Is Doctor McDougall aware of this?

For those questions and discussions on the McDougall program that don’t seem to fit in any other forum.

Moderators: JeffN, f1jim, Heather McDougall, John McDougall, carolve

Re: Is Doctor McDougall aware of this?

Postby Jeff the Chef » Tue May 23, 2017 4:36 pm

colonyofcells wrote:http://www.eatrightpro.org/~/media/eatrightpro%20files/practice/position%20and%20practice%20papers/position%20papers/vegetarian-diet.ashx
The dec 2016 Position of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics : Vegetarian Diets was authored by Susan Levin (a vegan employee of the pro vegan PCRM), Winston Craig (a believer in a pro vegan religion the seventh day adventists), and Vesanto Melina (the vegan nutrition book writing partner of Brenda Davis). It is probably debatable whether PETA ethical vegan activists and PCRM health vegan activists can be considered religions. There are religions with no gods such as theravada buddhism (does believe in reincarnation) and Ethical Culture Society (no beliefs in the supernatural). Many health vegans started out as ethical vegans and this includes Susan Levin, Vesanto Melina, Brenda Davis and most vegans include ethics, health and the environment as 3 main reasons for being vegan. Virginia Messina seems to prefer to be an ethical vegan rather than a health vegan. The old writing partner of Virginia Messina was Jack Norris and Jack Norris seems more open to mentioning the possible health benefits of a vegan diet based on some studies.


So, you've identified one believer of an alleged pro-vegan religion who isn't a member of PCRM. The others aren't alleged members of a pro-vegan religion.

http://www.pcrm.org/kickstartHome/celebrity/mcdougall

You may noticed Dr. McDougall is a member of the following list for a startup affiliated with PCRM. He also worked for a Seventh Day hospital. So, because you work with/for members of a religion doesn't mean you are a member or advocate of that religion.

Furthermore, Seventh Day Adventists aren't pro-vegan. They recommend vegetarianism.

Also, Theravada Buddhism has gods.

And no, it isn't debatable whether PCRM or PETA are religions. They're not.

Earlier you mentioned Barnard's arguments aren't enough to sell veganism. You can prove this? You can prove there is no increase in vegans thanks to Barnard's activism and medical research?

While it's obvious he's a vegan, I was surprised to find this.

http://www.pcrm.org/sites/default/files ... ptions.pdf

And regarding Greger and Reducetarianism, that may be why he included research by Pritkin and Ornish, but I think it's because he is WFPB. McDougall, Esselstyn, and Campbell don't claim to be vegans, while Novick is, and they all include the research of Pritikin and Ornish and acknowledge their influence.
Image
Jeff the Chef
 
Posts: 152
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2015 6:59 am

Re: Is Doctor McDougall aware of this?

Postby Helpinghands » Tue May 23, 2017 5:21 pm

I discovered Ginny has he own site and one of the comments to her addressed exactly what I was asking. She responded with this:

There are no studies showing that a low-fat diet reverses atherosclerosis. The Ornish study used a comprehensive plan with many components including diet, and there is no way to know which of those components was responsible for the outcome. The study doesn’t allow us to say anything about diet and doesn’t show that a low-fat vegan diet has any advantage over a higher-fat vegan diet. And the findings from Dr. Esselstyn’s work come from observations of his own patients. It was not an actual study with a control group and therefore it’s not possible to know what other kinds of factors were involved. Based on the extensive research on the health benefits of different unsaturated fats, it’s very difficult to conclude that low-fat diets would have any particular advantage. In fact, both Drs Ornish and Esselstyn are listed as authors of a new paper that highlights benefits of nuts and oils for heart health. http://www.onlinejacc.org/content/69/9/1172 Most of us who used to promote benefits of low-fat eating are headed in a new direction as we follow the science.


I would like to point out two passages that I found interesting:

Based on the extensive research on the health benefits of different unsaturated fats, it’s very difficult to conclude that low-fat diets would have any particular advantage.


