The Starch Solution. Your Thoughts?

[An African Ape]

Hello, people!

Since you guys are quite a sophisticated bunch, I was wondering if you could share you thoughts on John McDougall's book The Starch Solution.
I might have a tad of a emotional, irrational relationship with his work since it was my 'eye-opener', which completely changed my life, as it made me ditch my diet heavy in animal protein and go fully vegan. He also keeps it ridiculously simple, due to his focus on starch, which made it a breeze for me to switch diets. I know he doesn't exactly promote a vegan diet, but that is just because you could call a diet of potato chips and coke a vegan diet. He seems to be pretty on point with his health advice. Also, his argument that starch has always been the center of successful populations' diets, is hell of intuitive - which also makes it tricky. What do you think about this kind of argument?
Lastly, I'm just curious whether he misses some important point about nutrition. I feel and look better than ever since the switch, but it has only been, what, 4 months, so I don't feel too confident in judging the longevity of his approach.

I appreciate any feedback, you people! Thanks.

[brimstoneSalad]

Hi,

The biggest practical problem is his dislike of beans. When focused on things like potatoes and more "wild" grains, it's not as big of a deal.

But grains like white/brown rice and white/yellow corn are seriously bad news without being paired with beans of some kind, and will frequently lead to malnourishment.
All starches are not created equally.

Compare the nutritional info for wild rice and brown rice (just google search "wild rice nutrition" and "brown rice nutrition"). Note the huge difference in protein and other nutrients.

Through selective breeding, humans have made some of these starchy foods SO rich in starch as to result in malnourishment for those who rely on them without a strong protein compliment (like beans of some kind).

Check out this recent video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=exeZTWz8D5I
It shows how many people are doing it wrong.
You can't ignore the science based nutrition recommendations. It's the consensus for a reason, and these are backed up by vegan RDs.

I know he doesn't exactly promote a vegan diet, but that is just because you could call a diet of potato chips and coke a vegan diet.

He doesn't promote a vegan diet at all. He eats meat occasionally, and recommends that as OK as long as it's not often. E.g. he says to have turkey on thanksgiving. He sees meat as a rare/special occasion food.

Of course, that is not an argument against his nutritional advice.

his argument that starch has always been the center of successful populations' diets, is hell of intuitive

That's mostly true, but we are not living in a tribal society. We have modern agriculture. Vegetables and beans are healthier than most starches, and now for the first time in human history we have the ability to eat the healthiest foods -- not just the foods that are easy for primitive people with primitive farming, storage, and transportation technology to grow, store, and trade.

White and brown rice aren't really good for you. Same for white or yellow corn. Gigantic white potatoes are slightly better, but only slightly.

If you want to eat the healthiest starches, take a few steps back in human cultivation for more nutrient rich foods. Wild rice, Blue/red 'Indian' corn, smaller colourful potatoes in reds and purples. And beans -- eat so many beans. And there's no limit to how many vegetables you should be eating -- just get as many of them as you can reasonably stand and afford into your body (vegetables are expensive, so that's the main limitation -- beans should be making up most of the rest of your diet, with a moderate contribution from healthier more 'wild' colourful starches).

[MrPotato]

The Starch Solution is most likely the best book you can start with if you want to eat a healthy vegan diet. Actually if you want something easier to read from him, check out his color book from his website.

Please ignore the previous commentator. Brimestone obviously has not spend much time reading nutritional science or bothered to read McDougalls' books or watched his videos. I did. I actually read all of his books, all of his newsletters and watched all of his videos. I did the same with Caldwell Esselstyn, T Colin Campbell, Greger, Fuhrman and Barnard. I also have read several nutritional textbooks and have built spreadsheets capturing all nutritional data from the USDA (e.g., Excel version of cronometer). I also have personally met all these authors and had the chance to talk with them. None of them are crackpots or suggesting diets that have flaws. From a dietary standpoint, our family has been eating a starch based diet for 8 years now and everyone is perfectly healthy, trim and athletic in our household.

Let's debunk a few of the above comments in no particular order:

"He doesn't promote a vegan diet at all". All of McDougall's dietary advice is free of animal products, so it's vegan. The fact that he ate a small piece of turkey at Thanksgiving once or twice doesn't affect his advice.

"The biggest practical problem is his dislike of beans." What? McDougall is perfectly ok with beans. Beans are starches. His whole advice is around starches including rice, potatoes, corn and beans.

