| Author | Post |
|---|
Nir
Senior Administrator
|
Posted: 6 July 2006 03:36 pm |
|
The sleeve of "Eat To Live" states that he "is the official spokesperson for the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine". Before reading Eat To Live, I have also read the PCRM's 2004 Cancer Survival Handbook ( snipurl.com/cancerETL ). The diets are similiar, the main differences being that, the handbook advocates a strict low-fat vegan diet wheras Eat To Live is a little more permissive: (1) a vegan lifestyle is generally encouraged, but up to one serving of egg and two servings of low-fat dairy are allowed per week (2) a vegetarian lifestyle is generally encouraged, but up to one serving of lean chicken and two servings of fish are allowed per week (3) fat from nuts and seeds is encouraged (up to 20% of calories).
The Cancer Survival Handbook doesn't mention that the PCRM has what I might call a "vegeterian agenda", but PCRM's website ( pcrm.org ) has sections on how to become vegeterian, and makes it clear that PCRM is against experiments on animals, too.
I recently read what I would consider to be a rather balanced review of diets ( yourhealthbase.com/diet_zoo.htm ). I recommend you read it if you have an interest in the subject. In short, trans-fats are bad, saturated fats are probably bad too, sugars and refined grains are likely worse than saturated fat, low-GI carbs (vegetables, fruit, legumes, wholegrain) are good, less emphasis on restriction of total fat (so long as it is mostly 'good').
At the end of the article, the point is made that attempts to discredit Dr Atkins by making his medical records public - and that this was done by the PCRM! I even did a bit of Googling and found a small website dedicated to 'trashing' the PCRM: activistcash.com/organization_overview.cfm/oid/23
Ok, why do I care? I want to follow an approach which will make me successful at weight loss and weight control and which optimises my health, too. Dr Fuhrman's ETL makes the point that animal proteins increase the risk of disease - even when looking at the leanest, lowest-fat options. If the PCRM is indeed a bunch of animal-rights activists, should I trust their spokesperson when he suggests I limit my consumption of animal products? In short, I don't want to become a vegan because Dr Fuhrman and his friends at PCRM think that animals are nice and fluffy and shouldn't be eaten. I do not want to be manipulated!
Then again, I don't want to be manipulated by their opposition either (what would that be? presumably those standing to financially gain from a thriving market in animal products, i.e. meat/dairy farming industry - it is equally difficult to decypher the agenda driving the likes of westonaprice.org )
Has anybody else thought about this?
|
suenos
Moderator
|
Posted: 6 July 2006 08:11 pm |
|
Well, Nir, since you brought the subject up....I will confess that I've long harbored doubts that strictly following the ETL plan leads to optimal nutritional health. When I first saw the book being promoted I did pretty much of the same "googling" and came to the conclusion that Dr. Furman took a basically strict vegan diet, allowed enough minor leeway in dairy, fish and chicken consumption to make it palatable for the average westerner and called it a revoluntionary diet plan.
I think there are lots of positives to ETL: following it closely will no doubt lead to relatively quick weight loss, and no doubt there are huge health benefits in increasing fruits/veggies and elimination of trans fat, refined sugar and flour. I do, however, question what I see as an imbalance in the macronutrient content. I also question his "optimal" weight (in order for me to reach his optimal weight I would actually have to lose a significant amount of muscle as well as fat.) And the claim he makes about the relationship between longevity and leaness/calorie restriction is a little misleading. Studies have shown (including one he himself cites) that while there is an association between leaness/lower calorie intake and mortality, the relationship is dependent on the age the calorie restriction began. And, in fact, higher restriction begun later in life has either no siginficant relation to lower mortality - or is associated with greater mortality.
I guess every diet plan has it's nutritional pros and cons, and every author of a diet book has his/her own agenda, whether it's to sell books or promote a certain lifestyle. All anyone can do is look beyond the pages of the book, question all claims, and incorporate the parts that work.
|
CapeCoddess
New Member
|
Posted: 7 July 2006 11:08 pm |
|
Personally, it doesn't matter to me what his agenda is. Altho if he were to be pushing a vegan lifestyle, then NO amount of meat, dairy or eggs would be OK. Believe me, those vegans can be STRICT! Right down to no leather clothing, no honey, etc.
I just like that his diet helps the body maintain a more alkaline pH balance. To me, THAT's what's important. THAT's what it takes to stay healthy and ward off disease.
And chocolate chips do not alkaline pH body make....
