Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
I am torn between the McDougall diet vs Fuhrman diet. Which one is better?
They are both plant based. Fuhrman focuses more on beans and greens, while McDougall
focuses on starch.
Furhman says if you want to lose weight that you shouldn't eat more than a cup of starches
a day. Why doesn't McDougall limit them?
It is actually really hard for your body to convert starchy carbohydrates to fat. Starch
is not the enemy of the ever expanding waist line.
Don't you think that Eat to Live and the Joel Furhman way of eating is more nutritionally
dense?
It is true that beans and greens have a lot of nutrition, but they are also *** the
digestive system. Starches are easy to digest and are easy to sustain long term.
I noticed that the more beans I eat the more gassy I feel. It gets embarrassing sometimes.
Doctor Furhman's plan is great in theory and I could see how people lose weight on it.
However, there is something extremely satisfying about potatoes and rice. It just makes you
feel good to eat them.
They call potatoes a comfort food for a reason. Don't people lose weight following McDougall
as well?
Yes, definitely. If you want to lose even more, he has a Maximum Weight Loss plan.
McDougall has less fat in the diet doesn't it?
Yes, Furhman is definitely heavier on the nuts and seeds. I find that if I eat too much
fat I feel really bogged down.
Why can't these experts just agree with each other?
Want to get even more confused? Add Neal Barnard, the China Study Diet, the Esselstyn Diet,
and the Ornish Diet into the mix as well.
Don't even get me started on that. Choosing between John McDougall and Joel Furhman is
hard enough as it is! When it comes down to it, is the Starch Solution or Eat to Live
better?
Why not take the best out of both. Focus on starches and vegetables, but allow yourself
some extra beans and greens to get in even more nutrition?
Sounds like a diet plan I can live with!