The main part of your diet is raw/steamed fruits and vegetables
Next in line would be whole grains
Then would be nuts, etc
Up at the top would be meat and dairy
I was wondering if any Dopers had read this book/have experience with the diet and know whether or not it’s healthy, feasible, etc. I’m hoping for informed opinions (kind of like how I wouldn’t ask a question about what the Atkins diet is about and want to have someone answer with “it sucks because it’s all double bacon cheeseburgers without the bun”).
I haven’t read this book or indeed heard of this particular diet, but from the overview you’ve provided it sounds similiar to the “Okinawan Plan”, based upon the traditional diet of the people of Okinawa. The Okinawans have traditionally had dramatically low incidence of many forms of cancer, low rates of heart disease and stroke, and one of the highest average lifespans of any population; in modern days, when their diet consists more of fast food than fresh fish and vegetables, their rates of obesity and chronic illness have risen to the same levels as other populations of the developed nations, suggesting that genetics plays only a small part in their health. (It is worth noting, though, that the Okinawan study, on which it is based, reviewed not only the diet but the entire lifestyle, including exercise, stress relief/spiritual habits, social contacts, et cetera.)
Back to the OP, it sounds, from the sparse description provided, to be a reasonable diet, bulking up on low calorie, high fiber foods with a lot of complex carbohydrates and avoiding a lot of fats, simple sugars, and excessive protein. (My biggest complaint about Atkins and similar diets is that they deliberately load up on protein to toxic levels, forcing the liver to work extra hard; but at least Atkins does avoid substituting high glycemic processed carbs in lieu of fats.) It’s important to make certain you are getting enough protein–always a problem with vegetarian or high veg/fiber diets–but unless you are a hard core vegan or salad addict that is rarely a problem, as an average of 2-4 oz of low fat protein a day is sufficient for most people who aren’t in an intensive weight training program.
Well my opinion, informed or not, is to look at the maintance section, what to eat when you reach your goal weight. IF it just says go back to eating like you did before the diet, this diet won’t work, if the food they recommend is something that you would want to live with then it has a shot, if it’s something that you will feel deprived for the rest of your life then it won’t.
I bought the book after seeing Joel speak at a local venue. I can’t personally speak as to it’s effectiveness because generally I’m too lazy/busy to shop for and prepare food at home so I haven’t really started the plan yet. But some observations from seeing him and from reading the book:
Altho the emphasis is effectively on raw fruits and vegetables (some cooked to bring out specific nutrients), his main point is that you should eat food with the highest nutrient per calorie ratio.
This isn’t a diet in the sense of a short term change in eating habits to fit into a bikini this summer. It’s how you should be eating all the time.
You will lose weight, but the diet is more about eating lots of nutrients than about eating less food. In fact Joel encourages you to eat large portions of the highest nutrient foods.
Joel doesn’t seem to have a specific agenda or pop theory. He just went in with an open mind and spent years giong through all the scientific nutrition studies to see what we actually konw about diet and nutrition.
So again, I’ve been too lazy to really commit myself to the diet yet so I can’t speak from personal experience, but in person and in his book he comes off as knowledgeable, scientific, sincere, and very un-fad.
also
Getting enough protein is only a problem for vegetarians whose diet consists of nutrient poor foods like bleached grains and junk food. There is plenty in quantity and diversity of protein in a healthy vegetarian or vegan diet. Generally the only thing you have to watch out for is B-12 deficiency. And probably even this is only true because we wash small insects and microorganisms off our produce.
After doing a search engine, I thought I’d resurrect this thread since Joel Furhman is getting more attention these days. I recently bought Joel Furhman’s, Eat to Live after seeing him on PBS. As if that wasn’t enough to scare the Jesus out of me, another that also compliments his book nicely is The China Study.
As a white boy that loves his milk (3 gallons a week of skim milk typical) I’m very disappointed in what the data has to say about this. I thought it being skim milk was helping me considerably. While many researches will tell you skim milk is better for you as opposed to the so-called low fat or whole milk, it seems that it isn’t just the saturated fat that we need to be concerned about, but animal protein, and in milks case, the protein casein.
