many will quickly dismiss any celebrity touting their way of life cause they are just celebrities yet quickly promote and endorse any celebrity who agrees with them.

The recent debates over the movie, What The Health, makes many of these points. While I don't agree with David Katz, MD or Ginny Messina, RD, they both made excellent points that everyone was quick to dismiss because he "eats oil and isn't vegan" and she "promotes unhealthy vegan foods." True, but at the same time we allow and accept none experts and none professionals to make exaggerated, misleading or inaccurate claims about the movie because they are WFPB No-Oil vegans or McDougaller's.

Many newcomers to this program can not always tell the difference because they don't take the time to learn the history of this movement. So, they mean well and have good intentions but start spreading misinformation as solid science. Even many of the newer doctors have the same issue.

There are some good studies and information out there that don't always agree with these programs that we need to be honest about and consider. And, there have been some pretty shoddy studies, articles, claims and videos, etc from those promoting these programs that we need to be honest about and consider too.

Most all the evidence supporting this lifestyle come from studies on the 7th Day Adventist, some other observational studies, studies on long-lived populations, and the clinical studies of Pritikin, Shintani, Ornish, Kemper, Diehl, Esselstyn, Morrison, etc These programs were not all no-oil and/or vegan. So, if you want to dismiss what David Katz has to say because he isn't a "no oil vegan," then you have to dismiss most all the above evidence too.

We can't have 2 standards.

In Health
Jeff

PS, I think the bull market has some more room to go

[Spiral]

I agree with you on this. We have always had trouble with separating good information from distortion and half-truth. I think social media has made the process more difficult, for reasons I describe in other threads, but it has always existed.

At the risk of disagreeing with you, I think social media is a net positive.

I acknowledge the negatives of social media and how every personal trainer with a Facebook page or even just an internet connection has become a nutritional guru.

But here's my personal story. Back in 1991 I read Dr. Dean Ornish's book on Reversing Heart Disease. It was the first book I had ever read about nutrition. I decided to go on Ornish's diet, imperfectly. I used white pasta instead of whole wheat. Although Dr. Ornish allowed a serving a day of non-fat yogurt, I ate more than one serving a day.

My cholesterol dropped to 135 mg/dL (although I don't know what it was prior to my adoption of the diet). I lost 15 pounds without intending to do so. But despite that success, after a year, I drifted back to my meat and cheese eating ways.

Why? There are many reasons. But perhaps the most important was that I did not know anyone else who was on the Ornish diet, or even a diet similar to it. If I had questions about nutrition, not answered in Ornish's book, I did not know where to get an answer.

Fast forward to the fall of 2010 after I read The China Study, which applauded Dr. Esselstyn and Dr. McDougall. I adopted a whole food plant based diet. This time, after discovering the McDougall discussion forum, I was able to chat, vent and question other McDougallers. I was able to read, for free, Dr. McDougall's newsletters. If I had a question, I could ask you or even another member of the forum.

In the world of social media, I was not attempting this way of eating alone, even though in the real world, I was doing this by myself. I could ask simple questions like, "Where do you store you nutritional yeast?" and "Have you had any of these problems with your Instant Pot?"

With no social media, I don't know if my McDougall-ing would have lasted any longer than my Ornish-ing.

At the beginning of this year, through social media, I met Lyndzie, who had just started on WFPB and wanted to start a Meetup group. This Meetup group has struggled at times. But last weekend I hosted an 11 person No-Oil Pitch-In at my house. In attendance were 2 heart attack survivors.

Prior to social media, I do not think any of this would have happened. We would all have thought that we were doing this on our own and we would have been right.

We have to do our best to develop and use critical thinking skills, we have to learn how to identify and evaluate information and we have to learn how to identify and evaluate true experts.

I feel fortunate to have identified people like you, Dr. McDougall, Dr. Esselstyn, Dr. Greger, Dr. Barnard, Dr. T. Colin Campbell and Dr. Garth Davis.

None of you are perfect and incapable of error. But if I am too lazy to form an opinion about something on my own, I feel pretty confident I can rely on the options of you and those I listed, at least until I have time to study up. When I see that there is disagreement within that list of people, I make a decision based on how well each has made his case.

It is not easy and social media has made it much harder.

Sometimes I wonder if social media has only made it harder for people who lack any curiosity or willingness to learn. Like I just wrote, I think social media has been, on net, empowering for me.

