Dr. Dean Ornish In The Lion’s Den: Part 2 of 4 (Episode 116)
28 02 2008If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to our RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!
Dr. Dean Ornish seeks to “get past low-carb vs. low-fat.”
Hello and welcome back to the world’s number one low-carb podcast, “The Livin’ La Vida Low-Carb Show With Jimmy Moore!” This week and next we will be presenting Jimmy’s four-part interview with the most famous low-fat diet icon in the world today Dr. Dean Ornish.
Today, in part 2, Jimmy continues his debate with Dr. Ornish as they discuss his new book, The Spectrum: A Scientifically Proven Program to Feel Better, Live Longer, Lose Weight, and Gain Health. Listen in as our host Jimmy and Dr. Ornish discuss the differences between the Ornish diet plan and a low-carb approach, areas of common ground that may (or may not) be shared by low-carbers and low-fatties, and the ever-increasing mound of studies that continue to vindicate those who opt for Livin’ La Vida Low-Carb! 
Let us know what you think about this interview segment that gets quite heated towards the end in the show notes below!
LINKS MENTIONED IN EPISODE 116:
- Part 1 of this interview
- Jimmy Moore’s previous interview with Dr. Ornish in October 2006
- Part 1 and Part 2 of the audio of that interview
- Dr. Ornish on Wikipedia
- Dr. Ornish’s Preventive Medicine Research Institute
- The Spectrum: A Scientifically Proven Program to Feel Better, Live Longer, Lose Weight, and Gain Health
Popularity: 44% [?]
From over 400 pounds to 230, Jimmy Moore is 
The more I see of Dean Ornish, the less I like him. In this interview, so far we’ve learned why he was so nice and gracious during the earlier interview that he granted our man Jimmy. It was because Jimmy just gave him a platform to explain his view. This time around, Ornish doesn’t seem quite so nice. He just steps all over Jimmy and won’t face any of the problems with his problematic viewpoint. He won’t even go so far as to say out loud that a potato is so starchy that it’s pretty much useless as a vegetable.
He dismisses all the work of Gary Taubes, a multiple-award-winning science journalist, by insinuating that he’s just some hack with an axe to grind. He dismisses Taubes’s point about exercise — which is simply that scientific studies have not so far shown that it’s a universal weight loss aid — not by citing any evidence to the contrary, but by calling his point (which he gets wrong, of course) “just silly.”
He spouts the inane calories-in-calories-out dogma, which science has never been able to demonstrate. He even says that macronutrient composition has nothing to do with whether someone gains or loses weight — it’s just total calories and whether they’re more or less than they’re supposedly burning. He says that if someone eats too many fat calories, it doesn’t matter if they’re eating no carbs, they’ll gain fat anyway. Not true, and endocrinologically impossible! It’s been demonstrated to be untrue, as with Jeff and his Metabolic Advantage Experiment over at magicbus.myfreeforum.org in December 2007. Jimmy wrote about this in December.
Anyway — I look forward to hearing the rest of the interview. Keep it up, Jimmy! Make him squirm!
THANKS Vesna! We got into it more in the next two segments and there were times I was trying to get him to get off script and just talk about why he believes what he believes. It seems as if all his answers are so automated that he doesn’t have any original thought processes anymore. And that’s a tell-tale sign that he’s not paying attention to the latest science as I was imploring with him in the interview.
I agree, Jimmy. And that was a fabulous post, Vesna.
Vesna said exactly what I was thinking! Jimmy, I admire you for asking the tough questions…and even putting Dr. Ornish on the spot! I really enjoyed listening to this podast debate (hee hee), and I hope there will be more discussions to follow! I would be interested in knowing what Dr. Ornish eats on a daily basis…is that information anywhere?
Thanks for the kind words, everyone! Say, I just realized why he doesn’t want to disparage potatoes. Who sells potatoes? McDonald’s. Whom did he boast about his proud partnership with? McDonalds.
By the way, Dr. Ornish mentioned “debating” (it was more like scolding) Gary Taubes on the Charlie Rose show.
That was about six years ago! Gary Taubes has done mountains of research and analysis since then. Yet, when Jimmy asked him about his familiarity with Taubes’s latest work, Dr. Ornish was like, sure, we talked about it years ago (before it existed). Taubes has progressed; Ornish is in the same place.
Actually I felt that the interview was quite civil; Dr. Ornish did an excellent job of defending his diet, and Jimmy pointed out the differences quite nicely. What I find interesting is that I came out of this interview having a more positive view of Dr. Ornish, it made me want to read his books. I doubt I’ll ever switch to a low fat diet, it is just too painful.
On the other hand, it is great to know that I can enjoy these great podcasts, listen to them when I walk, and then when I feel like reading, go to only one of the best DARNED SITES on the planet. Jimmy, I’m buying your book today.
Thanks Vesna for that link, I’ll watch it asap.
It IS about calories in v/s calories out. Jimmy, you didn’t lose all of that weight in a caloric surplus, you were in a deficit. The difference is you felt full due to the satiety factor you mentioned. It is physiologically impossible to lose weight in a calorie surplus.
THANKS for your comments everyone! My objective even in a debate format with someone like Dr. Dean Ornish is not to rip his head off, but to have a discussion of ideas and talk about them in a civilized manner. I think that was accomplished even if we did vehemently disagree with each other on MANY points.
I actually have enjoyed listening to these podcasts. A little tit for tat. I like that you kept trying to get him to understand the need to qualify the list of veggies and fruits. All foods are not created equal, and to clump them together without any credence given to the individual food’s properties would be confusing to many. That said I haven’t read the new book, and maybe Ornish does break things down into details there. In all honesty I probably will not buy this book, but read excerpts and catch it on the second hand market someday down the road. We also must understand that each of us is different and how the food reacts in our system is something we have to do the homework on. Looking forward to listening to the last two segments soon.
You’re gonna enjoy the rest of the interview, Shari! Yes, I hammered the fruits and veggies distinction because it’s one that is often bantered about along with “eat in moderation” and nobody knows what is right. Telling them NON-STARCHY veggies and low-glycemic fruits is a heckuva lot better advice.
I don’t know if you got into it Jimmy but I would bring up the fact with Dr. Ornish that man has only been eating grains for 10,000 years. Ask him about the paleolithic diet and how that has shaped our genetics. So how can he recommend grains?
I didn’t ask that EXACT question, JD, but there is a question coming up in the rest of the interview that inquires about the cultures that survived and thrived on a high-fat, low-carb diet. You’re not gonna believe his answer!
Scott, although it is calories in vs calories out, it’s not simply that lc foods make you feel fuller and so you eat less. It actually uses up more calories during digestion and to convert certain foods into usable energy. It’s not like low fat where you’re basically relying on exercise and minimum BMR to constitute the “calorie expended” section, you really do have an ‘advantage’ on lc - in terms of ease that is. And that’s just on the weight loss front of course, improved health is on top.
And back to the interview - as being one of the few that has never heard of Dr Ornish before, I noticed quite strongly a lot of his answers begin with “again”. As if everyone has read his book and he’s just regurgitating it for the ‘lazy’ people out there. Well, that was my interpretation.
It is about a good deal more than calories in, calories out. It’s also what Erica said, and even a good deal more than that, too.
It’s possible to eat thousands of calories more than a BMR calculation would indicate, and not gain an ounce. That’s essentially because insulin provides the only mechanism through which fat can be stored in the fat cells. This is not just seen in low carb regimens, but also in diseases such as celiac and various metabolic disturbances.
It’s also possible to eat less than a BMR calculation would indicate and not release body fat, even, in extreme cases, to the point of starving to death. Obesity, especially starting in middle age, routinely accompanies poverty and malnourishment. (And by malnourishment, I mean not enough food, not an excess of McDonalds.) Even with hard manual labor. (The typical pattern, worldwide, is emaciation in childhood, obesity later on.)
Dr. Ornish’s ignorance or ignoring of these medical facts is appalling. So many people believe these myths, the last thing we need is famous medical doctors perpetuating them.
Once excellent source for examples and specifics is Good Calories, Bad Calories, or any of his lectures that can be seen online.
I understand why Jimmy is so dogmatic about any carbs being pre-diabetic, but what about the rest of us with normal insulin? I can eat 40g carbs of oatmeal every morning without any blood sugar spike that causes me to be hungry in 1 hour. However, I do put 2% or whole milk in it, feta cheese to balance it out. I just would like Jimmy to qualify his whole movement as more important for obese people losing weight then for just slightly above-normal weight people.
Well, it’s not just about obese people, Alex. There are plenty of thin or slightly above-normal weight people who have issues with triglycerides and high blood sugar levels that wreak havoc on health. But I would argue these issues are much more prevalent than Dean Ornish wants to admit.
Jimmy:
I have no doubt about what you’re saying. Also I don’t really care for anything Dean Ornish has to say, especially after that “debate” with Gary Taubes 6 years ago. His low-fat mantra is annoying. However, I don’t believe there are any such thing as “bad fruits and vegetables”, just ones with more and less sugar. Probably people should consume a variety of them in moderate amounts. Heck, I like bananas, but haven’t had one in months, not because I watching the sugar, but just wasn’t in the mood for it. Definitely people should eat more broccoli, and green leafy vegetables. And lots of meat.