His book shows protein from animal products is causing a lot of the problems, while the protein in plant products it is not. I spent the last three days reading over some 750 pages of both books, so don’t have time to go back and dig everything up just now, but will if others want to know more.
Some other tidbits I’ve learned. Our government pumps in some 20 billion dollars of price supports that benefit the dairy, beef and veal industries. The vegetable and fruit industries are excluded from any of this money. As some may already know, the USDA lets the dairy industry continue to advertise as low-fat milk, by basing it on weight. E.g., 2% low-fat milk as most may already know actually has a fat content of 35% based on calories which is what many health gurus say it should be really based on… Whole milk is 49%.
On page 60, it lists 12 countries showing percentage of deaths of heart disease and cancer combined, and then showing the percentage of calories from each country that got their calories from unrefined food. In America, it’s in the 70% range that die from heart attacks and cancer, while we get only about 12% of our food being unrefined. In Laos, about 5% of people die from heart disease and cancer, while they get over 90% of their calories from unrefined foods. If you are asking what do they die from then, unfortunately, much of it is nutritional inadequacy and poor sanitation problems of which Campbell goes into more detail in The China Study.
But actually, I think something else should have also been pointed out here. In America we live some 15 years or so longer than Laotians. Had Americans been checking out 15 years earlier, and the Laotians living our life expectancy, I’m not sure their heart disease and cancer rates would have went up considerably. It would have been very interesting to see if their diet protected them against heart disease and cancer during their seventies and eighties.
Furhman allows some meat and dairy products, but it’s rare. One thing that is neat about it, is that for some food groups, you can eat as much as you like. According to him, he says, by eating some foods, you will actually show a negative caloric intake, due to how much longer the food stays in your digestive tract. I kind of have doubts about this claim of negative caloric intake, but, I’m not qualified to know for sure if this is actually the case.
One interesting thing I took note of from the Framingham heart studies mentioned is that this particular researcher didn’t show a single person that had a heart attack whose cholesterol level was 150 or less. I want to pursue this more. If we want to lower our cholesterol, getting away from more animal products and refined foods, and eat more beans and greens, fruits, seeds, nuts and other vegetables seems like a way to do it. Here’s a quick google I found about the man behind these heart studies: http://www.chiphealth.com/about_chip/documents/Section3_1316.pdf
Following Fuhrman’s diet is going to cause huge weight loss if that is what you want, and you actually can follow it. I didn’t buy the book for that, I’ve always maintained my 150-155 lb weight, but naturally want to hold off heart disease and cancer if someone may be on to something. I’m 53 now, jog a 5k 3X a week, and try to eat healthy foods by mostly avoiding meats and saturated foods, but come to find out, if he, Campbell, and others are correct in their data, I am at a much greater risk heart disease and cancer because of my diet.
If you’re health conscious, do yourself a favor and read at least one of these books, and ask yourself if you’ll ever view meat and dairy products the same.
The more I read though, I think the more confused I get. Think you got it all figured out? Good, explain it to me.
Our body doesn’t give two shits where a protein comes from. The proteins are broken down into their constituent amino acids, and then they are just the same as any other. I assume part of this plan that prefers plant proteins relates to the fact that they are generally lower in fat, therefore lower in calories for the protein one’s getting. This is the same reason that long-time vegetarians/vegans complaining about how hard it would be on their bodies to eat meat are wrong; there is no enzyme specifically for meat protein that they lose without eating meat (although this can happen for lactose/lactase).
There are any number of other reasons to avoid animal products, if you’re concerned about animal welfare/environmental impact/cost/whatever other thousands of reasons people have.
And it is disingenuous to talk about the subsidies given to American dairy farmers without mentioning the subsidies given to practically every other commodity farmer as well. Plenty of other books about veganism/vegetarianism gloss over that as well.
My sister-in-law and her fiancé are following this diet, and she gave me the book to page through.