She then goes on to point out that Doctors Ornish and Esselstyn put their names on papers that support nuts and oils. That has been addressed on this board some time ago. She then goes on to tell us those who were on board with low fat are no longer doing so:

Most of us who used to promote benefits of low-fat eating are headed in a new direction as we follow the science.


I'm sure this is news to Doctors McDougall, Ornish, Esselstyn and the folks at the Pritikin foundation that they missed the boat and are no longer following the science.
Helpinghands
 
Posts: 179
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2016 6:52 am

Re: Is Doctor McDougall aware of this?

Postby Jeff the Chef » Tue May 23, 2017 5:37 pm

Helpinghands wrote:I discovered Ginny has he own site and one of the comments to her addressed exactly what I was asking. She responded with this:

There are no studies showing that a low-fat diet reverses atherosclerosis. The Ornish study used a comprehensive plan with many components including diet, and there is no way to know which of those components was responsible for the outcome. The study doesn’t allow us to say anything about diet and doesn’t show that a low-fat vegan diet has any advantage over a higher-fat vegan diet. And the findings from Dr. Esselstyn’s work come from observations of his own patients. It was not an actual study with a control group and therefore it’s not possible to know what other kinds of factors were involved. Based on the extensive research on the health benefits of different unsaturated fats, it’s very difficult to conclude that low-fat diets would have any particular advantage. In fact, both Drs Ornish and Esselstyn are listed as authors of a new paper that highlights benefits of nuts and oils for heart health. http://www.onlinejacc.org/content/69/9/1172 Most of us who used to promote benefits of low-fat eating are headed in a new direction as we follow the science.


I would like to point out two passages that I found interesting:

Based on the extensive research on the health benefits of different unsaturated fats, it’s very difficult to conclude that low-fat diets would have any particular advantage.


She then goes on to point out that Doctors Ornish and Esselstyn put their names on papers that support nuts and oils. That has been addressed on this board some time ago. She then goes on to tell us those who were on board with low fat are no longer doing so:

Most of us who used to promote benefits of low-fat eating are headed in a new direction as we follow the science.


I'm sure this is news to Doctors McDougall, Ornish, Esselstyn and the folks at the Pritikin foundation that they missed the boat and are no longer following the science.


Could you provide a link to this discussion on Esselstyn and Ornish putting their names on papers that support nuts and oils?
Image
Jeff the Chef
 
Posts: 152
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2015 6:59 am

Re: Is Doctor McDougall aware of this?

Postby colonyofcells » Tue May 23, 2017 5:40 pm

Virginia Messina probably just wants more studies which are Randomized Controlled Trials before she will be convinced that low fat unrefined vegan diets have some advantages in weight loss and in managing chronic diseases like heart disease. It is also easy to find reductionist studies that say some types of oils are beneficial or not harmful.
colonyofcells
 
Posts: 6377
Joined: Sun Apr 14, 2013 2:14 pm
Location: san mateo ca

Re: Is Doctor McDougall aware of this?

Postby Jeff the Chef » Tue May 23, 2017 5:55 pm

colonyofcells wrote:Virginia Messina probably just wants more studies which are Randomized Controlled Trials before she will be convinced that low fat unrefined vegan diets have some advantages in weight loss and in managing chronic diseases like heart disease. It is also easy to find reductionist studies that say some types of oils are beneficial or not harmful.


Well, there is the RCT done by Barnard and Jenkins on diabetes.

It really is annoying to deal with Messina as well as lowcarb advocates repeat like a mantra the Gold Standsrd of the RCT. Even before Campbell in TCS and Whole, the limitations of RCT and the appropriateness, strengths and weakness of each kind of medical study has been well established in medical research.
Last edited by Jeff the Chef on Tue May 23, 2017 6:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Image
Jeff the Chef
 
Posts: 152
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2015 6:59 am

Re: Is Doctor McDougall aware of this?

Postby colonyofcells » Tue May 23, 2017 6:01 pm

The main reason oil is not allowed in the Dr Mcdougall diet is probably to make compliance easier bec it is super easy to overconsume oil.
colonyofcells
 
Posts: 6377
Joined: Sun Apr 14, 2013 2:14 pm
Location: san mateo ca

Re: Is Doctor McDougall aware of this?