"But grains like white/brown rice and white/yellow corn are seriously bad news without being paired with beans of some kind, and will frequently lead to malnourishment." Seriously? Are we in a crossfit gym listening to a guy on steroid preaching broscience? This makes no sense. Note the commentator didn't bother to provide any support for this claim. As Hitchens said, what can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

Feel free to ask questions. Would love to help. Take care

[brimstoneSalad]

Please don't ignore anybody's comments, mine or our new member here MrPotato.

Mr Potato: Do not dismiss or deliberately misrepresent others' arguments. This is a discussion forum.
Read the forum rules here: https://theveganatheist.com/forum/viewt ... ?f=11&t=52
They are not long.
This is your first and final warning, OK?

Brimestone obviously has not spend much time reading nutritional science or bothered to read McDougalls' books or watched his videos.

To the contrary, I am very familiar with his work. I also appreciate much of it. I used to be a much bigger fan before I learned of some of the pseudoscience he promotes, like the weakness of his recommendations on B-12.

To his credit, he is getting better about that: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wwjoYq6fTdA
He hasn't moved on his starch based dogma, though, which is unfortunate.

If you would examine some of the diets people following him are practicing, you will find many of them are deficient in protein, due to lack of nuts and legumes as a prominent part of the diet, and a deficiency of vegetables to make up for it.
Does it mean every person following his prescriptions is deficient? No. But as a practical issue, many turn out to be, and recommendations like that have to be targeted toward broad application, not a narrow subset of people who can actually thrive on such a diminished diet.
A focus on starches such as potatoes rice and corn, rather than veggies and other high protein sources like legumes and seeds, is risky.

From a dietary standpoint, our family has been eating a starch based diet for 8 years now and everyone is perfectly healthy, trim and athletic in our household.

If you are such a person who burns an extra thousand calories a day through exercise, and eat a 3,000 + calorie diet, then a starch diet may be great for you. At those calorie levels, even starches like rice and potatoes probably provide enough protein. If you're an average person who doesn't get that much physical activity, however, and only eat as many calories as you can burn (around 2k), then you are courting disaster.

If it's working for YOU, that's fine. But your anecdote doesn't reflect the reality of the broader audience. It's an incredible arrogance on your part to assume otherwise, and it goes against the empirical evidence. Recidivism rates from vegan diets are VERY high, and one of the reasons is this kind of bad advice that does not fit everybody, and in practice only barely works for a select few.

Some people will do fine on a starch solution diet that is also vegan (if they're eating enough veggies, the right kind of starches, supplementing on B-12, and getting a lot of physical activity), most others will not (as evidenced by recidivism rates), and may be better suited to something closer to an vegan eco-Atkins diet, higher in protein sources and avoiding starches in the form of rice, corn, and potatoes and opting for mainly tofu and vegetables. Or the very good advice of Fuhrman, on the nutritarian diet. A one-size fits all dogma, particularly when that size is extra small, is bad practice. At least a diet like Fuhrman recommends will never undernourish people, even if some people don't really need that much protein and micronutrient content to thrive.

"He doesn't promote a vegan diet at all". All of McDougall's dietary advice is free of animal products, so it's vegan. The fact that he ate a small piece of turkey at Thanksgiving once or twice doesn't affect his advice.

You clearly have a problem with basic logic, or just have no idea what you're talking about and are not as familiar with McDougall as you represent yourself to be.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MSKG496C9fU

He explicitly does not recommend veganism, but recommends a starch based diet which "happens to also be a vegan diet in most cases".
He doesn't care about veganism. He's glad to use these kinds of panels to promote himself, though (and that's his prerogative).

He also explicitly recommends against a "nutrient dense diet" like kale and broccoli in that video, against the very GOOD advice of Fuhrman.

As you correctly noted, he has eaten turkey meat on thanksgiving, but he's not a hypocrite. McDougall practices what he preaches, and he preaches what he practices. He doesn't recommend a vegan diet, and allows for people to eat meat occasionally -- as long as it's a rare thing, and not regular every day consumption. The issue he has with "rich" foods is that he believes them to be addictive and hard to limit, so according to him it's a matter of psychology, and the importance of putting hard limits on these foods that can actually be followed. He doesn't believe it's unhealthy to eat them now and then, and of course doesn't believe it's morally wrong.
Vegan means every day. Even a once a month or once a year component is still part of a diet, and you are not vegan if you eat turkey on thanksgiving (unless by accident, or a failing of will -- not as deliberate).
He's said something on the order of 'eating like a king' every now and then being OK, and long as it is carefully limited.

And that's OK for him to do: He doesn't have to be vegan, and he doesn't have to recommend a vegan diet.
That doesn't invalidate his opinion.

I stated that clearly:

Of course, that is not an argument against his nutritional advice.

Do not misrepresent me. My post was neither that long, not that complex that you shouldn't have been able to follow that.

Beans are starches. His whole advice is around starches including rice, potatoes, corn and beans.

Another false claim! You don't seem to know McDougall's teachings well. Most Christians don't know the bible well either -- dogmatists of one kind or another are usually ignorant of their source material.

First, beans are not just starches; they contain complex carbs and starches, but are also much higher in protein. Many legumes like soybeans and peanuts are also higher in polyunsaturated fats.
Rice, corn, and beans have very little in common, in those terms.

If he didn't make a distinction between the two, that alone would be a failing in his recommendations.
The difference in terms of micronutrients would be much like failing to make a distinction between processed sugar and whole grains.

However, contrary to your bullshit claims misrepresenting him, he does make the distinction:

http://lanimuelrath.com/mcdougall-vs-fu ... rs-debate/

He correctly considers beans differently from rice, and other grains. He incorrectly worries beans have too much protein in them, and cautious people to limit consumption.

As beans are around 30% protein and too much protein can present a stress to the kidneys. Limit them to 1 cup a day to be on the safe side.

He considers them unsafe to eat a lot of. Much like meat (in excess), he just doesn't identify them as addictive.
This kind of advice has made his followers afraid of beans, and has led to them choosing non-bean starches like rice that McDougall has recommended eating more freely: This is what has contributed to malnourishment in the vegan community.

Fuhrman, to the contrary, advises people to eat beans freely. Good advice.

McDougall touches on his idea of addiction and psychology in controlling diet in that discussion too. It's a good one to read if you want to get an idea of how they differ, and how he feels about meat.

As Hitchens said, what can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

You seem to have missed the point.

It's the whole "Starch Solution" that has been asserted without evidence. Indeed, in spite of it.

The only thing McDougall refers to is history.
Most of his arguments are just one huge appeal to nature fallacy: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-nature
Or appeal to tradition. "Play it safe, eat starches like X and Y did/do".

First: We have access to different food sources than they did. Better food sources, by any science based metric. Read my first post instead of dismissing this, because I discussed that issue.
Second: General lifestyle and activity levels are also extremely different.

Finally, and crucially: This is not a vegan recommendation. Starches are not ALL they eat; and he has acknowledged that. None of those traditional cultures he likes to reference subsisting largely on starches were vegan. They always included some occasional animal foods which supplemented protein and micronutrients.
The problem is you can NOT properly equate a mostly starch diet with some vegetables, occasional fruit and meat, with the same diet without the meat.

Not only does he fail to provide evidence that his "starch solution" represents optimal nutrition (particularly vegan nutrition, which wouldn't even be the case if there were traditional diets that were vegan), but he's not even consistent with mainstream science based macro and micronutrient dietary guidelines, thus failing in any way to substantiate that his recommendation are even safe to follow, particularly for vegans.

It's one big science experiment, in which he puts the lives and health of all of his cultish followers at risk.
You want to ignore the science and risk your life and the lives of your family members eating a nutritionally deficient diet? Fine.
But conscientious and sensible people will be there to tear down your dogmatic bullshit when you try to spread this dangerous misinformation to others.

[An African Ape]

Thanks for the replies, friends.

I think the idea that McDougall advises to stay away or limit the intake of beans has been slightly exaggerated here. He almost always includes legumes when he talks about starches. While it's true that beans are not the same as the 'classical' starches, he might just do this to simplify his approach to a healthier diet. According to this video, he seems to be fond of them. "I can eat two of these without even thinking about it" - John McDougall. Of course, this might be all set up, but in what way would he benefit from it?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=swqYBYhkEbc // skip to about minute 6.

The audience he is approaching seems to be people who do not have a well established idea about nutrition, as you often hear him restrict the amount of certain foods one should be eating, like a hand full of nuts a day, or something like that. This might be because poorly informed people, who hear him say something along the lines of 'nuts and avocado are fine to eat', could misinterpret this and exploit it, like eating excessive amounts of these foods, because they're tasty. However, as with foods high in fat, like the above mentioned, this could lead to a decrease in health. It wouldn't surprise me if this is the reason why he is so eager - or as he said himself; obnoxious - to keep mentioning the importance of a diet centered around starches, because they keep you full without providing you with too many calories. Does this make sense?


In his book, The Starch Solution, he actually advises people who follow a diet without animal fats and proteins to take vitamin B-12 supplements, if they have been following this kind of life style for more than 3 years. I don't have the book at hand, so excuse me for not quoting anything. Interestingly enough, his claims in the video that he is still not sure about vitamin B-12 supplements seems to contradict this, unless the debate took place before his book was written.