I’m not a nutrition maven, but the Eat to Live diet seems to be very restrictive and forbids more than it allows. I don’t think I could follow it long enough to reap meaningful benefit from it. So far, I’ve managed to lose 60 pounds on portion control, as well as reducing the amount of sugar and fat I consume, and it’s something I can stay with for the long haul.
That being said, there is no “perfect” diet, and Eat to Live is no exception. If it works for you, that’s great, and more power to you. But there are plenty of other diets that are equally supported by science that work just as well.
Based on my experience and the experiences of countless people I have known, following a highly-touted diet that sports a guru/author, book, fancy name, etc. will usually end up in failure.
If you want to permanently lose weight, talk to someone who used to be fat and has kept the weight off for at least 10 years. (These people are rare. I am one of them.) You will learn that their diet doesn’t have a name. You will also learn that they lost weight by making simple but permanent changes to their eating habits. It requires a *permanent *change in lifestyle, which is something 90% of dieters can’t or won’t do.
Being fat or obese is not a physical problem. It’s a mental problem.
Is that really true? Out bodies wouldn’t know the difference between casein protein in milk than a plant protein? What replicate studies would show that the proteins are equal to our bodies and that it doesn’t make a difference in particular with cholesterol? Both Fuhrman and Campbell, (with the latter 35 years into heavy research into this) have shown with plenty of scientific studies that animal proteins raise cholesterol, promotes cancer and bone loss, while plant proteins lowers cholesterol, lessens cancer and bone loss.
I said price supports, not subsidies, and not sure if it makes that much of a difference, and I haven’t fact checked this with any other source it but he says that:
I think he is overselling parts of it, like most of ‘em do, but there was still a wealth of info to cull over which I think some of it is going to be very useful.
Do you have a cite that specifically links animal proteins to an increase in cholesterol, cancers, and bone loss? I am aware that animal fats aren’t the healthiest, at least in excess. But do you have a cite that links animal proteins to these things?
Ms Robyn, I’ll see if I can an internet cite when I get the time. It would probably be later on in the week. I’m going to be out of town for a few days, but be back Thursday and Friday, only to leave again this weekend. I do have a source for it in Joel Fuhrman’s book. I have the 2011 edition, and on page 101, he covers just that about animal protein and plant protein and the specific differences I noted above.
There is a far more detailed analysis of protein in a chapter devoted to Turning off Cancer in Campbell’s book, The China Study. He spends a great deal of it on protein and noting how proteins are not all alike and also noting like Furhman that animal proteins act considerably different than plant proteins on our bodies. He like Furhman spent a lot of time on the milk protein casein too. That was something I did not like reading about since I’m a big milk drinker. Anyway, I’ll try to get time to get some of this material for you too, when I get back. And if possible, I’ll try to find some internet sources for it. He has some 30 pages of references of thousands of sources in the back, and I’m sure googling some of these names and studies, many should pop up.
There’d be no reason for your body to treat it differently. The body doesn’t do anything with the protein until it has been broken down by enzymes and stomach acid. Any amino acid from a plant source is then indistinguishable from the same one from an animal source. The first 5 pages of google search on plant proteins vs animal proteins are absolutely full of webpages promoting veganism, and the couple I looked at did not have any real science to back it up. The only two hits I found supporting my argument are both from Harvard School of Medicine/School of Public health, saying that:
(bolding mine)
As for the calcium link,
There is also a story about red meat and its link to breast cancer, but they are suggesting that it is unrelated to the food itself and more related to the associated cooking method (damn you, Maillard!)
If I have time Monday, I’ll stop by the library at work and see if we have access to any journals that will address it.
Just for fun, I checked out the USDA’s nutrient database to see what it has to say about milk. In addition to protein (8.26 g per cup of liquid skim milk, fortified with vitamins A and D), it’s got calcium (299 mg), phosphorus (247 mg), and potassium (382 mg). Phosphorus is necessary for bone and tooth health, as is calcium. Calcium and potassium are also vital for proper cardiac and nervous system health; they form part of the conduction system, and deficiencies in these minerals is bad juju. Milk also has other trace minerals that are necessary for human health. Avoiding milk because it’s got casein is like avoiding spinach because it gets stuck in your teeth. It’s a trivial problem that is far outweighed by the obvious benefits. Frankly, considering how much other food I’d have to eat to make up what I’d get from milk, I’m sticking to milk.