But in regard to this way of life, so has this movement...

On one hand, many are quick to criticize those who do not agree with them because they lack professional experience or credentials. Yet, on the other hand, they quickly promote many who agree with them as experts even though many also lack professional experience or credentials.

Many are willing to quickly dismiss most any study regardless of how well it was done if it disagrees with them, yet they are just as quick to tout any study that agrees with them, regardless of its quality.

Many will quickly criticize "their" exaggerations yet use many exaggerations themselves.

Many will quickly dismiss any study they don't like due to funding yet quickly accept any study they do like, regardless of funding

Many will quickly dismiss any celebrity touting their way of life cause they are just celebrities yet quickly promote and endorse any celebrity who agrees with them.

The recent debates over the movie, What The Health, makes many of these points. While I don't agree with David Katz, MD or Ginny Messina, RD, they both made excellent points that everyone was quick to dismiss because he "eats oil and isn't vegan" and she "promotes unhealthy vegan foods." True, but at the same time we allow and accept none experts and none professionals to make exaggerated, misleading or inaccurate claims about the movie because they are WFPB No-Oil vegans or McDougaller's.

I agree in part and disagree in part.

I too think that Ginny Messina, RD, put forth some important criticisms of "What the Health." Let's be honest, "What the Health" was propaganda, not an attempt to deliver a sober, even-handed, dispassionate review of nutrition science. Perhaps "Forks Over Knives" was better. But that movie also had an agenda, to convince its viewers to try a whole foods plant based diet.

But I do not think it is possible to create a 90 minute movie that dispassionately educates its viewers on nutrition science that does not also either bore its viewers or result in most people ignoring it. Unfortunately, human nature being what it is, a nutrition documentary has to include some fake drama and hyperbole.

Dr. Greger's Nutrition Facts videos are not perfect by any means. But they expose their viewers to more peer reviewed nutrition science than most other sources of nutrition information. Would a 90 minute documentary hosted by Dr. Greger get as much attention as "What the Health?" I'm not sure.

Still, even though I acknowledge the shortcomings of "What the Health," I see shortcomings in Messina's criticisms of the movie.

Here's Messina.

Also obligatory in any plant-based film is the graph showing that populations who consume the most dairy worldwide have the highest rates of hip fracture. This may be true. But you know how Dr. Neal Barnard rolls his eyes in this film when he’s asked about sugar and diabetes? That’s me when people start talking about the link between hip fracture rates and dairy or protein intake among countries. Among nutrition experts, these kinds of comparisons carry almost no weight. This is because there are so many confounding factors that affect the comparisons. For example, countries with high dairy consumption also tend to have icier winters. This significantly increases risk of falling, which in turn increases risk of a hip fracture. In fact, the article that What the Health cites to support the dairy connection to hip fracture doesn’t even mention dairy. It says that the factors responsible for the differences in fracture rates are “population demographics (with more elderly living in countries with higher incidence rates) and the influence of ethnicity, latitude, and environmental factors.”

So, icy winters in countries with high hip fracture rates are the big confounder. Instead of throwing up our hands and saying, as Messina did elsewhere in her column "research is complex and conflicting," maybe she should track down some scientific studies where the participants share similar exposure to icy winters.

Messina has previously written that she finds Dr. Greger a reliable source of nutrition information. So, why not include in her review of What the Health, during her discussion of dairy consumption and hip fracture rates, a summary of this video Dr. Greger produced a few years ago: Is Milk Good For Our Bones? If she had done so, she would have either had to revise her praise of Dr. Greger at least somewhat or acknowledge that "What the Health" was superficially on to something, that dairy might be bad for bone health.

So, go ahead and criticize "What the Health." But some of the criticisms should also be criticized.

Most all the evidence supporting this lifestyle come from studies on the 7th Day Adventist, some other observational studies, studies on long-lived populations, and the clinical studies of Pritikin, Shintani, Ornish, Kemper, Diehl, Esselstyn, Morrison, etc These programs were not all no-oil and/or vegan. So, if you want to dismiss what David Katz has to say because he isn't a "no oil vegan," then you have to dismiss most all the above evidence too.

I am more than willing to acknowledge not only what you wrote above, but that the long-lived Okinawans weren't vegan.