One of his main arguments for the consumption of starch is that we, homo sapiens, have a higher amount of the enzyme amylase in our saliva, compared with our ape cousins. Amylase helps break down complex carbohydrates like starches. The increase in amylase is, according to him, due to the fact that we have two (or three? Again, I don't have his book at hand right now to quote, unfortunately) copies of the genes which decodes the amino acids which then form the enzyme amylase. Now, if this is true, it naturally follows that starch has been a central part of our ancestors diet, because the genetic make up of an organism represents the kind of environment it needed to survive in. He even goes so far as to suggest that starchy foods were a significant factor that allowed our ancestors to move away from the tropical regions where fruits grow all year round. I do see the problem with these kind of arguments, as they, almost emotionally, appeal to the 'back to the roots' kind of thinking. However, as every organism has a diet it thrives on, could starch be ours? Hence he coined the phrase (did he?) Starchivore.

Also, according to The Starch Solution, he does promote a vegan diet. He - and I unfortunately have to paraphrase here - says that, in addition to improving one's own health by avoiding unhealthy animal products, one does help maintain the ecosystem Earth without even doing anything extra. He possibly says thinks like having a piece of cake or the alleged piece of turkey once or twice a year to encourage people to stick to their diets. Moreover, he even supports a squeeze of ketchup on your pasta, or what have you, clearly because he wants people to stick to their guns, not because he views ketchup as a healthy addition to any diet. This is similar to what I mentioned above.

It's one big science experiment, in which he puts the lives and health of all of his cultish followers at risk.

I think you, brimstoneSalad, went a little bit far with this one. I suppose you don't actually think that he does evil. I'm sure we all agree that what he does is good, leading to a plant based diet and away from animal foods. On exactly how to optimize this, there is, evidently, a lot of discussion.

Despite of risking a 'fanboy debate', I was curious and googled what kind of products both, McDougall and Fuhrman, offer. McDougall's products, as far as I can see, include exclusively foods, whereas Fuhrman's range of products reach from foods to sun lotion and kitchen gear, over clothing, to vitamin supplements. What do you make of this? Is making a business of what one preaches any indication of insincerity?



I apologise for the unstructured nature of this text. Lamentably, there's only my laziness to blame.

[brimstoneSalad]

I think the idea that McDougall advises to stay away or limit the intake of beans has been slightly exaggerated here.

I quoted him on it.

He almost always includes legumes when he talks about starches.

Well, if he does, the message isn't getting across. Based on a poll of popular starch based youtubers, most of his followers are strictly limiting beans.

He has suggested that beans are dangerous, and doing so itself is dangerous because it may encourage people to err on the side of 'caution' and not eat them. People don't like measuring things, so they're more likely just to avoid them entirely.
One cup a day max is also not even sufficient for many people.

A cup of black beans has 15 grams of protein and 240 calories.

Eating the rest of 2,000 calories from brown rice (5g of protein for 216 calories, 8.16 cups) or other moderately poor protein sources would result in only 56 grams of protein. But given the amount of fiber present in that volume of food, it almost certainly won't meet the needs of an adult man, and is unlikely to even meet the needs of most adult women -- and that's if they're eating the MAXIMUM amount of beans allowed by McDougall. And that's also with brown rice -- white rice is worse, and he doesn't strongly discourage it ( https://www.drmcdougall.com/health/educ ... hite-rice/ ) he says brown is better, but white is fine too.

He allows people to eat white rice and freely eat fewer beans than the amount that would result in borderline deficiency, which we would expect to result in more severe deficiencies (it does result in them, the evidence is in the overwhelming majority of starch based youtube vloggers), and that's incredibly dangerous and irresponsible.

If he had forbidden white rice, and had recommended a mandatory/minimum 1 cup of beans, that would be another matter entirely. In that case, the average outcome, though borderline, would have a much better chance of being adequate, and we might not see all of these vegan youtubers vlogging protein deficient diets while following his recommendations.

Diet recommendations basically need to be fool proof. You'd have to work very hard to make McDougall's recommendations work for you -- they are far from fool proof, but overwhelmingly foolish.

Burn an extra thousand calories through physical activity and eat 3,000 calories -- it may work.
Eat only whole grains and take his bean "maximums" as "minimum" recommendations too -- it may work.

These are assumptions you can not make, and which are shown by the vast majority of practical examples to not be indicative of his followers.

While it's true that beans are not the same as the 'classical' starches, he might just do this to simplify his approach to a healthier diet.

If that's so, he has simplified people into malnutrition. There's a difference between theoretical diets, and how diet advice is used in practice.

