What about those High Protein / Low Carb diets that are so popular?

Dr. John McDougall: High Protein/Low Carb Diets. Watch more videos at: http://www.drmcdougall.com/video/mcdougalls_moments.html


You might be interested in

Comment (0)

  1. So one case someone got kidney stones. Not from just keto diet. But that doesn't matter right. So many vegans loose there teeth. So does that mean every vegan looses there teeth..Your argument is stupid.

  2. One just has to search Ex Vegans and see thousands of people who used to be vegan tell there story of poor health they suffered only eating plants. Most vegans don't stay vegans because there constantly hungry

  3. I know the low carb diets are effective for quick weight-loss. but lets face it, you will have  to eat the carbs sooner or later. At this time you will most likely gain all of the weight back and then some. 

  4. Dr McDougall, you were part of the low fat preisthood during the seventies, eighties and nineties that saw the greatest public health failure since the Plague of Justinian.  Your time is done.  I've known all kinds of vegans.  They talk all the time about lentil salads, then chow down on Twizzlers and potato chips.  Look inside any vegan store.  It's all junk food with fancy names.  

  5. Me coming to this McDougall clip does not have anything to do with my behaviour. I haven't said anything that can be considered trolling, nor have I actually said anything to reflect any aspect of my personality (which ironically, you have in ample amounts).

  6. That's not true at all. The studies by Keys back in time showed correlation between saturated fat and heart disease, and the study has been shown to useless because it didn't control for variables.

    This is why correlation on its own is only useful if you are actually able to say with confidence that the correlation comes from the variable you are investigating and not confounding variables. You have a poor understanding of the limitations of observational studies.

  7. Yeah, you're a troll.

    Well that's that for this discussion again. I could take the first 20 hostile comments throwing around red herrings, straw men and ad hominems, but I have better things to do unfortunately.

  8. Causation is the ultimate goal, and while correlation is always nice, when dealing with a system as complex as the human body, correlation is only useful when you are able to eliminate confounding variables.

    By "we" I mean the species as a whole. You keep saying I talk out of my ass, but haven't really come up with any real reason for me to accept your hostility.

  9. Ironically, if you a week from now look through the comments you have written to me, you might realise you are in the wrong.

    Right now that is too much to ask for though. I've literally not warranted any of your accusations, yet you keep coming with them. Also I've made my point extremely clear, and you've ignored it while maintaining your disillusioning insults to draw attention away from the real discussion.

    You are either a very good troll, or an extremely stupid individual.

  10. None of what I have said has had anything to do with broscience. Causation is what we seek to demonstrate through research. I'm not even sure you know what it means, because if you did you would realise why it's essential for the discussion.

  11. This is not a subjective argument and am not using it as such, so stop your straw man horse shit. My own opinion hasn't even entered into the argument a single time.

  12. – has its benefits for other diseases.

    You seem to misunderstand how science actually works. And I'd like to extend a gracious "fuck you" for all the hostility you've shown me.

  13. No it isn't broscience. And first of all, remember that the current research that the vast majority of the research body available is from epidemiological studies, or observational studies in general. You are being intellectually dishonest if you imply causation from them. If you define broscience as that which is asserted without sufficient evidence, the fault lies on you.

    You misunderstood my entire point about research. To get any valuable information from research you need to take the sum –

  14. Look, I've already told you that I've gone through the meta-analyses on both PubMed on Cochrane, and the trend in the past centuries is that we find less and less correlation linking CHD and SF-intake. This isn't something I've made up, and it isn't subject to opinion. It's an objective truth. Now obviously, that doesn't mean the previous research was wrong, it just means we are putting the cart in front of the horse in the nutritional debate.

  15. I'm not comparing myself to anyone. I am pointing out your fallacy: the appeal to authority. In science, there are no authorities. There is only research. You have thrown around quite a lot of accusations without a lot of knowledge about who I am. I hope you treat other people you talk to with a bit more respect – at least enough respect not to use those blatantly obvious fallacies.


  16. Oh of course. To get closer to knowledge, we need to submit research to peer-reviewed journals. When it comes to nutritional science, we have tonnes of research that needs to be compared to other research and reviewed in meta-analyses.

    Nothing I have said is ideologically biased. What I have read or concluded is merely the conclusions of the current meta-analyses available on Cochrane and PubMed, which show a trend towards a less and less definitive answer.

    In science we are all non-entities.

  17. And don't get me wrong. I am sure McDougall cites tonnes of research, but you need to take the research for what it's worth. As I said, the correlation that was once found linking saturated fat and heart diseases is slowly fading away as more research is amassed, as is evident in recent meta-analyses. If you are still banging the drum about fat being dangerous, you're way behind the curve in terms of the research, I'm afraid.

  18. – statements like the ones you are making. You speak as if the case is clear-cut when it isn't at all. Also, as I said you need to actually eliminate other factors that could be contributing to betterment if you are using a medical intervention. Simply attributing the effect to one factor is fallacious.

  19. First of all, I could say the same about you and it would add nothing to the conversation, so I suggest you stop throwing irrelevant statements without justification. "And McDougall has been proving this with his patients for the last 30 years." – unless his patients were actually part of a peer-reviewed trial, I'm going to ignore this.

    The stuff I've seen in PubMed shows decreasing correlation (which isn't causation), through the ages, in meta-analyses. We need far more research to make bold –


Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *