Guest guest Posted April 18, 2008 Report Share Posted April 18, 2008 > I guess Eat to Live must be similar to the McDougall Healthy Heart > program, then, huh? The main differences is that Fuhrman is fruit and veggie based with unlimited beans and limited starches, and McDougall limits fruits and beans but has unlimited starch. I think Dr. F limits salt, too. There are a few other differences, but those are the biggies. Susan has a little description on her main web site http://www.fatfreevegan.com/etl/index.shtml Sue in NJ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 18, 2008 Report Share Posted April 18, 2008 On 4/18/08, Sue in NJ <sue_in_nj wrote: > > The main differences is that Fuhrman is fruit and veggie based with > unlimited beans and limited starches, and McDougall limits fruits and > beans but has unlimited starch. I think Dr. F limits salt, too. At the risk of stirring up controversies, which do you think is preferable? I'm on Dr. Barnard's program and he doesn't limit anything (within the constraints of vegan, low-fat, and low or medium glycemic levels.) With Barnard, I find my diet seems to naturally drift more in the Fuhrman direction than the McDougall direction, as described here. I am heavy on the beans and light on the grains. > There are a few other differences, but those are the biggies. Susan has > a little description on her main web site > http://www.fatfreevegan.com/etl/index.shtml Thanks for the link! Sparrow Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 18, 2008 Report Share Posted April 18, 2008 Sparrow R Jones wrote: > On 4/18/08, Sue in NJ <sue_in_nj wrote: > > The main differences is that Fuhrman is fruit and veggie based with > > unlimited beans and limited starches, and McDougall limits fruits > > and beans but has unlimited starch. I think Dr. F limits salt, too. > > > > At the risk of stirring up controversies, which do you think is > preferable? McDougall doesn't limit fruits and beans for everyone, though -- just for people struggling with heart disease and/or weight issues, right? My feeling is that some plans are better for people with certain ailments -- diabetics should probably do Dr. Barnard's thing, and people with heart disease are likely to be best served by doing the McDougall plan, etc. Serene Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 19, 2008 Report Share Posted April 19, 2008 > At the risk of stirring up controversies, which do you think is > preferable? I thought I sent this to the list, but it never appeared. Apologies if there end up being two of them. > At the risk of stirring up controversies, which do you think is > preferable? The one you'll stick with long-term. :-) I think the answer to this is likely to be very individual, depending upon a person's tastes and physiology. I tend to move between Fuhrman and McDougall depending upon the season and what is available from my garden or farmer's market. In the summer I eat a lot more fruit and in the winter I eat a lot more grains/beans. I also believe that what works well for someone changes with time. Take care, Mary Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 19, 2008 Report Share Posted April 19, 2008 Along with diet: with my metabolism (hypothyroidism) a combo of aerobic exercise & strength training is imperative to maintaining my ideal weight. - threefatesfiber Friday, April 18, 2008 4:16 PM Re: Eat to Live description > At the risk of stirring up controversies, which do you think is> preferable? I thought I sent this to the list, but it never appeared. Apologies ifthere end up being two of them.> At the risk of stirring up controversies, which do you think is> preferable? The one you'll stick with long-term. :-)I think the answer to this is likely to be very individual, dependingupon a person's tastes and physiology. I tend to move between Fuhrmanand McDougall depending upon the season and what is available from mygarden or farmer's market. In the summer I eat a lot more fruit andin the winter I eat a lot more grains/beans. I also believe that whatworks well for someone changes with time.Take care,Mary Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 19, 2008 Report Share Posted April 19, 2008 You should add the dietary suggestions of Caldwell B. Esselstyn, Jr., M.D. see his short video and more at http://heartattackproof.com/ My personal doctor is Dr. Fuhrman and I try to follow his advice. HOWEVER my personal opinion is that ALL of these people have sound advice that works, so take your pick and tweak to your preferences. Focus on the things you don't eat anymore and DON'T eat them, EVER. ANY of these people's advice steers you solidly into the sensible area and away from the disease causing SAD diet. Following ANY of them you are easily 80% toward where you need to be. Unless you have been at 80% for a LONG time, I don't think stressing over the fine points is very useful. Just keep at the 80% without exception. Adjusting the fine points should be done in consultation with a physician on board with this stuff and in a review of extensive blood work that has settled down after a long time of eating this way (at least a year). Mark > > > > The main differences is that Fuhrman is fruit and veggie based with > > unlimited beans and limited starches, and McDougall limits fruits and > > beans but has unlimited starch. I think Dr. F limits salt, too. > > At the risk of stirring up controversies, which do you think is > preferable? I'm on Dr. Barnard's program and he doesn't limit anything > (within the constraints of vegan, low-fat, and low or medium glycemic > levels.) With Barnard, I find my diet seems to naturally drift more in > the Fuhrman direction than the McDougall direction, as described here. > I am heavy on the beans and light on the grains. > > > There are a few other differences, but those are the biggies. Susan has > > a little description on her main web site > > http://www.fatfreevegan.com/etl/index.shtml > > Thanks for the link! > > Sparrow > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 19, 2008 Report Share Posted April 19, 2008 > At the risk of stirring up controversies, which do you think is > preferable? Each person has to decide for him/herself. What can you live without more. What can your body tolerate living with/without? No one food plan is right for everyone. Sue in NJ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 19, 2008 Report Share Posted April 19, 2008 > McDougall doesn't limit fruits and beans for everyone, though -- just > for people struggling with heart disease and/or weight issues, right? I was using the MWLP for comparison purposes, not the regular plan. Dr. Furhman has a few variations in his plan, too, I think. He has a stricter version - 6 weeks long, I think. I only read the book once from the library so someone who is following the plan can certainly help you more than I can. Sue in NJ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 19, 2008 Report Share Posted April 19, 2008 Sue in NJ wrote: > > McDougall doesn't limit fruits and beans for everyone, though -- > > just for people struggling with heart disease and/or weight issues, > > right? > > I was using the MWLP for comparison purposes, not the regular plan. > Dr. Furhman has a few variations in his plan, too, I think. He has a > stricter version - 6 weeks long, I think. I only read the book once > from the library so someone who is following the plan can certainly > help you more than I can. Oh, it's okay. I've read every book of his multiple times. I was just making sure you didn't have some new info I didn't have. :-) Thanks! Serene Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.