If you recommend people eat rice or corn, you HAVE to recommend they increase their bean consumption along with that. Anything else is irresponsible. And allowing people to eat white rice on its own is irresponsible.

If he had hammered home the point that one cup of beans is the minimum, and NOT optional, and pushed harder on whole grains his diet may have been more successful in the wild.

According to this video, he seems to be fond of them. "I can eat two of these without even thinking about it" - John McDougall. Of course, this might be all set up, but in what way would he benefit from it?

I'm not saying he's lying, I'm saying his advice is dangerous. He's probably just delusional. Not: two of those burritos would probably not exceed a cup of beans.

If his followers actually ate like that regularly -- particularly using wheat instead of rice, enough veggies, and a minimum of around a cup of beans a day -- there would likely be fewer problems, and his diet advice might do more good than harm.

That's not how people follow his diet in practice, and he has failed to adequately warn people about the potential of rice and corn to promote malnutrition if taken without beans.
It's irresponsible. Worse yet, he has cautioned people that beans may be dangerous, and warned people to limit them to an absurdly small serving (one cup ).

This might be because poorly informed people, who hear him say something along the lines of 'nuts and avocado are fine to eat', could misinterpret this and exploit it, like eating excessive amounts of these foods, because they're tasty.

I know his intentions, and I recommend people avoid certain foods too. The problem is that his recommendations are based on a number of bad assumptions and poor evidence, and that when followed in practice by his audience they result in malnutrition.

You can't argue with the effects here. He has made a mistake in the way he makes recommendations. He needs to correct this.

to keep mentioning the importance of a diet centered around starches, because they keep you full without providing you with too many calories. Does this make sense?

I know why, but it's just flat out wrong and irresponsible advice which is prone to causing malnutrition and poor health.

Starches like white rice will fill you up without providing too many calories -- perhaps -- but they'll also cause protein deficiency, and a deficiency in many micronutrients and minerals too.

I don't demonize all starches; only the worst ones that are true dietary evils.

Eat rice if you want -- but choose wild rice, or black rice, that are whole grains with higher protein content.
Eat corn if you want -- but choose more 'wild' 'Indian' corn, in blues and reds, with (again) higher protein content.
Eat potatoes if you want -- choose the smaller, more nutrient rich ones in red and blues and purples.

The more pure and cultivated starches have to be paired carefully with beans or (unhealthy) animal products to prevent malnutrition. And McDougall isn't even responsibly cautioning people to do the former.
Is it because he's delusional, or because he think it's "too complicated" and would prefer to let a majority of his followers become malnourished rather than deliver a less snappy and elegant message? Does it matter? It's a bad message that is hurting people, whether deliberate or not.

Interestingly enough, his claims in the video that he is still not sure about vitamin B-12 supplements seems to contradict this, unless the debate took place before his book was written.

I think the debate was after his book based on his age and apparent popularity at the time.
The bean burrito video looked much earlier. He may have moved away from beans since that, but two of those probably wouldn't exceed a cup.

One of his main arguments for the consumption of starch is that we, homo sapiens, have a higher amount of the enzyme amylase in our saliva, compared with our ape cousins. ...

This is an appeal to nature fallacy.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-nature

Just because our ancestors at something, and even if we have the genetic proof of that, doesn't mean we should.

I have said it several times already: We have access to better, more healthy foods than our ancestors did. A few thousand years of evolution do not make starches a magically optimal food for us. We may have evolved to make better use of them, but starches are still inferior nutritionally, and that bears out in observation.

However, as every organism has a diet it thrives on, could starch be ours?

There is no evidence that humans can thrive on a starch based vegan diet McDougall allows for: to the contrary, there is evidence that we can not.

There's also a difference between a diet humans can survive on (or have historically survived on -- which, again, is not a starch based vegan diet), and one that amounts to optimal nutrition. To believe a natural or ancestral diet is an optimal one is a fallacy. That's not something the evidence supports.

So, no. A starch based diet is not our optimal diet, and a starch based vegan diet as McDougall recommends is clearly not one most people can thrive on.

Make a few tweaks to his recommendations, and it changes from irresponsible to more reasonable. As I said, minimum 1 cup of beans rather than maximum. More nutritious and often darker whole grains (wild rice, blue corn, spelt, oats etc.) instead of highly cultivated starch grenades deficient in nutrition and processed to remove even more.

And, as before: Stronger and more assertive B-12 recommendations.

I suppose you don't actually think that he does evil. I'm sure we all agree that what he does is good, leading to a plant based diet and away from animal foods. On exactly how to optimize this, there is, evidently, a lot of discussion.

I'm not sure he does that.

