Philosophical Vegan Forum

I like McDougall. He's very charismatic, and makes nutrition sound kinda fun. However, I feel like John McDougall either gets nutrition (sort of) right by accident, or does not tell his following what he thinks. I distinctly remember I stopped going to McDougall's website when I saw a video where he basically said "there is a reason nuts come in shells; you should only eat very small amounts of them".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W9OW2F8I4bk

The worst quote here is "the fat you eat is the fat you wear." This, in the context of nuts, completely contradicts any nutritional science on nuts. It is quite clear that nuts in normal amounts help you lose weight rather than gain weight, and even in insane amounts nuts seem to lead to little weight loss.

The claim "nuts should not be the main source of calories in your diet" is right, legumes and vegetables should be.
The claim "nuts are not a sustainable way to feed the world" might be right, grains and legumes are more efficient.
The claim "you should only eat nuts on special occasions; they are delicacies" he is wrong.
The claim "you should only eat very small amounts of nuts" he is wrong.

http://nutritionfacts.org/video/nuts-and-obesity-the-weight-of-evidence/

The difference between Michael Greger and John McDougall should be painfully obvious here. When I was an early vegan, I was heavily influenced by McDougall to basically think of what is healthy based on evolution. McDougall does not come with studies, he does not present science, he just presents some kind seemingly arbitrary definitions of what is healthy and what is not. He happens to get much of nutrition right, but is it really because of the science?

With Greger, he is taking his nutrition advice directly from science. In fact, all his videos are basically studies made understandable for the layman. This is way more useful in my opinion; making people think scientifically about nutrition, not whatever McDougall does.

Perhaps I've just not seen enough of what McDougall does. I think his advice is fine, but I strongly prefer Barnard and Greger for sticking to the science.

Thanks miniboes, that's a great point about nuts!

miniboes wrote: The difference between Michael Greger and John McDougall should be painfully obvious here. When I was an early vegan, I was heavily influenced by McDougall to basically think of what is healthy based on evolution. McDougall does not come with studies, he does not present science, he just presents some kind seemingly arbitrary definitions of what is healthy and what is not.

You're right about the differences; it's all about appealing to science and evidence. McDougall does seem to be right about human evolution, but that isn't nutritional evidence; it's just a huge appeal to nature fallacy.
It certainly bothers me that McDougall's advice is more authoritarian and generates a cult-like attitude which attacks those who question him, but the biggest concern I have is the effects of his recommendations in failing to clearly differentiate good and bad starches. His obsession with rice is something I see as dangerous.

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

I don't think so. African Ape is engaging in discussion (which is respectable). While Mr. Potato could be a sock puppet, the behavior is very different. Regretfully, I just had to ban him (Mr. Potato -- for a week) for making another cheerleader post after being warned wherein he again dismissed arguments without addressing them and told African Ape to ignore criticism against McDougall.

As a note: nobody who is actually sensibly engaging in argument has to worry about that.

Wkriski wrote:Beans are starches and are part of the program.

The trouble, as I've seen it, is that people have gotten the idea that they need to limit beans but not other starches. This leads people to choose rice over beans, since it's easier than limiting food.
As long as you're eating plenty of beans with your less nutritious starches, and also eating enough vegetables (and supplementing B-12 of course), it's not going to be clearly deficient in anything. The risk is for those who don't eat enough Beans, veggies, and B-12, and because McDougall hasn't been careful enough in his recommendations to prevent misuse of his diet.

With great power comes great responsibility. I hold him accountable for the people who are influenced by his diet advice and do it "incorrectly" because the advice wasn't clear enough.

Wkriski wrote: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.

Sure, but it also doesn't mean it is. McDougall makes a lot of unsubstantiated claims about ideal diet.

However, something very important to consider is also what is practical.

Recommendations that people can't follow aren't very useful.
The best recommendations to make are the healthiest ones people will actually stick to.

So, if people are having trouble sticking to it for whatever reason, that should raise red flags.

Wkriski wrote:Starches like beans and lentils have more than enough protein.

Yes, they do. But these aren't just starches; they're actually very dense protein sources too. If you're on a bean and lentil based diet, with some added fruits and vegetables and nuts, then you probably are already on an ideal diet (or as close as we can determine now).

The trouble is that McDougall has warned people to limit beans. This is bad advice.

And beans and rice/corn are not the same. One is an incredibly nutritious food, the others are deficient. Not all 'starches' are created equally. Not even all whole grain starches are created equally, and people need to understand that. McDougall has failed in his job to drive home that point, and has even done the opposite by scaring people off from beans by suggesting too many are dangerous.

Wkriski wrote:We have more amylase than other primates for digesting starches as well.

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

That may be, but it only means it's probably what our ancestors ate a lot of. That doesn't mean it's the most healthy thing we can eat today, or an ideal diet.

Modern nutritional science, not anthropology, sheds light on the ideal diet.

Wkriski wrote: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.

You're lumping starches together here -- this is a big problem. Not all starches are equal.

White rice is terrible. Brown rice and yellow/white corn are also pretty crappy nutritionally.

Wild rice, blue corn, beans, lentils, quinoa, millet, oats -- there are more starchy foods that are rich in protein and other nutrients than I can easily list.
There are only a few "bad guys" (white/brown rice and white/yellow corn). Even potatoes are pretty decent (shouldn't be eaten exclusively, but are a nutritious foundation for a diet, unlike white/brown rice or white/yellow corn).

It's naive to equate all of these as just "starches" and think one is as good as another.
This is a simplification McDougall seems to make that is to the detriment of those following his advice, since not all people reading his books or watching his lectures are going to understand that and choose the best starches.

In one link I provided, he admits brown rice is better than white, but he also says white is OK too -- bad advice. Better than meat? Sure, but almost anything is. White rice is not conducive to good nutrition.

