Talk:John A. McDougall

Outdated anti-vegan rhetoric

I suggest the following be removed for outdated and inappropriate claims - in particular need for dairy, protein myth, etc. It is unfair and doesn't deserve to be cited as its medical advice is unsound and not in line with modern research. Vegans have clearly been able to obtain nutrition since and the authors are obviously criticising more than just McDougall.

Reviewing McDougall's book The McDougall Program for Maximum Weight Loss, nutritionist Fredrick J. Stare and epidemiologist Elizabeth Whelan criticized its restrictive regime and "poor advice", concluding that the diet's concepts were "extreme and out of keeping with nutritional reality". The authors state that failure to consume dairy products creates a risk for osteoporosis, and that if animal products cannot be replaced with peanut butter and soybean foods, vegans may not obtain enough protein.[19] Teleoid (talk) 10:32, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Same with Kurt Butler, his critical attitudes are aimed at veganism, a view which has been discredited thoroughly, and therefore cannot be applied to McDougall as evidence of fault:

In 1992, nutritionist Kurt Butler described McDougall's ideas as "vegetarian extremism" and McDougall as "Americas most influential vegan zealot" who has taken the low-fat vegetarian diet to extremes.[5]

Here's an example of this backwardness from the same book (A Consumer's Guide to Alternative Medicine, 1992): [McDougall]... excludes even small amounts of fish and low-fat dairy products.

It's abundantly clear that Kurt Butler's work is blatant anti-Veganism, and as such cannot be permitted. Teleoid (talk) 12:00, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

John A. McDougall has criticized soy, also isolated soy. In his book Starch Solution he has a chapter on soybean foods and isolated soy. He makes a lot of incorrect claims about isolated soy claiming "research shows isolated soy protein is just as damaging as meat protein to the bones". He says that soy including traditional soy should only be eaten as a treat food. On his website he criticizes soy consumption [1] saying it can only be used in "small amounts on special occasions". So you cannot eat a lot of Soy on the McDougall diet.

If you check his website McDougall also calls peanut butter high-fat and says he only uses powdered peanut butter, with 85% of the fat removed [2]. So you would not be eating much peanut butter either on the McDougall diet. He is also anti-oil and incorrectly claims vegetable oils cause cancer. He is anti-nut and anti-seeds claiming incorrectly they make people fat. Brazil nuts are a good source of selenium but you cannot eat them on his diet. Likewise other nuts and seeds are a good source of magnesium and zinc but you cannot eat them on the McDougall diet. He also attacks the use of avocados claiming they make vegans fat.

If you check his website he has also attacked nutritional yeast and fortified foods. He criticizes nutritional supplements apart from b12. More recently he has come out against fruit juice as he says it has too much sugar. At the end of the day, McDougall is anti-fat, anti-oil anti-sugar, anti-fortified food, anti-processed food, anti-energy drink, anti-nuts, anti-seeds, anti-avocado, anti-supplements, looks like he is also anti-fruit now as well. He's almost anti-everything. This goes on. This is a restrictive regime that is devoid of plenty of nutrients. Most people who try his diet give up after a year or two. The quote from nutritionist Fredrick J. Stare and epidemiologist Elizabeth Whelan is accurate. Let's not pretend this restrictive diet is medical-based. Most in the vegan community want nothing to do with McDougall and I say this as someone who has been involved 20 years with the community. The funny thing is, John A. McDougall isn't even a vegan in his personal life. He eats turkey twice a year.

We have had many discussions like this already. The article is well-sourced, Kurt Butler is well qualified and a reliable source. You do not have any reliable sources otherwise you would have cited them by now. There is no need to go over old ground here. Psychologist Guy (talk) 12:27, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately, your personal narrative is not a good source either. Kurt Butler's anti-vegan views are outdated and don't belong in this article, I already explained. The burden of proof should be on why to keep Butler's nonsense, not otherwise. Teleoid (talk) 13:24, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

You are wasting your time here with this, if you want to be a McDougall POV-warrior this isn't the place to do it because the article is well sourced and we are not going to remove WP:RS just because you do not like them. Butler is not opposed to plant-based diets, he just calls out McDougall's extreme claims which lack support. McDougall for example claims that dairy products are the main cause most chronic diseases. This is obviously not true. Read the Wikipedia dairy product article for good sourcing on this.