Recidivism rates -- vegans and vegetarians going back to eating meat -- are somewhere around 80%. This could easily be understood as four out of five people failing to thrive on diets like McDougall recommends (starch based), which is what most nutritionally naive vegetarians turn to.

Advice like McDougall gives may be responsible for why the world is not going vegetarian/vegan. In order to make progress, we have to recommend diets people can stick to and feel healthy on. McDougall fails to do that, so any progress it looks like he's made is probably illusory.

His advice may have even caused people who went veg for ethical reasons (nothing to do with him) to eat poor diets, and return to eating meat due to malnutrition. 'Experts' like him may actually be counterproductive to the vegan movement.

What do you make of this? Is making a business of what one preaches any indication of insincerity?

No, I don't think that really means anything. Making a living is their prerogative. I care about the substance and consequences of their advice.

[An African Ape]

'Experts' like him may actually be counterproductive to the vegan movement.

It's a bad message that is hurting people, whether deliberate or not.

Advice like McDougall gives may be responsible for why the world is not going vegetarian/vegan. In order to make progress, we have to recommend diets people can stick to and feel healthy on. McDougall fails to do that, so any progress it looks like he's made is probably illusory.

Really, BrimstoneSalad? I feel like I'm forced into a position to defend McDougall, which I'm not comfortable with. However, according to what you said, you, apparently, would rather have people like me*, who got their inspiration to go vegan from him, to go keep eating animals and their products, which undoubtedly destroy this planet for life as wen know it, than to transition to a plant based diet, which may or may not lead to a slight risk of malnutrition (if your claims about the risk of malnutrition is true**). You can't be possibly be serious about that. May I ask if you have any personal problems with him?

*It is a preposterous assumptions that people who follow his diet cannot stick to it and don't feel healthy. You undermine all his patience credibility, who thrive and got healthier, because they stick to his diet and, presumably, feel healthier, too. Now, please don't argue that I myself and they are just the odd ones out, that it is pure coincidence that his diet happens to support all of us.

He's probably just delusional

Writing things like this do not help your credibility, as it seems that you argue out of personal reason, hence my question about personal issues.

Starches like white rice [...] also cause protein deficiency

Since you seems to be spending some time on the issue yourself, you should know that arguing on protein deficiency is counterproductive with respect to your credibility, since you don't find people with protein deficiency. I challenge you to do so. You actually might, if you include individuals who exclusively feed on rice and NOTHING else, which, incidentally, is not something McDougall ever advised. You seems to think that's what he does. While it's true that he said that you could survive on a diet purely consisting of potatoes, as people have done and still do, he never claims that that is somehow a optimal diet. Vegetables, Fruits and legumes, according to him, must go hand in hand with starches. Starches should just be the main portion on your plate.
Oh, and as I mentioned above, he is fine with beans. He even includes them in his 'starches'. I do not recall him advise the readers of his book, The Starch Solution, to stay away from beans or even limit them. You do refer to one particular article (http://lanimuelrath.com/mcdougall-vs-fu ... rs-debate/) in which the author - not McDougall itself, just noting - claims that he says to restrict the usage of beans. Think about it, if he really views legumes and beans as dangerous and something that should strictly be limiting, you would find another source of him claiming this. I can't find any other, especially not one where he claims is directly. And again, if he does, you would expect it to be mentioned in his book. If he said it in his interview, which we don't have access to, it might have been uttered in a slightly different context, or he might have said it to distinguish himself from a perhaps extreme point Fuhrman made. These are just speculations and I have no particular interest in entering a discussion over a third hand interview when there's a scarcity of further evidence.


**

Based on a poll of popular starch based youtubers, most of his followers are strictly limiting beans.

There is no evidence that humans can thrive on a starch based vegan diet McDougall allows for: to the contrary, there is evidence that we can not.

and a starch based vegan diet as McDougall recommends is clearly not one most people can thrive on.

Recidivism rates -- vegans and vegetarians going back to eating meat -- are somewhere around 80%. This could easily be understood as four out of five people failing to thrive on diets like McDougall recommends (starch based), which is what most nutritionally naive vegetarians turn to.

His advice may have even caused people who went veg for ethical reasons (nothing to do with him) to eat poor diets, and return to eating meat due to malnutrition.

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" - Carl Sagan.

[brimstoneSalad]

Really, BrimstoneSalad? I feel like I'm forced into a position to defend McDougall, which I'm not comfortable with.

That's fine. It is entirely your prerogative to play McDougall's advocate until you are convinced.
Debate is both healthy, and useful to get at important issues like this.