McDougall's advice on sweet fruit is actually good. I have no quarrel there. He says two or three a day if I remember correctly, and that's fine. The vegans messing up by eating too much fruit don't have McDougall to blame for that -- and I don't blame him for that either.

I blame him very specifically for condoning white rice, and failing to caution people against brown rice and white/yellow corn, which are the worst starches (the worst offenders). Almost all other grains and starches are fine as a dietary foundation. Ideal? Maybe not, but at least adequate.

Wkriski wrote:Animals are sentient and therefore you would think rational people would want to reduce suffering along with the damage to the environment via methane, deforestation, water use, etc.

Absolutely. This is why I'm critical of McDougall's advice. I think it harms animals, because it contributes to recidivism, and discourages people from going vegan.
If you care about animals, you will be wary of this too, and join me in criticizing McDougall's condoning of white rice, and cautioning people to limit brown rice, white and yellow corn, and to choose other more ancient and healthier starches instead.

There's no need to debate about the ideal diet. The issue is that McDougall's advance is not only leading people to eat sub optimal diets, but in many cases flat out malnourishing ones when they eat too much white or brown rice. This is a problem; one easily solved by better nutritional advice, and a better choice of starches.

Fuhrman sells all sorts of supplements: http://www.drfuhrman.com/shop/VAdvisor.aspx
Fuhrmans allow animal products like fish: https://www.drfuhrman.com/faq/question. ... 6&qindex=6

I'll stick to McDougall.

Also talk about logical fallacies - not sure where you get your facts about eating 3000 calories and having to exercise a ton. You can eat much less like 2000 calories and not do much exercise, based on your metabolic rate and activity level, weight, height, gender (see any calorie calculator).

McDougall tells people he eats turkey every other year at thanksgiving' so people don't call him a vegan http://www.shareguide.com/McDougall.html but if you look at the color picture book it says what to eat and what not to eat (which is all animal products unlike Dr. Furhman). https://www.drmcdougall.com/health/education/cpb/

You can eat nuts on McDougall but many people gain weight on too many nuts to make up for lack of starches - vegsource already debunked some of the nutritionfacts studies where the researches were controlling the caloric intake so people didn't gain weight. I eat some nuts/seeds myself. http://www.vegsource.com/news/2012/07/cant-lose-the-weight-it-could-be-the-nuts.html

The funny thing is the diets are pretty similar accounting for the fact that people eat beans and possibly sweet potatoes on furhman making it a starch based diet (most of the calories coming from starch). So at the end of the day the main difference is some people won't eat rice or white potatoes. All of us are eating greens, veggies, starches (beans), nuts and fruit so it's really pointless to be debating a very small difference in the diets.

Wkriski wrote:You can eat nuts on McDougall but many people gain weight on too many nuts to make up for lack of starches - vegsource already debunked some of the nutritionfacts studies where the researches were controlling the caloric intake so people didn't gain weight. I eat some nuts/seeds myself. http://www.vegsource.com/news/2012/07/c ... -nuts.html

Did you see the video i posted? They literally gave people like 3000 calories over the daily requirement of pistachios and they barely gained weight.

Thank you, people. Especially BrimstoneSalad for having the tenacity to come back again and again to make the case for the scientific truth. This discussion opened my eyes and I changed my mind. McDougall should be clearer on some topics, like the specification of starches, and should change his mind entirely on other topics, like the alleged danger of the consumption of beans and nuts. It is unscientific and irrational to do so; as was my protective stance towards his work. I happened to adopt a healthy, balanced diet after reading his book, but his simplistic approach might confuse others and send them on the wrong way. He therefore should rethink his method of communicating.
I don't think he's a bad man who wants evil, but, like BrimstoneSalad and Miniboes pointed out, he is being unscientific and basing his arguments on irrational notions, which, in some cases, happen to be agreeing with the scientific truth.
I hope I didn't offend anyone in the course of this discussion. I am glad I asked about different 'opinions' on the matter. I am a wiser person now.

Much appreciated, guys and girls.

Since we have a nice round of people here, am I allowed to ask about any advice on avocados? Sorry for my laziness to go off topic.

Thanks for being open minded!
I'm not sure about avocadoes, but I refrain from eating them because they give me pimples.

Thanks An African Ape; it makes my day when somebody is open minded on the internet. It's a rare sight.

An African Ape wrote:McDougall should be clearer on some topics, like the specification of starches, and should change his mind entirely on other topics, like the alleged danger of the consumption of beans and nuts.

Definitely. If he did that tomorrow, I'd love him for it and would totally promote his diet advice.

An African Ape wrote: Since we have a nice round of people here, am I allowed to ask about any advice on avocados? Sorry for my laziness to go off topic.

Sure. As far as I know, the jury is still kind of out on those (take that with a grain of salt, though). I would limit them. Avocados are fruit, and contain less protein than nuts, which could potentially lead to weight gain and more importantly (and more likely) malnutrition.
Consider: 80 calories per gram of protein in avocado compared to 43 for walnuts (which are the fattiest nut I know off hand); almost twice the calories per gram of protein.

I'd stick with nuts, and limit the avocados to maybe 1/2 a day in place of other fruit (or other low protein carbs) for now until we have more evidence to support their health benefits.
I don't believe the evidence currently supports the idea that calories from carbs are better than calories from healthy fats, just that healthy fats are hard to come by; avocados are a source of healthy fats, along with many whole nuts and seeds (I'd limit sesame seeds, though).
Anybody reading this in the future: Please look into recent research. I could be totally wrong on the potential of avocados to cause weight gain. Or avocados might turn out to be such a great cancer fighter that in terms of mortality it's worth gaining a bit of weight to include more of them. The nutrient profile is still a concern for me though, and that won't likely change.