I don't dismiss what Dr. Katz says. Sometimes I simply disagree with him. Like when Dr. Katz argues that eggs are a healthy food. I won't ignore him completely. However, I won't place as much value on his nutrition advice as I would with those I listed above.

Am I wrong to rank people in this way?

[JeffN]

I agree with you on this. We have always had trouble with separating good information from distortion and half-truth. I think social media has made the process more difficult, for reasons I describe in other threads, but it has always existed.

At the risk of disagreeing with you, I think social media is a net positive.

Please disagree.

We see it from a different perspective and you are one of the ones who have figured it out. So, before we go further, it is important to know that many of my comments were not directed at you as a person (who I complemented about all this right at the beginning), but to the movement in general. So, your responses doesn't always apply because I already said you are not typical.

Having said that, considering less than 5% of people follow a health lifestyle and about 1% follow a healthy diet, I would say you are a rare example and would have figured it out anyway. This number has not changed over decades so even before the internet, people found the information and support for it. I started a healthy living club in every little midwest town I was in. I would put flyers up at local public places and free ads in the community sections of the local papers. I wrote letters to the editor.

All my groups ended up having great attendance, sometimes up to 50 would attend my monthly groups and that includes towns like Terre Haute. We had to move them sometimes from peoples homes, to church basements. We were front page news in several of the towns.

And, we had no social media.

In my "The importance of evidence" thread, I give many examples of the problem with social media with studies validating this.

We have to do our best to develop and use critical thinking skills, we have to learn how to identify and evaluate information and we have to learn how to identify and evaluate true experts.

I feel fortunate to have identified people like you, Dr. McDougall, Dr. Esselstyn, Dr. Greger, Dr. Barnard, Dr. T. Colin Campbell and Dr. Garth Davis.

None of you are perfect and incapable of error. But if I am too lazy to form an opinion about something on my own, I feel pretty confident I can rely on the options of you and those I listed, at least until I have time to study up. When I see that there is disagreement within that list of people, I make a decision based on how well each has made his case.

An intelligent approach. But you have to know how to evaluate their cases.

I too think that Ginny Messina, RD, put forth some important criticisms of "What the Health." Let's be honest, "What the Health" was propaganda, not an attempt to deliver a sober, even-handed, dispassionate review of nutrition science. Perhaps "Forks Over Knives" was better. But that movie also had an agenda, to convince its viewers to try a whole foods plant based diet.

But I do not think it is possible to create a 90 minute movie that dispassionately educates its viewers on nutrition science that does not also either bore its viewers or result in most people ignoring it.

So why try? What waste the resources. Or do it right. I watch many documentaries done right that might be somewhat boring but I find them fascinating.

Or use the resources more effectively.

Remember, the healthy numbers have not changed in several decades.

Any impact, to be a real impact, has to be long lasting, otherwise it is a trend.

Unfortunately, human nature being what it is, a nutrition documentary has to include some fake drama and hyperbole.

I disagree.

Dr. Greger's Nutrition Facts videos are not perfect by any means. But they expose their viewers to more peer reviewed nutrition science than most other sources of nutrition information. Would a 90 minute documentary hosted by Dr. Greger get as much attention as "What the Health?" I'm not sure.

I disagree. In the broader science world, I see more and more scientists shunning him and his videos because of his cherry picking, misinterpretation and misrepresentation of the data and mostly his bias.

On a personal and professional level, I can't think of one thing I have changed in my personal life or my professional approach based on those video's.

I'm more likely to send someone to the videos of Plant Positive, which I think were very well done.

So, go ahead and criticize "What the Health." But some of the criticisms should also be criticized.

I agree and you can find many of these criticism in my forum But, if you know me, you now those already, know some have been posted here and as I stated right from the start, I have almost never agreed with her. I defaulted to that perspective immediately.

There is an internet debate going on in certain groups right now about my criticisms of her and her criticisms of the film (especially about the whole brown rice amino acid issue).

But my point was to point out that you can't throw the baby out with the bathwater, as I was seeing happen.

Most all the evidence supporting this lifestyle come from studies on the 7th Day Adventist, some other observational studies, studies on long-lived populations, and the clinical studies of Pritikin, Shintani, Ornish, Kemper, Diehl, Esselstyn, Morrison, etc These programs were not all no-oil and/or vegan. So, if you want to dismiss what David Katz has to say because he isn't a "no oil vegan," then you have to dismiss most all the above evidence too.

