Ayurvedic physician (American style Ayurveda) Dr. Douillard interviews Dr. McDougall, who loses his composure.

[www.youtube.com]

McDougall makes a few good points but his behavior is contemptible - beyond rude. This video screams, "Don't be a vegan!" It is most unfortunate.

Hi Horsea
I am assuming you are female from the a in your name.
sometimes men get a little quirky and uppity but you can't condemn their message for that.

Dr. Mcdougall helped pass a bill to require nutrition training for doctors. Mcdoougall has studied tons of studies about nutrition for decades and put forth very credible information. McDougall doesn't look so good because his former life was bad with chain smoking and bad eating. I think he had a stroke in his 20s and would smoke 2-3 packs a day.


He deserves a lot of respect for the decades of work in nutrition and mainstream medicine.

Bottom line, though, is that McDougall doesn't preach veganism. He says there are no vegan civilizations. So, you are a bit wrong about him being bad for veganism. He promotes plant-based eating. He is not a religious vegan.

McDougall doesn't look so good because his former life was bad with chain smoking and bad eating. I think he had a stroke in his 20s and would smoke 2-3 packs a day.

He doesn't look physically bad at all, for his age. That is not what the complaints are about. It is his odd behavior toward Dr Douillard.

It is an unfair world, where people are judged not by their learning or their knowledge, but also by how they come across. When you are trying to promote a plant-based diet you had better be nice to those who are giving you air time. That's baseball, that's the way it goes.

Also, after quite a few years of what he claims is a healthy diet, the effects of the smoking and heavy meat and junk food eating should be totally gone.

I hear this endlessly: whenever a person who is following and promoting an unpopular, uncommon diet of ANY kind (from keto to high starch to no-starch to all-raw to all-meat and everything else) develops serious symptoms, the followers always attribute this to something their hero did 20 or 30 years ago. I am not buying it.

If you watched the entire video, you will see symptoms over and above standard-issue poor personality. He is ill. It's not sinful or criminal to be ill, it never is, but I want to know why his diet is not working for him anymore.

Thanks.

when you see people dying prematurely from bad diets and you see the environment being polluted unnecessarily, you may get a little rude.

a chiropractor who promotes meat as medicine invited John McDougall on his show. It was bound to be contentious. The interview was set up for disagreement. The interview was set up to show contrast. I don't agree with your assessment, Horsea.

with the all the vegans falling off the bandwagon, I am going to spend a little time defending McDougall.

Meat as medicine is just that - medicine. Not a forever way of eating. I would not avail myself of such "medicine" but we were not designed to take supplements either. Yet I suspect that a good number of rawfooders/vegans do take them in order to avoid McDougall's symptoms 30 years from now. I take a few and don't feel upset because it's "unnatural".

There are some interesting comments on lifespa's website about that debacle of an interview. Tai, McDougall is not well, he seems drunk, with the pugnaciousness that so many drunks show.

I went to McDougall's website and I think I see at least one thing that is wrong with the recommended diet, namely, no fats & oils at all. I don't mean just extracted fats (not sure we need those) but not even nuts & seeds & avocado. Try eating that diet for decades and see if you don't start acting odd. Go to google and look up "conditions that make you appear drunk".

Have the last word, now.

Maybe McDougall was drunk so to speak, as he might have been on some medication, but his message is the same old. He is not against a small amount of nuts and seeds, but he says for some people, like himself, they can't stop at a little, they eat the whole bag. I read in his newsletters before that he says a small amount is fine. He has an addictive nature to certain substances, like cigarettes and nuts, so he has to be totally strict with himself.

Essylstyn is against oil too, as are many doctors. And he views heart patients differently to other people when it comes to diet restrictions.

To me, McDougall looks very deficient in many nutrients. And for him to have focused on the standard western foods cuts off many nutrient-dense foods, like tonic herbs and he has missed out on nutrient dense seeds. However, as far as his level of comprehension and intelligence of conversation, he is consistent in his message. I thought his message wasn't too negative.
We know that raw food heals, but McDougall's point is that large civilizations got their bulk of calories from starch.

This following video lays the subject to rest. The video that McDougall did with the chiropractor was done months ago, maybe 3 months ago, even though the chiro only recently published it. And when Horsea calls this chiropractor an ayurvedic physician, the man calls himself a chiropractor when introducing himself in front of McDougall.

So in this video recently done by McDougall just days ago, he calmly interviews the man who went on a potato-only diet. If you contrast this video with the video done with the chiro, you can see that McDougall was just trying to school the chiropractor.