Postby wade4veg » Tue May 23, 2017 10:02 pm

anne57 wrote:Ginny discounts the reversal of heart disease with a WFPB diet by stating that other factors were involved, and does not mention the more recent confirming data.


Just curious, what article or study are you talking about when you say "more recent confirming data" ?
wade4veg
 
Posts: 516
Joined: Thu Jul 03, 2014 12:29 pm

Re: Is Doctor McDougall aware of this?

Postby bbq » Tue May 23, 2017 10:10 pm

Jeff the Chef wrote:Could you provide a link to this discussion on Esselstyn and Ornish putting their names on papers that support nuts and oils?

Here we go:

https://www.drmcdougall.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=54748&start=15#p556586

It's just a compromise when there were so many authors to begin with. And then we could observe all that conflict of interest (especially Dr. Kris-Etherton) in the footnotes.
bbq
 
Posts: 2168
Joined: Tue May 29, 2012 10:23 am

Re: Is Doctor McDougall aware of this?

Postby Spiral » Wed May 24, 2017 3:45 am

It is true that there has never been a randomized clinical trial comparing Dr. Esselstyn's diet with a "vegan" diet which includes significant amounts of vegetable oils and nuts and other high fat vegetables.

But the same could be said for a RCT comparing Esselstyn's diet with a diet that added a dozen Oreo cookies to an otherwise healthful plant based diet. So, on that basis, one could argue that it's never been proven that a reasonable number of Oreo cookies added to a healthy diet is bad for you.

The same can also be said for cigarette smoking. There never has been an randomized clinical trial demonstrating that cigarette smoking is bad for you.

It's a mistake to think that only RCTs represent good science.
User avatar
Spiral
 
Posts: 3005
Joined: Sat Dec 18, 2010 8:18 pm
Location: Indianapolis, Indiana

Re: Is Doctor McDougall aware of this?

Postby Franchesca_S. » Wed May 24, 2017 9:43 am

My recollection of reading Dr Esselstyns books is that he couldn't do a randomized study because no organization would fund it. For that reason he used his own patients.
Franchesca_S.
 
Posts: 178
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2016 8:25 am

Re: Is Doctor McDougall aware of this?

Postby colonyofcells » Wed May 24, 2017 11:51 am

http://dresselstyn.com/JFP_06307_Article1.pdf
The newer bigger study of Dr Esselstyn has no control group so it will probably not convince the more conservative mainstream like Virginia Messina. The 2015 diet guide for americans now includes healthy eating patterns like vegetarian and vegan so the mainstream is slowly changing and they are considering other types of studies in addition to RCTs.
colonyofcells
 
Posts: 6377
Joined: Sun Apr 14, 2013 2:14 pm
Location: san mateo ca

Re: Is Doctor McDougall aware of this?

Postby Jeff the Chef » Wed May 24, 2017 4:30 pm

bbq wrote:
Jeff the Chef wrote:Could you provide a link to this discussion on Esselstyn and Ornish putting their names on papers that support nuts and oils?

Here we go:

https://www.drmcdougall.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=54748&start=15#p556586

It's just a compromise when there were so many authors to begin with. And then we could observe all that conflict of interest (especially Dr. Kris-Etherton) in the footnotes.


Thanks!

Franchesca_S. wrote:My recollection of reading Dr Esselstyns books is that he couldn't do a randomized study because no organization would fund it. For that reason he used his own patients.


That's how I remember it. He wanted to do a RCT, couldn't get enough funding for 2 groups of good size and for a lengthy study, so he settled for what money he could get to focus on the one group he did study. Contrary to the "Gold Standard" mantra, his study has value.

colonyofcells wrote:http://dresselstyn.com/JFP_06307_Article1.pdf
The newer bigger study of Dr Esselstyn has no control group so it will probably not convince the more conservative mainstream like Virginia Messina. The 2015 diet guide for americans now includes healthy eating patterns like vegetarian and vegan so the mainstream is slowly changing and they are considering other types of studies in addition to RCTs.