I couldn’t agree more about the broccoli, green leafy veggies and meat, Alex. But I wouldn’t touch a banana with a ten foot pole. I LOVE bananas and have made a conscious decision to NOT eat them because of their extraordinarily high sugar content. I can get all the potassium I need from other sources than to sacrifice my blood sugar levels for the pleasure of a banana.
I’m basically on board about bananas, they do have a lot of sugar. I mostly stick to granny smith apples.
I really appreciate your conducting this interview Jimmy, I like to hear opposing viewpoints on low carb. I have to say here though that Part II was full of missed opportunity to make valid counter-arguments without “ripping his head off”.
The point that Taubes makes, which is most damning, is that despite Ornish’s claims, his much vaunted studies are not “controlled” in any meaningful sense. They change multiple aspectes of a person’s lifestyle - they increase exercise, reduce complex carbs, reduce calories, and reduce fat. Though such an intervention might be effective, Ornish can’t scientifically make any claims as to which components are most effective, if any. And *most* importantly, he has no basis to claim that this is the only effective approach, or that other approaches are invalid.
Ornish’s poorly controlled studies prove one thing - that if you make all the changes Ornish suggests, you are likely to see the results that he’s documented. And that’s it. And I’d love to see him nailed to the wall on this point.
I can tell you, Josh, that Dr. Ornish would have avoided answering the questions about his studies because he believes they are above reproach since he uses “third party” groups to validate the results. And his contention that his method “reverses heart disease” gets a little nauseating after a while because it makes you wanna gag. The fact he won’t even entertain any of the research Taubes mentions in his book is a tell-tale sign he’s not interested in expanding his knowledge beyond the “truth” he thinks he already knows. That’s what is most disappointing about Ornish.
Ornish is a handful, as he doesn’t listen to the questions you ask, and I couldn’t tell if he didn’t really read Taubes’s book or he misread it.
On the other hand, I read Taubes’s book twice, and while I find his viewpoint on refined carbs totally convincing, his viewpoint on saturated fats was not convincing at all. I’m grateful to him, as I stopped eating flour and sugar because of his book, and as a result my blood sugar has dropped a lot. But I sure didn’t feel convinced that eating a lot of saturated fat is good for me in the long haul.
I suspect Taubes is right toward the end of the book where he says there’s never been a good test of the low carb diets vs. the good carb-low fat diets (with both diets avoiding flour and sugar) as far as long-term effects on health.
And that’s why I asked Dr. Ornish if he’d like to see such a study, Peter. He seemed interested, so perhaps we could get that going sooner than later.
Interesting interviews so far…..one comment I do have is that Dr. Ornish speaks of his research and fails to acknowledge that the studies done are confounded by multiple changes in subjects’ lifestyle and diet….diet is modified, exercise is introduced, stress reduction programs initiated, heavy eduation of subjects to increase compliance including continous emotional support, smoking cessation, alcohol consumption limited/eliminated, etc…multiple changes, multiple variable - which one(s) led to the benefits noted?
This question, in the end, leaves it difficult for even the most adept statistician to point to what change(s) mattered most - was it the diet? was it the activity level? was it the supplements? was it the reduction of stress? was it the weight loss? was it the support throughout? was it stopping smoking and drinking? was it a combination of some/all of the changes?
What is also lost is that ANY change to the standard American diet that increases vegetables & fruit consumption and concurrently decreases refined carbohydrate is found to have a benefit - even when dietary fat is not reduced, even when dietary fat is reduced, even when dietary fat is not modified except for source but consumption (total) remains steady - which again, is yet another confounding variable - the removal of simple, refined carbohydrates does lead to findings showing benefit to those making such a change.
While Dr. Ornish believes he’s conducted well-controlled randomized studies, he’s conducted research with multiple variables, all being modified in subjects’ habits and lives, thus they’re not “well” controlled studies to investigate one variable being changed, but truly studies about all changing these things at once, which absolutely cannot be teased out statistically one from the next.
Great question about what causes the benefits, Regina. And I wanted to ask him about that before he cut the interview short at the end. But I was surmise that Dr. Ornish would say that he and nobody really knows although he would likely say it was a mixture of the sum of the parts of everything as part of the “spectrum” of choices.