[youtu.be]

John McDougall, MD interviews Andrew (Spudfit) Taylor, Webinar 03/28/19

John McDougall

Published on Mar 31, 2019

Andrew Taylor’s story went viral when the world caught wind of the then 36 year old Aussie dad who had embarked upon a quest to eat only potatoes for the entirety of 2016.

But to assume – as most did, at first – that this was some clown doing something crazy and unhealthy on a whim for 15 minutes of fame, was to miss both the perfect logic of the experiment itself, and the exceedingly powerful and timely message Andrew brings. Hint: it’s not about the potatoes.

In late 2015, the former junior Australian Champion marathon kayaker was in the depths of despair after yet another failed attempt in a lifetime of dieting that had left him even heavier than before – 151.7kg.

From his black hole of clinical anxiety and depression, desperate to be the man he hoped his young son could look up to, he had an epiphany: he was a food addict.

Logically then, to Andrew, who thinks outside the square, he should treat his food addiction the same way you would treat any other addiction: through abstinence – or as close to it as you can get.
Armed with a degree in Applied Science (Human Movement) and a fascination with all things nutrition-related, the former high school physical education/health teacher spent six weeks researching ‘the perfect food’ before he settled on the humble spud – just in time to begin a whole year break from thinking about food on New Year’s Day, 2016.

With the media frenzy that followed his 'Spud Fit Challenge' story came the opportunity to help thousands of other food addicts deal with their own food psychology issues while losing weight and getting healthier along the way.

Andrew’s first short book, 'The D.I.Y. Spud Fit Challenge' : a how-to guide to tackling food addiction with the humble spud’ was co-authored by his wife Mandy van Zanen and has helped many people to break the shackles of food addiction.

Andrew now spends his time coaching others through food addiction through 'The Spud Fit Academy' community, speaking, making Youtube videos and interviewing ground breakers such as Rich Roll, James Aspey, Doug Lisle and Alan Goldhamer for his podcast. He has also just released his second book

I have to agree that he does not look well. The mental instability is clear. I mean he won't even let the other man speak without interrupting and yelling. I need to make a video soon addressing these "Paleo" and "No society was ever vegan" nonsense. Since when did eating whatever you could to merely survive, translate into an optimal diet? From a survival standpoint, it's better to eat some flesh and drink some milk then it is to starve to death. But again, what's the relevance to optimal health?

www.phytopanacea.com

From a survival standpoint, it's better to eat some flesh and drink some milk then it is to starve to death. But again, what's the relevance to optimal health?

The relevance to optimal health is that, over a long period of time (several generations) certain populations will actually, to some degree, evolve according to that diet they were forced to consume as a matter of survival. Their children will then require a similar diet.

That's where the arguments begin: was there some special, magic time in history where everyone was healthy all of the time with what they had available? Various cultures have myths about a Golden Age where that was apparently true. Then, the Fall. This is not a myth in the negative sense, but probably correct. Too bad that those of us who even give a hoot about such things have only parts and pieces of these ancient times.

JMO.

Quote
Horsea
From a survival standpoint, it's better to eat some flesh and drink some milk then it is to starve to death. But again, what's the relevance to optimal health?

The relevance to optimal health is that, over a long period of time (several generations) certain populations will actually, to some degree, evolve according to that diet they were forced to consume as a matter of survival. Their children will then require a similar diet.

That's where the arguments begin: was there some special, magic time in history where everyone was healthy all of the time with what they had available? Various cultures have myths about a Golden Age where that was apparently true. Then, the Fall. This is not a myth in the negative sense, but probably correct. Too bad that those of us who even give a hoot about such things have only parts and pieces of these ancient times.

JMO.

If we're looking at the large majority of pre-human history, they ate mostly plants.

[www.inverse.com]

[blogs.scientificamerican.com]

www.phytopanacea.com

@jtprindl. Different experts say different things about humans' long-ago diet. In any event, every part of the world would have different food locally available and so not everyone would be eating the same thing world-wide. Who says everyone started out in Africa? That idea has been challenged, too.

I think it's some kind of curse that we are genetically wired to eat what our ancestors ate over time not just what they ate a million years ago. Our bodies bear the marks of many histories says the article from the Scientific American.

In any case, "science" isn't objective and never was. Everything is political now. Possibly the motive of these study-writers was to encourage everyone to eat a totally plant based diet. Now, you and I can be healthy, but our motivations came to us naturally, not out of any belief about human origins and we are mightily interested in food and nutrition. The folks who run the world want a populace of weaklings; endless entertainments and other distractions were just Phase 1. Conspiracy theory? Yup. And I'm buying it.