I am more than willing to acknowledge not only what you wrote above, but that the long-lived Okinawans weren't vegan.

I don't dismiss what Dr. Katz says. Sometimes I simply disagree with him. Like when Dr. Katz argues that eggs are a healthy food. I won't ignore him completely. However, I won't place as much value on his nutrition advice as I would with those I listed above. Am I wrong to rank people in this way?

Each time it is time to buy a car, you have to evaluate them all again. You can't just trust a dealer or a certain company as we have seen ratings and quality can change year to year and model to model. Same with every time you want to buy a stock or a fund.

So, I think it is best to keep an open mind and continue to evaluate the information and the data itself regardless of who it is coming from. This is why primary sources & the data itself, is the best bet.

In Health
Jeff

[Spiral]

I wonder if you would ever have the time and inclination to create your own NovickFacts.Org video series, where you would examine one of Dr. Greger's videos, one that you think distorted and/or manipulated the facts to reach an incorrect conclusion.

So many times when I watch Dr. Greger's videos I think, "I wonder what Jeff Novick would say about this." Now, I realize that Dr. Greger has the time and resources to produce those videos while you have a different job that mostly prevents you from doing this.

But I dare say that I am not alone in wishing for a NovickFacts.Org video series.

I also would be interested in having you review the First Half of Dr. Greger's book, "How Not To Die." Not the second half of the book where he recommends red cabbage over green cabbage. That would be too easy to criticize.

But reading that book made me think that there really was a ton of scientific evidence supporting a healthy plant based diet (though not necessarily vegan).

I'd would read a review written by you to learn if you think Dr. Greger was guilty of cherry picking or misinterpreting the evidence in that part of the book.

[JeffN]

I wonder if you would ever have the time and inclination to create your own NovickFacts.Org video series, where you would examine one of Dr. Greger's videos, one that you think distorted and/or manipulated the facts to reach an incorrect conclusion.

So many times when I watch Dr. Greger's videos I think, "I wonder what Jeff Novick would say about this." Now, I realize that Dr. Greger has the time and resources to produce those videos while you have a different job that mostly prevents you from doing this.

This has come up a few times before.

I prefer to spend my time directly seeing people, which is exactly why I went back to school. My other time is spent here (and a few other similar places) directly helping people.

This link addresses both of your above comments and expands on mine...

On Dr Greger...
viewtopic.php?f=22&t=48534

But I dare say that I am not alone in wishing for a NovickFacts.Org video series.

Thank you.

It has been suggested before by a few others too.

I used to get quite a few emails from several healthcare professionals soon after a new video would come out with a link to the video asking me my thoughts. After a few dozen times, most of them got the point.

However, the 3 best parts of the book is when he said I'm his favorite RDN, when he used my salt guidelines and when he recommended my cooking series. Those were signs of brilliance!!

I also would be interested in having you review the First Half of Dr. Greger's book, "How Not To Die." Not the second half of the book where he recommends red cabbage over green cabbage. That would be too easy to criticize.

Well, now we have the same problem we have with "What the Health." Someone might read the first half and be impressed and then read the second half and say, Really? This is BS! Which could then then put into question everything they read in the first half.

But reading that book made me think that there really was a ton of scientific evidence supporting a healthy plant based diet (though not necessarily vegan).

I thought the same when the McDougall Plan came out. I don't know if you ever heard my opening lecture but in it, I begin by telling my history from first being influenced in health, fitness & cooking at a very early age by my grandparents, to becoming a vegan at the age of 15 in 1973, to where I am today. Here is a synopsis of the relevant part....

In 1973 I became a vegan because my neighbor got the book, Love Your Body (which still sits on my bookcase in my office) and we both went on a raw food sproutarian vegan diet for a few weeks. We also tore up a portion of my parents yard and planted an organic garden. I also took up yoga, meditation, grew my hair long and started listening to the Grateful Dead.

Even though my father was a butcher, my parents were ok with my change. They just wanted me to go to the library and bring back a book they could read on vegetarianism showing them that being a vegetarian was safe. Do you know what books were available by a qualified health care professional/scientist back then that did that? There was none. And the ones that did exist were written by guru's, sociologists, hippies, etc and were more from the religious, spiritual, philosophical or evironmental perspective (including a few that got it wrong and created some of the biggest myths that persist today).

