FYI Dr McDougall is age 65. He did have a stroke when he was age 18 before he became a vegetarian. Pretty hard to compare pictures when you know this.
Primal/Paleo is not for everyone, it's for those who have committed to understand.
READ THE BOOK! ...as Robb Wolf says: "Trying to convince people to save their own ass will burn you out."
Vegetarians are the enemy of everything good and decent in the human spirit, and an affront to all I stand for -- the pure enjoyment of food.” Anthony Bourdain
and yes, calories DO count my little piggies
Yup, my comparison was from pictures of the McDougalls from 20+ yrs. ago to Mark & his wife currently - McDougalls in their 40s, Sissons in their 50s. At the time, Mrs. McDougall looked like Karen Carpenter just before she died and that was the prettied-up book cover picture, God knows what she looked like in person. I've since seen her looking better, maybe she sneaks a T-bone now & then? Whatever - I'd sure rather look like the Sissons.
It needs to be said... McDougall didn't rip ANYTHING apart, because he made specious claims, appeal to authority (USDA) fallacies, and misrepresented the results of his reference material (i.e., he lied through his teeth).
He can't rip it apart if not a single one of his attacking points is factual.
He bad-mouthed it, but he proved nothing other his own willingness to abandon fact for an agenda.
Peak weight on Standard American Diet: 316.8 lbs
Initial Weight When Starting Primal: 275 lbs
Current weight: 210.8 lbs
Goal weight: 220 lbs (or less): MISSION ACCOMPLISHED.
The way "ChooseMyPlate.gov" should have looked:
Honestly, I'd rather live a few years less and enjoy what I eat than have a few more years of being bored shitless by my diet.
Meat is Prized, Wheat is Despised.
Real Food - The REAL staff of life
I'm bumping this thread because I just read his book, "The Starch Solution" by Mcdougall and there are some interesting points that should be addressed from the Paleo/Primal perspective. I'm curious about the Paleo perspective on the specific points below. Now, I'm not about to give up my Eggs/beef/lamb/oxtail/cheese but his book is definitely food for thought.
Note that I'm paraphrasing his viewpoints based on my reading of the book. Please correct me if I paraphrased any of his points incorrectly. I added in my own questions in with the paraphrased points as well. I hope the points are well written enough for an intelligent discussion.
1. If you are in positive nitrogen balance, then you are getting enough protein in your diet. He believes that 40 to 60 grams of protein per day is enough and you will be in positive nitrogen balance with that amount. What are the dangers of keeping protein this low?
2. The amino acid methionine is metabolized into homocysteine which is a risk factor for a bunch of diseases. Is a high level of methionine in the diet really harmful?
3. De novo lipogenesis (conversion of sugar to fat) does not happen easily in humans. Even though many animals are good at this, humans are not. If you consume excess starch you will more likely burn it off with excess body heat, fidgeting, or you will be driven to physical activity. Is this true?
4. High glycemic carbs can be beneficial because the high insulin spike that follows is good for controlling appetite. Is this true?
5. He thinks that good sources of starch are rice, corn, potatoes, sweet potatoes, and beans. These should be the centerpiece of the diet - source of the majority of a person's calories. I avoid beans because of the anti-nutrients. But would it be harmful for a person to get over half of their calories from rice, corn, potatoes, and sweet potatoes?
6. He does not think salt is harmful and a low salt diet can be harmful.
7. He does not think moderate amounts of sugar is harmful. He thinks its okay to use sauces with sugar in them to make the starch based foods taste better.
8. He thinks dietary fat is incredibly easy for the body to store. Therefore eating too much fat will make you fat.
9. He thinks all animal products should be avoided. Personally, I'm still convinced that you need animal products to reach optimal health. My question here is would some people benefit from reducing meat and increasing starch. I'm not talking about eliminating meat - just altering the ratios of starch to animal products.
I don't know everything, but I DO know that "humans can't easily turn carbohydrates into fat" is rubbish... there are a LOT of people eating a high carb low fat diet, and guess what? They're fat! Obviously it isn't the fat in the food that they're eating that's the problem. As soon as I dropped my carbs and increased my fat, I lost weight. Many, many people here have done the same... increasing fat, and ironically, losing body fat.
I have met McDougall many times, been to his programs, followed his diet for a very long time. I struggled like hell to lose weight, and his answer was that I was cheating (I wasn't). That is what he tells anyone who is not having 100% success on his diet.. that they are cheating, and he refuses to even consider any other option.
He's not really an activist, he's just a guy who is interested in making money, and doesn't mind if that's on the back of people who are sick and fat. He never really seemed to give a crap about the PETA agenda that I could tell, but being allies with them gives him a great way to get more money from more people.
I think he may have started out with good intentions when he practiced as a physician in Hawaii, but I think once anyone gets that kind of notoriety and money by adhering to a particular stance, it's very difficult to change your opinion. He's got a big family to support, and this is the only way that he and the wife make money. So, he almost HAS to attack other diets to help preserve his own line of business.