If the ignorant, unthinking general population was encouraged to eat plant-based, you would end up with weak, deficient, sickened people because their bodies are accustomed to the concentrated nutrients found in meat 'n' dairy and it will take generations to evolve. They don't want to study nutrition, take supplements, eat special concentrated foods, they want it to taste good, that's all. Mouth feel, etc. So over a generation, I suspect they will come apart at the seams.

You have to have the right motivations for your body to make sense of meals that are completely different from what our ancestors ate for aeons.

Has anyone here borne children after eating a 100% plant based diet for years and during pregnancy itself? I could not. I had desires for dairy food I would have killed for during the first trimesters. Concerns about cows and calves just disappeared. And nursing? My god, that makes you twice as hungry! Everything looks good.

Quote
Horsea
@jtprindl. Different experts say different things about humans' long-ago diet. In any event, every part of the world would have different food locally available and so not everyone would be eating the same thing world-wide. Who says everyone started out in Africa? That idea has been challenged, too.

I think it's some kind of curse that we are genetically wired to eat what our ancestors ate over time not just what they ate a million years ago. Our bodies bear the marks of many histories says the article from the Scientific American.

In any case, "science" isn't objective and never was. Everything is political now. Possibly the motive of these study-writers was to encourage everyone to eat a totally plant based diet. Now, you and I can be healthy, but our motivations came to us naturally, not out of any belief about human origins and we are mightily interested in food and nutrition. The folks who run the world want a populace of weaklings; endless entertainments and other distractions were just Phase 1. Conspiracy theory? Yup. And I'm buying it.

If the ignorant, unthinking general population was encouraged to eat plant-based, you would end up with weak, deficient, sickened people because their bodies are accustomed to the concentrated nutrients found in meat 'n' dairy and it will take generations to evolve. They don't want to study nutrition, take supplements, eat special concentrated foods, they want it to taste good, that's all. Mouth feel, etc. So over a generation, I suspect they will come apart at the seams.

You have to have the right motivations for your body to make sense of meals that are completely different from what our ancestors ate for aeons.

Has anyone here borne children after eating a 100% plant-based diet for years and during pregnancy itself? I could not. I had desires for dairy food I would have killed for during the first trimesters. Concerns about cows and calves just disappeared. And nursing? My god, that makes you twice as hungry! Everything looks good.

The way I look at it is, animal products are never healthy unless the alternative is severe malnutrition or starvation. That's what we find when we look at dietary science. TMAO, Neu5GC, oxysterols, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, heterocyclic amines, and advanced glycation end products. All extremely toxic to the human body. There are so many studies and so many reasons to avoid animal products.

Now, it is true that some groups of people can handle animal products and toxicity better than others on a genetic level. For example, someone with naturally low systemic levels of glutathione is at a major disadvantage compared to the average and therefore will be less able to handle toxicity because our bodies need glutathione in order to detoxify.

www.phytopanacea.com

For example, someone with naturally low systemic levels of glutathione is at a major disadvantage compared to the average and therefore will be less able to handle toxicity because our bodies need glutathione in order to detoxify.

Low glutathione may be associated with insufficient sulfur in the diet. I take MSM for that.

Quote
Horsea
For example, someone with naturally low systemic levels of glutathione is at a major disadvantage compared to the average and therefore will be less able to handle toxicity because our bodies need glutathione in order to detoxify.

Low glutathione may be associated with insufficient sulfur in the diet. I take MSM for that.

True, my only point was that even if certain groups of people have been eating 'paleo' and therefore have evolved differently to better handle paleo foods, it's still not optimal, but merely doable for some. I and many others prefer optimal instead. I'm still shocked at the number of doctors and health practitioners that recommend animal foods. It's irresponsible to tell people to eat these foods without telling them about all of the dangers they're associated with and what the science says.

I think of the things that convince people that animal products are "right" for them is that they come from a malnourished and toxic diet. So they're coming from the very lowest possible standard, and then they see a Dietitian or something and start eating "grass-fed, free-range, organic, etc." animal products and likely more fruits and vegetables and think "Oh my God I'm feeling so much better" and then credit animal products as part of why. However, it's not the animal products, it's the nourishment and ridding the junk food. Both feats that can be achieved WITHOUT animal foods that will also keep you away from the TMAO, Neu5GC, oxysterols, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, heterocyclic amines, and advanced glycation end products.

www.phytopanacea.com

I think of the things that convince people that animal products are "right" for them is that they come from a malnourished and toxic diet. So they're coming from the very lowest possible standard, and then they see a Dietitian or something and start eating "grass-fed, free-range, organic, etc." animal products

I read the stuff on Weston Price Foundation (as I read plenty of material on all dietary viewpoints) and am actually shocked at what they raise their babies and children on. Then they publish articles on how very, very beautiful and healthy those kids (supposedly) are. Only one examples, there are many more to be found at the Weston Price site.