McDougall isn't helping the vegan cause by making false statements such as dairy causing multiple sclerosis or dementia and olive oil causing cancer. Such claims are not supported by medical evidence. In a few years when you have gained more experience you may regret your former actions here of promoting McDougall pseudoscience. There is no valid to reason to remove Kurt Butler, he is only cited once on the article. In the past he was cited more than this but this was trimmed down. Psychologist Guy (talk) 14:00, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

• Saying you disagree with something isn't really the way this works. If you have an issue with a source then you need to provide other sources. GMG^talk 14:54, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

  @GreenMeansGo: other sources? To prove the original statement is biased, and source weak, old and inappropriate?

  The entire page sounds more like an anti-vegan smear campaign than a Wikipedia article.

  Butler source is contradictory to what has already been estalished on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veganism and needs to be removed.

  The Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics and Dietitians of Canada say that properly planned vegetarian or vegan diets are appropriate for all life stages, including pregnancy and lactation. The Australian National Health and Medical Research Council similarly recognizes a well-planned vegan diet as viable for any age, as does the British Dietetic Association, British National Health Service and the Canadian Pediatric Society. Teleoid (talk) 15:05, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

WP:OR, none of those organizations mention McDougall; we can only cite sources on this article that specifically mention McDougall. We have an article on vegan nutrition. See Vegan nutrition position of dietetic and government associations for further details. But it should be noted that none of the health organizations you list are anti-fat, anti-vegetable oil, anti-fruit juice, anti-nuts, anti-seeds, anti-fortified foods or anti-supplements like McDougall is. They wouldn't support McDougall's extremism. In fact, the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics openly supports the use of fortified foods for vegans and talks about the benefits of nuts, seeds and vegetable oils. Here is their website on healthy fats [3], openly describing nuts, and olive oil as heart healthy. Psychologist Guy (talk) 15:18, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

You read incorrectly - they discredit Kurt Butler, the source being defended here out of spite. Teleoid (talk) 15:38, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

The Butler source was added years ago to this article by myself. I am well aware who Butler is, I even tried to drop him some emails once. I have his book, it is a reliable source. Butler isn't anti-vegan, he merely criticizes the extreme claims of John McDougall. You seem to be confusing a balanced vegan diet (that includes fortified foods, oils, supplements etc) as promoted by the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics and other health organizations you listed with McDougall's restrictive low-fat diet that bans all these things. There is a big difference to what McDougall is promoting and a balanced vegan diet. Psychologist Guy (talk) 16:05, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

If you have the book it should be obvious to you that the man is trashing your "balanced" vegan diet as well. Nearly every paragraph is in defense of cholesterol, milk and protein! He simply does not know any better! Teleoid (talk) 18:16, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Caldwell Esselstyn as source

This been added as one of (many) viewpoints to have this page more non-biased:

Caldwell Esselstyn, an American physician and retired heart surgeon, praised McDougall for his insights and observing that high-fat and animal-derived Westernized foods made healthy people "fatter and sicker".

It has been pointed out by some editors he is not a good source and was labeled as fringe. It seems this just an opinion, but for the sake of plurality should be kept on the page. Teleoid (talk) 21:39, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

References

Caldwell Esselstyn says that his low-fat oil-free diet alone can reverse heart disease. The has never been demonstrated in clinical trials. There is no clinical evidence for his claims. He is very much a WP:Fringe figure. Also, he is not an independent source. He is heavily associated with McDougall and his institute. McDougall even features Esselstyn on his website [4]. We wouldn't cite this per WP:Fringe, WP:NPOV. This is not not a independent, neutral or reliable source. The title of the book "The revolutionary, scientifically proven, nutrition-based cure" is a scam. There is no scientifically proven nutritional cure for heart disease. Currently from all available evidence, coronary heart disease cannot be cured but treatment can help manage symptoms. Let's keep Wikipedia well sourced and not cite unreliable content. Psychologist Guy (talk) 21:54, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

There is not enough strong evidence to discriminate against Esselstyn here.

For example, there is no definitive evidence that Teflon causes cancer, but there is reason to suspect so and be vocal about it. Likewise, if a physician raises questions about (over)consumption of fat/oil he has every right to do so without being discriminated against (or being labeled "fringe").

The material should not be removed only because of association and calling it fringe. It's only fair to allow PLURALITY of opinion that doesn't hurt anyone or provides a "net benefit".

WP:NPOVHOW

WP:ACHIEVE NPOV Teleoid (talk) 22:04, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

• Fringe/unreliable source, not usable here. Bon courage (talk) 01:21, 12 January 2024 (UTC)