As for the change in the reduction of refined carbs as Ornish now seems to advocate (although he puts them in Group 3 when combined with adequate fiber–WHAT?!), it does seem he has placated to the pressure that these culprit carbohydrates are a problem and now sees the benefit of reducing this kind of carb intake. But I could not get him to understand that even some so-called “whole grain” carbs can be a problem for people who are especially sensitive to them. And it’s a whole lot more people than he wants to admit in a podcast interview.
But I could not get him to understand that even some so-called “whole grain” carbs can be a problem for people who are especially sensitive to them. And it’s a whole lot more people than he wants to admit in a podcast interview.
I noticed that, and unfortunately I doubt he will provide an answer because, as he himself noted, he does have conflicts of interest - tropicana, et al - that would not be in his best interest to come out and truthfully say that if and when any whole grain is processed for consumption it’s better to take a pass and not eat even though it is allowed to be called a whole grain.
Just look at oatmeal as an example - there are instant, quick cook, regular, rolled, steel cut, etc. available for purchase…..Quacker is out there touting how its instant oatmeal is a whole grain food! It’s highly refined and processed, so much so, it’s worthless nutritionally. Yet it’s a “whole grain” and advertised and promoted as such, so how is a consumer to know they’re better off with the slower cooking oats that are just steel cut - they’re both “whole grains” right?
Oh, but that Tropicana orange juice has lots of fiber that will counter the effects of the sugar–GAG! I love your take on Quaker oatmeal–QUACKER! LOL! Cute.
Tropicana orange juice has lots of fiber that will counter the effects of the sugar–GAG!
I didn’t miss the irony of his insistence that refined carbohydrates are bad, yet here he was patting himself on the back for helping to create orange juice with the fiber added back? The very definition of a highly refined food - process the oranges into juice and then try to add back something lost? Good grief - refined carbohydrate is bad, but his creation of refined, processed orange juice is good because Tropicana put back some fiber?
And what “fiber” pray-tell? MALTODEXTRIN
Tropicana Pure Premium® Orange Juice with Fiber
Ingredients:
100% pure pasteurized orange juice and Fibersol - 2™ fiber (maltodextrin).*
*Ingredient not found in regular orange juice.
———————-
http://www.tropicana.com/TRP_ProductInformation/Detail.cfm?ProductID=113
———————-
8-ounce serving = 29g carbohydrate, 3g fiber, 26g net
26g carbohydrate = 6.5 teaspoons of sugar
——————–
Dr. Ornish made a point to say they added the fiber to equal an orange - and that’s true, a 131g orange (average fruit) has 3.1g of fiber.
But it also has just 62 calories (compared to 120 for the OJ) and 15.4 total carbohydrate…subtract the fiber and it’s 12.3g of carbohydrate - 53% less sugar than the juice…..or the equivalent of 3 teaspoons of sugar.
Does he really believe that the OJ is comparable to an actual orange because they’ve adding in a corn-derivative maltodextrin?
Has he read none of the research about maltodextrin and its glycemic index? And here he’s saying GI and GL are important and touting liquid calories, almost all from sugars that are simple sugars, with the added benefit of maltodextrin which is high on the GI?
@@
From Mens Total Fitness:
What is Maltodextrin?
Maltodextrin is an…easily digested carbohydrate made from corn starch. The starch is cooked, and then acid and/or enzymes (a process similar to that used by the body to digest carbohydrates) are used to break the starch into smaller chains (3-20 chains in maltodextrin). These chains are composed of several dextrose molecules held together by very weak hydrogen bonds.
To clarify, carbohydrates are molecules of carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen produced by plants through photosynthesis. The term saccharide is a synonym for carbohydrate; a monosaccharide (mono=1) is the fundamental unit of carbohydrates. Disaccharides (Di=2) are molecules containing 2 monosaccharide units. Di and monosaccharides are also known as sugars, simple sugars, or simple carbohydrates.
Next are oligosaccharides, and polysaccharides. Oligosaccharides are made of 3-9 monosaccharide links. Polysaccharides consist of 10 to thousands of monosaccharide links. A complex carbohydrate refers to many monosaccharide units linked together. In addition, you will often hear the terms “long”, and “short” carbohydrate chains. Short carbohydrate chains are those under 10 sugar molecules. And long chains are those over 10 sugar molecules. Which fits in conjunction with the above terms, Oligosaccharides and Polysaccharides.
Dextrose is labeled a simple carbohydrate and maltodextrin complex. And now this should make perfect sense. But don’t be fooled by the word, “complex.” The bonds that compose maltodextrin are very weak, and readily broken apart in your stomach; moreover, the chain is extremely minimal in composition. The weak bonds, and fragile composition of maltodextrin cause it to be digested a fraction slower than dextrose.
You gotta love that! NOT!