But this gets to my point. No one is arguing that an increase in vegetable and fruit consumption is a bad thing; far from it. In fact, I’m doing a cursory search of my university’s medical databases right now to see what they’ve got, and there are lots of studies that suggest that increasing plant intake and decreasing animal intake will help reduce hypertension. But again, is this a function of the proteins themselves, or is this simply reiterating what we already know, which is that animal fat contributes to health problems?
I did find one study that says that reducing carbohydrates in favor of lean red meat helps reduce blood pressure in otherwise healthy adults, which I thought was interesting. (Hodgson JM, Burke, V, Beilin LJ, and Puddey, IB; American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, April, 2006) I also found studies that say that casein is beneficial to cancer prevention. I can’t access the article, but I’m quoting the abstract:
(From Current Pharmaceutical Design, issue 200713:8, pp. 813-28, if you want to look it up yourself. Yes, I know the study was funded by the Australian dairy people, but that’s no reason to doubt research that appears in a major pharmaceutical/pharmacology journal. Also, the emphasis is mine.)
Just for fun, I searched for “casein”, “carcinogen” and “Campbell” in the university’s online medical library, and I didn’t find anything of his aside from The China Study. As we scientists know, the matter isn’t settled by one study. Campbell’s work has to be subjected to peer review and analysis, and I didn’t see much of that aside from some book reviews. Now, granted, I didn’t spend a lot of time on this because a) I’m not going to the ends of the earth for a single thread on a message board; and b) it’s not my job to do your work for you. I just did this to see what other studies are out there. If you’ve got cites that don’t come from Campbell, and that come from either reliable scholarly journals or from unbiased sources, I’d love to see 'em.
I don’t know the mechanism and intricate processes involved, and I realize human bodies don’t always act in the same way as animals, but if proteins are indeed indistinguishable from a plant or animal source, quite a few animals shouldn’t treat the proteins any differently as well.
In the Indian studies, Campbell’s and others, first they tested for different levels of casein which show dramatic results. When rats were given the same levels of aflatoxin (AF) administered with 20% protein (casein), they were either dead or near dead from liver tumors at 100 weeks. All rats that were administered the same level of AF but fed the low 5% protein (casein) diet were alive, active and thrifty with sleek hair coats at 100 weeks.
When they switched the animal proteins from it, and went on to plant proteins, while still giving the same amount of aflatoxin (AF), and using different amounts of percentages of protein, 5% and 20% protein levels, 100% of both groups of the plant protein fed rats didn’t develop tumors.
With mice they switched to the hepatitis B virus (HBV), which is going beyond using aflatoxin as a carcinogen. Another man in China initiated these studies by the name of Jifan Hu that was in Campbell’s group and also later joined by Dr. Zhiqiang Cheng. His results were also the same as with previous studies.
These are covered in considerably more depth with “The China Study.” Much of these studies can also be found on-line under medical using the Oxford journals and their search engine.
I also found some studies that show milk may prevent certain cancers in certain areas, some of these are in the Oxford journals. But also other studies showing a strong correlation between dairy products and cancers of various bodily organs.
I didn’t bother to track down much of the studies to find out who was funding what, and what was involved, nor would I completely dismiss them outright by certain groups doing the funding, but too many times studies done that are financed by whatever industry has hired them, have their results skewed.
I’m still going to stick to milk (skim) as well, but seriously cutting back to one gallon that I will hope it will last me 7-10 days. Despite my jogging and average weight, my LDL cholesterol is around 200. Hoping to see that number come down a bit.
I think anytime a particular industry funds a study, it should raise a red flag. Tobacco companies for decades did the same thing. Some of these studies even said it prevented cancer. Whether another group publishes the material, doesn’t give it much more credence to me. If replicates studies came in, from reputable scientists, and the funding didn’t require a special interest in seeing favorable results, it would get my attention if the studies were consistently showing some remarkable results.