CC
Last edited on 7 July 2006 11:43 pm by CapeCoddess
|
Nir
Senior Administrator
|
Posted: 8 July 2006 01:38 am |
|
hypothetical: If I was a strict vegan for ethical reasons and I wanted everyone else to stop eating animals or buying animal products such as eggs, milk or leather, then if I could either convert ONE person to become a strict vegetarian, or convert THREE people to substantially (though not completely) reduce their intake of animal products, I'd take the THREE almost-full-conversions over the ONE full conversion, given that this way less animals get eaten etc.
The reason I care is that animal products are some of the most calorie-effective ways to take protein (egg whites 100%, tinned tuna 95%). I do take the argument that I'm not getting any fibre, vitamins, minerals or pythochemicals this way, but I'll be eating more calories if I have to get all my protein from plant foods like soybeans, broccoli, tomatos etc. It either means getting less protein then I would like to have, or devoting more calories than I would like in the pursuit of protein. So can I trust him (to just talk about science, without bias)? Can I trust him when he argues that our bodies get stomach cramps when not busy digesting foods because we've irritated them by eating too much protein; can I trust him when he argues that increased animal products raise the risk of disease? If I knew that he had no axe to grind, that he loves consuming animal products yet regrettably has to cut down due to safety concerns, I'll be happier to comply. [If I had my own line of protein shakes, I might start trying to persuade people that protein shakes promote health - but you shouldn't trust me because I'll have a vested interest, an agenda.]
|
Peter
Founder, caloriesperhour.com
|
Posted: 8 July 2006 04:46 am |
|
All very interesting, and I certainly agree with what suenos wrote.
It's funny about agendas. Since I started cph as an "old man's retirement hobby," I have received many e-mails -- usually from someone reviewing my website or writing an article about it -- asking me, in effect, what my agenda was.
Enjoying retirement! Honestly, I just thought it would be fun to create a little calories burned calculator since I couldn't find two on the web that gave the same results. So I go easy on people when it comes to questing their motives. (And their credentials. Mine are high school.)
About ETL being a "revolutionary" diet plan: Perhaps not, but for anyone eating an American-like diet it would be a revolutionary change. And improvement.
About recommending the book, I am very pleased with the wording on my product recommendation page:
Whether or not you choose to follow the plan, reading the book will make it more difficult to ignore the long-term impact of eating unhealthy foods. It will have a positive, lifelong influence on your eating habits, weight, and health.
About eating meat, I also like what I wrote in my tutorial topic on fat, which was influenced by ETL:
Study after study has shown that people in countries that eat mostly low fat, plant-based diets have lower rates of obesity, heart problems, cancer and many other maladies. But when these populations are introduced to the fat-laden Western diet -- either because it is brought into their countries or because they move to countries influenced by it -- their rates of these maladies sharply increase.
Maybe 20 years ago I started reading a magazine called American Health. It was somewhat directed more toward women (though they denied this in response to my Letter to the Editor which they printed) and eventually became something like Women's Health.
Anyway, very slowly I found myself eating healthier and healthier till one day I realized that -- without intention -- the only meat I was eating at home was the diced ham I put in my Sunday evening omelet. Prior to that point, I had fish and chicken about once a week.
This habit of eating so little meat came by way of an evolution not a revolution. Reading more and more about eating healthy foods had it's influence on me.
So when I read ETL, which DOES permit small amounts of meat, it fit right into my own food plan (which I don't alway practice).
wm doesn't read the forums much, but he's the one that sent me an autographed copy of ETL and taught me about it. I'll have to show him this topic. Bet he has something to say!
Peter
|
Krinkala
Member
|
Posted: 8 July 2006 09:04 pm |
|
It's hard to find a "scientific" study that doesn't have a bias, whether it is a vegetarian group, a food industry, pharmaceutical companies or even companies that make nutritional supplements. It's easy to tell the bias of those doing the studies. Just look at who funds the study. People who have agendas who don't do studies often quote the studies that support their predrawn conclusions, so that is trickier. I still enjoy reading scientific studies and try to ferret out anything that rings true.
In terms of ETL, the other diet plan that Dr. Fuhrman supports is Dr. Ornish's who wrote the book, Reversing Heart Disease, and who is also a vegetarian. It seems transparent that Dr. Fuhrman has a vegetarian agenda.
I don't object to vegetarianism. It sounds very good theoretically. However, one diet does not fit all. People whose ancestors were born in India probably don't tolerate much meat. People whose ancestors were born in Germany probably tolerate meat well and probably don't tolerate an abundance of produce (and soy) as a substitute for meat. Understanding our genetic and environmental heritage seems to me to be a practical starting point. And then I think we each need to find out what works for us and what is healthy for us individually and give thought to the "science" out there, but test it out and prove it before we commit to it as a life plan.