What? Other types of studies are part of the conservative mainstream. Despite wannabes like Messina, the Low Carb Snake Oil Salespersons, and one science journalist who took on Ornish constantly chanting Gold Standard, but other kinds of studies are canon of medical research.
Image
Jeff the Chef
 
Posts: 152
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2015 6:59 am

Re: Is Doctor McDougall aware of this?

Postby wade4veg » Wed May 24, 2017 10:50 pm

colonyofcells wrote:http://dresselstyn.com/JFP_06307_Article1.pdf
The newer bigger study of Dr Esselstyn has no control group so it will probably not convince the more conservative mainstream like Virginia Messina. .


I have read the Esselstyn study many times in detail. I value it for what it is.
However it is lacking in so many aspects that we can't expect most doctors to rely on its findings.
At the very least he should have included details on exactly how many patients were on statins.
Even his prior study included more details on that point.

This study simply says "Patients continued to use cardiac medications as prescribed, monitored by their (other) physicians."
I suspect that as in his first study that almost every patient was on a statin during the entire trial.
How would his his patients outcomes have been without the use of statins? We simply don't know. Not a minor detail.

Nevertheless, I continue to follow a plant based diet, in part, because of his study results. But I also stay on a statin.
wade4veg
 
Posts: 516
Joined: Thu Jul 03, 2014 12:29 pm

Re: Is Doctor McDougall aware of this?

Postby f1jim » Thu May 25, 2017 12:21 am

We do have lot's of data on statins and their contribution to people eating the typical diet. We also have the Ornish data that used no statins. It's not a lot of data but something to build with.
No one has shown reversal with statins alone. We have studies showing reversal with ans without statins. It's not hard to figure out the real contributing factor in reversal. There are no negative side effects with a plant based diet. The same can't be said for statins. We all make the best choices we can for ourselves.
Since it's consider standard of care to include statins I really don't see much new data coming forward without the use of stains.
f1jim
While adopting this diet and lifestyle program I have reversed my heart disease, high cholesterol, hypertension, and lost 54 lbs. You can follow my story at https://www.drmcdougall.com/james-brown/
User avatar
f1jim
 
Posts: 11278
Joined: Sun Feb 17, 2008 4:45 pm
Location: Pacifica, CA

Re: Is Doctor McDougall aware of this?

Postby Spiral » Thu May 25, 2017 4:09 am

f1jim wrote:We do have lot's of data on statins and their contribution to people eating the typical diet. We also have the Ornish data that used no statins. It's not a lot of data but something to build with.
No one has shown reversal with statins alone. We have studies showing reversal with ans without statins. It's not hard to figure out the real contributing factor in reversal. There are no negative side effects with a plant based diet. The same can't be said for statins. We all make the best choices we can for ourselves.
Since it's consider standard of care to include statins I really don't see much new data coming forward without the use of stains.
f1jim

There is the case of Tim Russert. He was taking a megadose of statin to treat his heart disease. He died. That's not to say that statins don't save lives. I am told that statins are helpful. But I think the results that Dr. Esselstyn obtained in his studies are much better than the results people get from adopting a "mainstream diet" and taking a statin.

This conservation reminds me of the book Heart 411. It was written by 2 doctors at the Cleveland Clinic.

They explicitly rejected "low-fat diets" and specifically mentioned Dr. Esselstyn's diet as one they would not recommend.

Many doctors and RDs base their argument that since there has been large scale RCT on Dr. Ornish's or Dr. Esselstyn's diet, it shouldn't be seriously considered, especially since no one is willing to eat that rabbit food diet anyway. :D
User avatar
Spiral
 
Posts: 3005
Joined: Sat Dec 18, 2010 8:18 pm
Location: Indianapolis, Indiana

PreviousNext

Return to The Lounge

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest



Welcome!

Sign up to receive our regular articles, recipes, and news about upcoming events.