Over the next 10 years, I played around with various forms of veganism and vegetarianism until 1983 when I read The McDougall Plan. Here was a Medical Doctor that was not only saying this was safe but also saying it is was the healthiest was to eat. He also addressed all the concerns that anyone could have and the book was documented with over 800 scientific references. As I started looking these reference up, I realized this MD actually looked these over, read them and was not misrepresenting them.

Now.....

I'd would read a review written by you to learn if you think Dr. Greger was guilty of cherry picking or misinterpreting the evidence in that part of the book.

The link I posted above addresses a few and a quick search using my name in the author field and Greger in the keyword field, will bring up some more. If you any other specific ones, especially ones where you thought,"I wonder what Jeff Novick would say about this," just ask.

Or think of this way.

Dr Greger tells the remarkable story of his grandmother and her visit to Pritikin and the impact on her life. She went to the center around 1980 and he said they saved her life and gave her 31 more good years. Now, imagine at that time, you were like me and read the McDougall Plan (and/or the Pritikin Book), went to Pritikin (or McDougall) and went on the program (Mcdougall or Pritikin) and became familiar with all literature cited in their books.

(NOTE: We could also add in the Ornish Program. While his mass media book did not come out till about 1990, his first published papers were in 1983 and 1985 so the info was available.)

We then induce you into a Cryonic state-like coma that stopped you from aging. We then awaken you today, 35 years later and you continue the lifestyle you learned back then.

Or you just go into the woods for 35 years, continue the lifestyle and reemerge today, still living the lifestyle.

Then, you read, "How Not To Die."

What would you change in your diet? What are the things you would change based on "new" evidence? Or that you might write Dr McDougall, Dr Ornish or the Pritikin program and ask, should I be doing this? And, if you did, what do you think they would say?

Knowing &/or hearing from literally 1000's who went on The Pritikin or McDougall program back then & are around now, including myself...

Nothing. Or not much.

Or think of it this way, if today, you were like his grandmother and in a tough spot. You read How Not To Die and are convinced to give it a shot and want to go to an inpatient medically supervised program. Well, the 3 main programs you could go to today are still Pritikin, Ornish and McDougall. And how much different is the information you would get there today compared to 30 years ago?

So, to think that somehow he has presented this body of evidence that didn't exist before, is not correct in anyway.

In addition, these 3, especially Ornish and Pritikin, still produce most all of our clinical data and they have changed little to anything in their programs. Oops! Sorry, Ornish added about a few grams of nuts a day on his reversal program

viewtopic.php?f=22&t=51074

I will tell you one thing that has changed. In the old days, during our Q&A's at these program, we would get questions about the other diets (Atkins, Weight Watchers, etc) and about general information (coffee, alcohol, artificial sweeteners, chocolate, supplements, etc). Today, we still get those, but most of the questions are, I saw this video from WFPB doctor that said, I shouldn't eat potatoes, or I can eat all the fruit I want or that nuts don't cause weight gain, etc etc, to which we always just reinforce our existing guidelines (and explain why), which come from 30-40 years of clinical experience applying the science to actual patients and have been proven time and time again.

In Health
Jeff

PS. I mentioned the Grateful Dead. Recently, the remaining members went back on tour with a few new members including John Mayer and Otel Burbridge. Many consider it one of the best versions of the band, since Jerry Garcia died in 1995. I tend to agree. And, many of the fans are the children and grandchildren of the fans from the 60's to 80's.

In a recent interview, John Mayer was asked about this, the influx of this younger generations to this "old" music. He said...

Dead & Company: “You Can Still Make It Home”
by Dean Budnick on May 26, 2017

https://www.relix.com/articles/detail/d ... ke_it_home

Mayer, who will turn 40 this fall, acknowledges, “Most of the time, it takes somebody to do something again for the new generation to find it. As an aging musician, you have to accept that there are better iterations of a design that still exist but that aren’t as popular as the current derivative version of it. But people want to participate in real-time with the artist. They want to know that the song they hear was written in the same air they breathe.”

To be clear, Mayer, is not referencing The Milk Carton Kids here, just the mechanism by which younger ears receive music.