Personally, I have found that if I do not eat a certain amount of animal protein, that I eat too many calories. My body just doesn't feel strong without it and I keep eating but never feel satisfied. I cannot substitute carbohydrates for protein and feel strong. I eat a good amount of produce, but eating the vast quantity of produce that ETL suggests in order to get the amount of protein I need is just not going to happen so long as I have a life with other obligations than finding and consuming produce. It's not practical or satisfying. I also cannot eat more than a certain amount of animal protein and feel healthy. I think there is an optimal nutritional balance we each need to find individually. Though ETL may be beneficial for many people, but I don't find my perfect balance with ETL.
|
Nir
Senior Administrator
|
Posted: 8 July 2006 09:33 pm |
|
Thanks for your reply, it makes a lot of sense.
Incidentally, with egg whites and low-fat soft cheeses, I could personally do quite well as a vegeterian, but vegan is what presents me with problems.
Krinkala wrote:
if I do not eat a certain amount of animal protein, that I eat too many calories. [...] I eat a good amount of produce, but eating the vast quantity of produce that ETL suggests in order to get the amount of protein I need is just not going to happen so long as I have a life with other obligations than finding and consuming produce. It's not practical or satisfying.
I'm currently eating a 160g serving of broccoli (to provide me with 5g of protein - not really practical to get the 90g - 120g target I set for myself for the day from something this plentiful though).
But as devil's advocate, I'll suggest that 100g of TVP (in dry form) provides 47.2g of protein, and Soy Protein Isolate (in dry form) provides 87.1g of protein, so it is possible to consume a high amount of protein in a form that
- isn't overwhelming in terms of weight and volume
- has most of the calories derived from protein
The half-way house between vegetables and soy products is legumes.
So I can see how it can be practical to be a vegan and still consume 2g of protein per kilo of body weight. (whether you want to consume a mountain of produce, or not.) I haven't tried it yet for any length of time, so I don't know if I'll do well on it or whether I will feel weak or have cravings.
But even if a vegan diet is suitable for my biochemistry I think it would still be wrong for me to become a vegan if the "you are likely to be healthier" claims are fabricated. I guess I don't care whether he has a vegeterian agenda - just whether it has tainted his ETL book, which he refers to (in the introduction) as "a healthy, scientifically designed diet calculated to supply optimal nutrition..." !
|
CapeCoddess
New Member
|
Posted: 10 July 2006 12:43 am |
|
...a healthy, scientifically designed diet calculated to supply optimal nutrition..." !
Well, it certainly seems to be doing that alright. I mean, just look at all the colors we can eat! Even when I puree' my soups in the BLENDER they end up looking like a bowl of confetti.
Hmm..guess that's not very scientific. Very delicious tho. And when I do it properly, I FEEL so good! Clear headed, strong, full of vim and vigor...or is that flavored vinegar...? And I actually want to get out of bed in the morning.
Oops..5PM...confetti time...
CC
|
Hisgal
Distinguished Member
|
Posted: 11 July 2006 07:17 pm |
|
CC,
I have to agree that I feel so good when following the Eat to Live plan:yumm: I've had a bad week and a half, not eating right very many days. And I can feel it! I was feeling so bad (tight muscles and pain) that I finally went to my chiro. Her first comment was about whether I'd been feeding poisons into my body. She said I looked swollen and puffy.
Nir,
I read "The China Study" before I read "Eat to Live". It was the information in Dr. Campbell's book (if I remember right, he was raised on a ranch-his family made their living raising cattle for food) which documented the effect of too much animal protein from multiple studies, going back to the 1800's, which made me stop and think about what I was putting into my body. I have obesity, heart disease, stroke and diabetes in my family history. I didn't want that for me. Dr. Fuhrman's plan seemed to be an outline to achieve an eating plan that followed from the China Study results. They were both touting an plan for whole foods, low animal protein. Then I read a book from the library by Dr. Neal Barnard, who also co-wrote The Cancer Project information. He also wrote of the health benefits of following a whole foods, low animal protein plan. It just seemed to make sense to me, and have many health benefits to boot:) I am only going from memory here, as I have my copies of each book borrowed out to a friend.