I hadn’t asked you to do anything for me. The Journal of National Cancer Institute has some useful info in it, and is on-line. Often their links take you to the Oxford journals. It’ll list scientific studies that show a strong correlation between milk drinkers and certain cancers.
I notice after reading The China Study, Bill Clinton is also on board. Of course, there are a few very lucky ones that have a genetic make-up who can eat pretty much anything and their is LDL cholesterol and other blood work always manages to stay at safe levels. But for the majority of us though, we don’t have that fortune of good luck.
I do agree with you that one study doesn’t mean diddly, and you don’t have to be a scientist to know that. But this is basically what you bring me: one study funded by dairy people, another you briefly cite briefly that you said was interesting concerning lean meats and lowering cholesterol, and a cite from the USDA telling us all the wonderful things about what milk has in it. You told me you weren’t going to the ends of the earth and do my homework for me, and in basically the same breath, tell me to find you some cites on some of this stuff we have been talking about, since you couldn’t find them, and as you stated, didn’t really spend that much time trying to find them.
In regards to a strong association of milk with prostate cancer, Fuhmer cites this study, Journal of National Cancer Institute 1998; 90 (21):1637-47, which I believe is the one listed on-line here. Many other such studies can be found at the Journal of National Cancer Institute which uses much of the Oxford journals.
Concerning a strong correlation between milk consumption and bladder, prostate, colorectal and testicular cancers, Fuhrman cites this study: American Journal Epidemiol 2009, Dec 30 (again, Oxford journals has this). Other studies with correlation to milk consumption and cancer are the Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prevent 2008 Paril. The American Journal of Clinical Nutritions 2007 Dec 86, pages 1722-29. The National Institute of Health-AARP Diet and Health Study American Journal of epidemiol 2007 Dec 1 1270-79 (again Oxford journals) The Cancer Causes Control, 2007 and the Breast Journal Cancer 1996. The Physicians’ Health Study in the April 2000 issue showing daily dairy users having a higher rate of prostate cancer, and in another controlled study conducted in Greece, has shown a stronger association of prostrate cancer and dairy products. This also appears in the European Journal of Cancer Prevention 2000; 9 (2): 119-23. I haven’t tried to find some of these on-line yet, and I apologize in advance if some of the abbreviations are not clear, but that is how it was printed out. I don’t have the extra time tonight to find each and every one, nor do I intend to. For more concerns with animal protein, Fuhrman lists an additional 97 references if your interest takes you that far.
You don’t want anything from Campbell? Why is that exactly when it doesn’t seem to appear you really know much about him or any of his work? He has a Phd in biochemistry. He’s been a part of the National Academy of Sciences. He’s authored over 300 research papers, and has received numerous grants. He’s been professor at various colleges or was on their faculty staff: MIT Cornell, Virginia Tech that I’m familiar with. He is not another SAE (self appointed expert ). Any scientist or layman that has even a mild interest in nutrition or health, would have a hard time escaping his attention and work.
I don’t think Campbell is somebody that can be readily dismissed, especially with his background and credentials. Before his work in The China Study, he maintained a 27 year laboratory research program in experimental animal studies that began in 1960.
Campbell’s, The China Study consisted of 650,000 workers and a 20 year study which is still on going. His, and others work in the human studies, also involved more than 8,000 statistically significant associations between various dietary factors and diseases. Others have used his work along with other studies to get what they refer to as a metanalysis to get one data set. Some of his associates such as Dr. Chen involved more than 200 other professional workers as they carried out the China study.
Concerning the protein intake percentages and cancer, here’s a small bit here of the Indian study, and some of Campbell’s research in a news article.
For “The China Study” 800 or so references to view over, scroll down to pages 369-404 and to review them at Amazon or Google. Some of these are the scientific studies, quite a few others are published in the usual cancer, heart and nutritional publications.
I was a binge eater (and eating when I wasn’t hungry) and dieter (and not eating when I was hungry) for over 20 years! I finally asked a few naturally thin people how they ate. “When I am hungry.” What did they eat? “Whatever I wanted.” I decided to do that for a year, along with walking outside for at least an hour every day.