However, according to what you said, you, apparently, would rather have people like me*, who got their inspiration to go vegan from him, to go keep eating animals and their products, which undoubtedly destroy this planet for life as wen know it, than to transition to a plant based diet, which may or may not lead to a slight risk of malnutrition (if your claims about the risk of malnutrition is true**).

I didn't say anything of the sort. You're putting words in my mouth here. Please don't do that.

I would rather people who watch films like Earthlings and go vegan for moral reasons to get their nutritional advice from more credible sources.

Such as Dr Fuhrman, as well as vegan RDs on the internet:

http://www.theveganrd.com/
http://jacknorrisrd.com/

And credible, evidence based vegan doctors:

http://nutritionfacts.org/
http://www.pcrm.org/

The key here is EVIDENCE based. McDougall advocates a dogma without evidence -- in spite of much evidence, even.

If McDougall were acting in a vacuum and only converting people from a meat based diet to his starch based diet, and toward veganism, that would be fine. Even if 80% fail, 20% is better than nothing. But he's not in a vacuum. He's also influencing vegan nutrition for those who have gone vegan for ethical and environmental reasons.

It's not entirely clear if he's doing more good (by bringing people into the vegan movement, who may eventually learn about moral veganism and mature beyond the starch solution dogma), or more harm (by being a bad influence on vegan nutritional advice, counter to the good advice of others in the field).

May I ask if you have any personal problems with him?

I do not. If he clarified his recommendations tomorrow in a way that encouraged vegans to a healthier diet, I would love him.

I only have a problem with the consequences of his nutritional advice, which I see as harmful and irresponsible.
It causes vegans to be unhealthy, which causes them to give up veganism and go back to eating meat. This is terrible in every way.

It is a preposterous assumptions that people who follow his diet cannot stick to it and don't feel healthy. You undermine all his patience credibility, who thrive and got healthier, because they stick to his diet and, presumably, feel healthier, too.

This is anecdotal.
According to anecdotes, homeopathy cures cancer too.

The trouble is when you look at broader numbers, and the influence his dietary advice seems to be having on the vegan community at large.

Now, please don't argue that I myself and they are just the odd ones out, that it is pure coincidence that his diet happens to support all of us.

It's not coincidence, it's a bias. People who do well on it may stick with it and sing its praises, while people who do poorly disappear from the scene and you never hear from them.

Do you understand how these kinds of biases work?

It creates the illusion that something is very successful, whereas if you actually follow the numbers, it is an overwhelming failure.

You have no evidence. It's a simple as that. McDougall is advancing a faith based dogma.

Since you seems to be spending some time on the issue yourself, you should know that arguing on protein deficiency is counterproductive with respect to your credibility, since you don't find people with protein deficiency.

Again, you need to understand the concept of a bias. People with higher protein needs (or who feel they have such needs) than this diet provides likely quickly quit the diet because it makes them feel terrible.

However, even short of life threatening deficiency, you find people eating amounts of protein that are understood by mainstream nutritional science to be inadequate. People can survive on these levels of protein that are hovering outside the range of clearly manifested disease with only moderate symptoms of low energy, loss of strength, etc. but nothing in McDougall's advice is useful for the vegan community to improve health and prevent recidivism.

I challenge you to do so. You actually might, if you include individuals who exclusively feed on rice and NOTHING else, which, incidentally, is not something McDougall ever advised.

He doesn't have to advise it, he just has to fail to adequately condemn it; the thing about nutritional advice (and McDougall realizes it) is how the advice is received and incorporated into people's lives that matters, not the letter of the law (which people will likely lose).

FYI, rice and sweet fruit BOTH contribute to lack of protein. Look at the nutrition data on these. That's exactly that kind of thing we're seeing. It doesn't even have to be exclusively these things. These youtubers are eating token amounts of vegetables (only a hundred grams or so, in many cases).

Look at some of these youtubers, and how they're taking to heart the advice on starches:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=exeZTWz8D5I

See how few veggies they're eating? And none of them are eating any meaningful amount of legumes. Mostly starch and sweet fruits and token quantities of lettuce.

You can't argue the fact that many of these youtubers (aside from fullyraw) are following starch based diets. They may or may not be by the book McDougall fans, but they have been strongly inspired by his approach to nutrition. That's the problem I see with his irresponsible "simplified" advice; it has far reaching collateral damage.

You seems to think that's what he does. While it's true that he said that you could survive on a diet purely consisting of potatoes, as people have done and still do, he never claims that that is somehow a optimal diet.

Potatoes are higher in protein than is rice, but you don't see any problem with that claim? Like how it's not true?
Potatoes alone are only conducive to short term survival, and ultimate malnourishment.