Last edited on 11 July 2006 11:32 pm by Hisgal
|
Nir
Senior Administrator
|
Posted: 12 July 2006 01:49 am |
|
Dr Neal Barnard is also high-ranking at PCRM, so the identical agenda problem applies, if PCRM has anti-meat agenda.
Your mention of The China Study prompted me to do some more Googling. I found this page: .beyondveg.com/billings-t/comp-anat/comp-anat-8e.shtml (relating to limtations of The China Study - the study, not the book. Essentially amounting to: no, The China Study doesn't prove that it is healthier to be vegeterian/vegan) which seems to be part of a work, which is displayed on a website preaching a don't-be-a-vegan/vegeterian message, but which does not have the obvious "we're from the meat industry" stamp on it. Just what is their agenda? Why is it important for them to present such information?
Yes, still agree with all of you: a diet that is mostly (over 50% of calories from) plantfoods is healthiest. But I don't think that my animal products will be 0%. I may end up eating less animal products than I did before, as a nod to their low nutrient density (no fibre, less vitamins/minerals) but on the other hand they offer flavours and textures I may not wish to completely give up and offer unrivalled protein-per-calorie ratios. I don't think that either camp has conclusively proven it is right.
Last edited on 12 July 2006 01:58 am by Nir
|
lecpho
New Member
| Joined: | 2 August 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1 |
|
Posted: 2 August 2006 11:43 pm |
|
What in interesting discussion! I came to the ETL plan via my husband first reading Disease Proof your Child and then ETL. We were already following Weight Watchers Core Program which, big surprise, is shockingly similar to ETL!!! Although admittedly is more permissive of meat protein. After all, they want to hold the attention of a national audience, not a select few people who are considering a veggie lifestyle.
Core was working very well for us both but I have to say that ETL has kept our weight loss moving at points at which I know from the past would have been plateaus for me. We have oddly enough given up dairy in our house, because I have mild asthma and I was very interested in the possiblity that I might be able to give up meds. Which I have recently done, we will have to stay tuned on that one and see how it goes. But we still eat meat and really don't intend to give it up. Funny since I am a "reformed vegitarian" of many years. Eating less meat is working just fine for us, great really. We are stuffing ourselves silly with produce and not even feeling like we are missing out on anything.
So the long and the short of it for US is that somewhere between Core and ETL there is a way of life, not a diet, where we feel satisfied, healthy and not very apt to crave things that we really don't need to eat. Case in point, I walked into a bakery today and walked out with only a coffee in hand, which was all I was after when I stepped in the door. It did not even hit me till I was getting into the car that I had not even considered buying a baked good while I was in there... aromas and display cases did not sway me in the least!
And I was not a stranger to their baked goods at one time.
Let us not forget that we all have a agenda as well, a healthy lifestyle that we can not just live with but live well with and be happy while we do it. As "CPH" starter pointed out reading ETL has left me in a healthier place and even if I am not on the plan 100% I am better off for having done the reading and I think more carefully about the foods I eat and most assurely what I offer my 2 and 3 year old! My hope for them is that they establish healthy taste buds now that serve them well in a leaner existance than I have known for much of my life.
|
zenobia
Moderator
|
Posted: 3 September 2006 09:25 am |
|
i found this quote in an article that pertains... maybe he just does care about peoples health! i say kudos to a dr. that is out for the health of the population...
"I have no specific political or social agenda, but I am a physician who wants each person to make responsible decisions based on the best evidence. I do not offer nutritional advice to please the animal rights advocates. In fact, they refuse to mention my work in their publications because I allow the consumption of animal products in my books and at drfuhrman.com and include them in some of my recipes. But, I do have a mission to spread a message that nutritional excellence can defeat heart disease and win the war against cancer."
this was from a letter written by Dr. Fuhrman to a low- carb website that blatantly attacked his plan and made some very very false claims regarding his book and his style of dieting. i doubt the author of the article even read ETL...
interesting article at livin' a vida lo-carb blogspot . com
|
GlutenFreeNL
New Member
|
Posted: 30 March 2009 02:31 pm |
|
Personally speaking, I don't care if EFL has a sub-text of pushing a vegetarian agenda. My priority is my health and if EFL works to put me in a healthier state, then it's serving my purpose.
I was vegetarian from age 14 until 30 when diagnosed with Celiac disease, the inability to process gluten. My doctor at the time recommended that I eat red meat again due to all the other restrictions that giving up gluten would make on my diet. After initialing losing weight, I started to gain weight and then ended up overweight. Maybe my doctor was pushing a carnivore agenda ;)
|
Current time is 07:58 am | |
|
|
|