The first two months were hell. I didn’t know when I was hungry or what I wanted to eat. It was like without outside guidelines, I just did not know my own body’s hunger needs. After a while, though, I learned to recognize hunger and the permission to eat without guilt.
Not all proteins are the same. They are made up of different combinations of amino acids, some are complete some are not, some are digested at different rates, so on. And of course they often come packaged with other stuff, from various fats to nitrites and nitrates in processed meats.
The evidence overall is more pro-milk protein than against it, but of course studies go all over the place. Certainly one can have a very healthy diet without any milk at all, and a very healthy diet with a fair amount of milk.
I noticed colorectal cancer in your list of “strong associations” - the association is indeed strong, but as a protective factor. A pooled analysis of over half a million people for example shows “Milk intake was related to a reduced risk of colorectal cancer” The issue with this protective effect is not if it is real or not, but whether or not it is based on the calcium intake or other factors associated with dairy, such as the sort of protein. And it seems to be both.
Prostate cancer? Here it gets a bit more unclear. Indeed you can find some older epidemiological studies that find an association but actual large prospective studies, e.g. using the Cancer Prevention Study II Nutrition Cohort, find that “[d]airy intake was not associated with prostate cancer risk”. OTOH very large calcium intake, over 2000 mg/d, is a risk factor. OTOH a previous meta-analysis found that there may be a small positive association.
And so on. Damning dairy is not supported by the literature overall.
As far as the bottom line goes - the summary of the nutrition plan as presented in the op is not at all controversial. It is pretty much what the USDA’s current “MyPlate” promotion advises. Half of your “plate” should be vegetables and fruits (more vegetables) and of the other half more grains (whole grain mostly) and lean or good fat (nuts, seeds, fish) protein. Moderate low or no fat dairy (3 cups a day, which would also equal 4.5 oz of cheese, and calcium fortified soy is fine to substitute) is also advised. Add in Pollan’s mantra of staying with real foods, not edible food like substances, in moderation, and you’re golden. (All that added sucrose, fructose syrup, sodium, nitrites/nitrates, etc., is all doubleplus ungood.)
It’s not that I don’t care about Campbell, it’s that I loathe guruism in any form. I don’t care how much education or experience one man has, I want to see research from other people who have analyzed his data and replicated it or not. Otherwise, it’s just taking Campbell at his word. It may not make him a self-appointed expert, but it’s still taking one man at his word and that’s not good science.
As it’s been demonstrated here, research into human nutrition is all over the map because food and people are complex things that can’t easily be isolated into component parts. The same red meat whose fat causes heart disease and some kinds of cancers also has a boatload of protein, iron, and B vitamins, all of which are essential for human health. The same milk that some claim causes cancer and that others claim may protect against cancer also has calcium and phosphorus, among other trace minerals, that will prevent osteoporosis, which is a concern for women my age. (I don’t fear cancer nearly as much as I fear breaking a bone.) The same avocado that some won’t eat because of the fat content has a lot of potassium (more than a banana), along with vitamins E and K and may help reduce high cholesterol. And the list goes on and on. I would venture to say that, for any given food, you can find healthy effects for every “unhealthy” effect.
So what do you do? You learn to eat a balanced diet in appropriate, moderate amounts. I love milk, too, but I limit myself to two servings (and by “serving”, I mean “eight ounces”) per day. I eat animal protein, including red meat, but I’ve learned to eat a lot less of it, and the meat I do eat is much leaner than it used to be. I eat (or try to) five servings of whole fruits and vegetables each day and have vastly increased the amount of whole grains in my diet. Is this a perfect solution? Absolutely, because it’s how humans are meant to eat. (The happy side effect is that I’ve lost 60 lbs. in nine months, and I’m continuing to lose. My labs look fantastic, and I feel wonderful.) Consequently, I don’t give two shits about what Campbell, Fuhrman, or anyone else says. There is no magic bullet to weight loss or good health that doesn’t involve portion control. There just isn’t.