“That’s just the way it is,” he continues, “and I have to imagine that, one day, when I have kids, my kid is going to run in the room and go, ‘Listen to this song.’ And I’m going to say, ‘You know that song is just like this other song but not as good. Let me play you this other song.’ And they’ll go, ‘No, not interested.’ There’s a certain modernity to it, where it doesn’t feel like it’s happening in their universe.”

I agree with this and that each generation needs its own story teller to retell some of the same old tales in a way the current generation understands them. However, Mayer never presents it as his "new" story but his retelling of these old gems of stories that this amazing band wrote and created 40-50 years ago. As he says, all he is trying to do is to pay homage to them and what an honor it is for him to be the one to get to retell these old stories. He never implies that these are new stories or breaking stories that we didn't know until now.

This is why I have so much respect and appreciation for John Mayer.

[vgpedlr]

This has been a great thread.

I suspected Jeff had a background in yogic practice, but a long haired Deadhead too? Impressive. Please tell me there was an air cooled VW in your story too.

Back to our regularly scheduled programming.

[JeffN]

Seems like Dr McDougall agrees with my above comments as expressed in the new newsletter. We must have been writing them at the same time while channeling the same thoughts.

Simple Reasoning Solves Dietary Confusion
July 2017
Volume 16 Issue 7

https://www.drmcdougall.com/misc/2017nl/jul/simple.htm

"In contrast, many popular healthcare "gurus" have had no formal education in the potentially life-threatening matters of your health. Almost as troubling are the credentialed healthcare/diet advisors who provide advice based solely on reading other people's research articles. The relevance of their guidance must be placed in the context that many of them haven't touched a patient since their primary dietetic or medical training."

[JeffN]

Or think of this way.

Dr Greger tells the remarkable story of his grandmother and her visit to Pritikin and the impact on her life. She went to the center around 1980 and he said they saved her life and gave her 31 more good years. Now, imagine at that time, you were like me and read the McDougall Plan (and/or the Pritikin Book), went to Pritikin (or McDougall) and went on the program (Mcdougall or Pritikin) and became familiar with all literature cited in their books.

(NOTE: We could also add in the Ornish Program. While his mass media book did not come out till about 1990, his first published papers were in 1983 and 1985 so the info was available.)

We then induce you into a Cryonic state-like coma that stopped you from aging. We then awaken you today, 35 years later and you continue the lifestyle you learned back then.

Or you just go into the woods for 35 years, continue the lifestyle and reemerge today, still living the lifestyle.

Then, you read, "How Not To Die."

What would you change in your diet? What are the things you would change based on "new" evidence? Or that you might write Dr McDougall, Dr Ornish or the Pritikin program and ask, should I be doing this? And, if you did, what do you think they would say?

Knowing &/or hearing from literally 1000's who went on The Pritikin or McDougall program back then & are around now, including myself...

Nothing. Or not much.

Or think of it this way, if today, you were like his grandmother and in a tough spot. You read How Not To Die and are convinced to give it a shot and want to go to an inpatient medically supervised program. Well, the 3 main programs you could go to today are still Pritikin, Ornish and McDougall. And how much different is the information you would get there today compared to 30 years ago?

As we know, Dr McDougall came out with a newsletter yesterday that confirms this from his perspective.

We know the only minor change Dr Ornish's reversal program has made, and I linked to my discussion on them.

I wrote to Pritikin last night and heard back this morning. They basically confirmed what I said. There have been some minor changes over the years, mostly some clarification on some issues, but in the end, its basically the same program. As they said, "Yes, you are absolutely right to say that the Pritikin diet of today is essentially the Pritikin diet of decades ago, notably, the diet described in the 1980 bestselling book (Pritikin Program For Diet and Exercise)."

So, from the horses mouths themselves....

Nothing. Or not much.

In Health
Jeff

[JeffN]

I asked Dr Goldhamer the exact same question. Since 1980, what have you changed in your recommendations or your way of thinking about diet?

Here is his answer and he makes 2 points, both of which I agree with.

"The only significant difference between now and 1980 would be a lower tolerance for highly processed plant foods (fruit juice etc.) and an even higher degree of conviction of the need for B12 supplementation."

In regard to B12, Dr McDougall has always emphasized it. Pritikin & Ornish always allowed small amounts of animal products so it wasn't an issue for them.

In Health
Jeff