Four-year-old Moses Gabriel continues to thrive on a traditional
foods diet. His round head and face have allowed for
generous dental arches (according to his biological dentist,
who promotes a traditional foods diet). This is amazing
considering that Moses is a carrier of the common MTHFR
genetic mutation. A regular intake of grass-fed meats,
whole goat yogurt, salmon roe, kombucha, pastured eggs
and A2 butter contribute greatly to the vibrancy and health
of this smart, fun and engaging young person who is often
mistaken for being older because of his unusual vocabulary,
stature and large head circumference. Meeting and
interacting with new people of all ages adds to his amazing
disposition—thanks to the WAPF information available to
his mother years prior to conception, and the grace of God.


My complaint with feedings little kids so much animal product is that they are not developing flexibility. Animal foods contain much predigested, ready-to-go nutrients. Their bodies don't have to learn how to get along on less rich food and then transmute it as necessary. I find it an ominous sign that the above described baby is mistaken for being older because of his unusual vocabulary, large stature and large head. We were designed to develop at a certain rate and parents who are thrilled that little Johnny is such a genius are going to realize there is a sting in the tail down the line.

At some point, these kids will be no smarter or healthier than the vast majority of their peers. I would not be surprised if they developed Type 2 diabetes when older. Large, rangy constitutional types seem to be far more prone to this disease. Since when does fast growth = health? Tell that to all those tiny people in SE Asia.

Also, at some point, the body will rebel against all this heavy animal food. Unless you are aboriginal, it is not in our genetic background to eat in this manner.

Its amusing to see debates like that...

It makes me think of all the time wasted with pointless studies by supposed experts talking experimenting debating .. talks discussions conferences books all wasted time pointless...What to breathe what to eat how to walk how to talk why is it that what to eat is the only one that requires all these experts and discussions and books..

What to eat should be something that comes from within interacting with one's environment it should not be a subject of study absurd

What to eat should be something that comes from within interacting with one's environment it should not be a subject of study absurd

True enough, in theory. However, the reality is that we, or at least most of us, have lost touch with our natural environment and are living in grossly un-natural ones. What - you want city people to eat according to what they see every day, namely, concrete and skyscrapers and noisy crowds? Well, I suppose that eating junk food is then the appropriate thing to do. Junk atmosphere = junk diet. Let's grab your heavily additive-loaded oh-so-hip street food during ourlunch hour then go back to our cubicles in our EMF smog and slug coffee to stay awake over our probably-meaningless job. LOL.

I didn't mean literally interacting with one environment today..we are intelligent enough to do thought experiments to imagine what we would eat if we were in a natural environment ...model ourselves off of similar animals such as chimps.. very simple to do

Quote
Horsea
Ayurvedic physician (American style Ayurveda) Dr. Douillard interviews Dr. McDougall, who loses his composure.

[www.youtube.com]

McDougall makes a few good points but his behavior is contemptible - beyond rude. This video screams, "Don't be a vegan!" It is most unfortunate.

Have you spent 50 years hearing meateaters tell you how meat is necessary and beneficial ?no you haven't ...until you do that let's see how you react to yet another interview with yet another dumb meat proponent

When you are being formally interviewed as a representative of a certain way of life, it is your duty to come across well. This is not a private conversation between two persons that someone secretly recorded.

I suspect that McDougall is lacking in nutrients that nourish the brain.

I agree that he was acting a bit wild.

I was also suggesting that you place yourself in his shoes, apparently you are not interested in doing so. are you always and at all times mature and composed?
i know i am not.

and i reject the common opinion you've put forth that he is missing nutrients because of his behavior. it is without any actual evidence. nevertheless people enjoy making that assertion repeatedly.

I was also suggesting that you place yourself in his shoes, apparently you are not interested in doing so. are you always and at all times mature and composed?
i know i am not.

No, I am not always mature and composed. But if I were a professional, I would make every effort to be gracious to those who appear to be pulling my chain. However, I do not think that Douillard was deliberately doing that; he was acting as an interviewer, not as a pal he was having a disagreement with in private.