If you want to make an extraordinary claim like 'people are living on nothing but potatoes' you need to provide some evidence.
What makes it extraordinary? It flies in the face of nutritional science.

Nothing I have said is in the remotest sense extraordinary. You need to get your facts straight.

Vegetables, Fruits and legumes, according to him, must go hand in hand with starches. Starches should just be the main portion on your plate.

The trouble is that main portion is far too large for most people taking his advice on starches to heart. There are foods that, in practice, are inherently prone to causing malnutrition just like oils are inherently prone to causing weight gain.

McDougall understands why oil is bad, because of its tendency to be abused and overused, but he fails to understand that starches like white rice are bad for the same reason.

Oh, and as I mentioned above, he is fine with beans. He even includes them in his 'starches'. I do not recall him advise the readers of his book, The Starch Solution, to stay away from beans or even limit them. You do refer to one particular article (http://lanimuelrath.com/mcdougall-vs-fu ... rs-debate/) in which the author - not McDougall itself, just noting - claims that he says to restrict the usage of beans.

I provided a source. Provide evidence to the contrary or concede the point?
I demonstrated my point quite clearly, I think.

If you can't find him saying otherwise, how are other people supposed to?

What matters is how advice is received and enacted. If he has whispered support for beans somewhere, it's not being received. He needs to turn up the volume.

Think about it, if he really views legumes and beans as dangerous and something that should strictly be limiting, you would find another source of him claiming this.

I searched for about thirty seconds and found a source. It was not difficult. The source does not seem biased, and I can't see any reason it would be deceptive. It's not taken out of context; the full discussion is there.

I can't find any other, especially not one where he claims is directly.

He doesn't have to claim it directly. All he has to do in order to be irresponsible on this front is fail to advise people on a minimum bean consumption.
You don't seem to understand this point. His advice is dangerous because of how people take it and put it into practice.

If you have somehow gotten the impression from him "eat lots of beans", and have put that into practice -- that's great. But most people aren't doing that.

or he might have said it to distinguish himself from a perhaps extreme point Fuhrman made.

He may have, and that's the problem: Fuhrman's point was not extreme. It was both sensible and quite mainstream. There's no reason to carefully restrict bean consumption, and warning people to do so is irresponsible because it makes people worried about beans for no reason.

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" - Carl Sagan.

Don't quote Sagan at me. These are not extraordinary claims, most of these are common knowledge.
If you're not familiar with the steep recidivism rates in veganism, you've been far too isolated. It's a serious problem.

http://veganoutreach.org/humane-researc ... ecidivism/

A quick overview of the report is that it was a cross-sectional survey of 11,000 people in the USA aged 17 and older. They found that 2% are currently vegetarian/vegan, 10% are ex-vegetarian/vegan, 86% of people who go vegetarian lapse back into meat-eating, and 70% of those who go vegan lapse.

Vegans have it a little better, possibly due to stronger moral convictions.

http://jacknorrisrd.com/vegetarian-recidivism-survey/

Reports of health problems from diet are substantial. Also see the point on cravings.

Other surveys have shown similar results:

http://www.vegan.com/blog/psychology-to ... getarians/

1. Health problems
2. Inconvenience
3. Cravings (also related to diet)
4. Social cost issues

Bad vegan diet advice like McDougall's contributes strongly to #1 and #3, and partially to #4.
The soda and potato chip vegans are possibly to blame too -- But they hold no illusions that their diets are healthy ones, and I doubt that factors in as strongly as the illusion of healthfulness of starch solution type diets.

[Wkriski]

To answer the original question Starch Solution is amazing. I've been on it over two years with no protein deficiency or others b12, etc. Beans are starches and are part of the program. Sure many humans like to eat fatty crappy food and therefore have trouble sticking to a healthy diet. But that doesn't mean it isn't the ideal diet for humans. Starches like beans and lentils have more than enough protein. Sadly we are all brainwashed by TV and other sources to obsess over protein, calcium, omega 3, etc. We have more amylase than other primates for digesting starches as well. We also eat vegetables, nuts, fruit, etc. Do a blood test if you are worried. I did and everything was perfect. There are lots of studies but you can look at any food and see it that starches, veggies, nuts and fruit have all we need. Check out Blue Zones as well, the longest living populations ate a starch based diet such as Okinawans eating mostly sweet potatoes or seventh day Adventists in California.

ALso if we're going to compare it to say Dr. fuhrman lots of people bail on it because they are too hungry when focusing on nutrients such as in kale. He sells all sorts of supplements as well so I guess the food isn't quite enough.

[Jebus]

Anyone else suspect Mr. Potato and African Ape are the same person?