I know this really isn't a low carb diet but I wanted to know has anybody had any experience with the Dean Ornish diet? I think i'm going to try it because I need to drink something besides water so it's more of a personal preferance. I think Atkins and Dean Ornish are both good diet programs.

what are your thoughts?

Hullo there,

As Dean Ornish is the antithesis to a low carb diet, I doubt you'll hear much good about it here.

If you wish to follow a healthy low carb plan, how about looking through "Plans," on the green menu bat at the top of the screen. There are many good low carb plans besides Atkins, and I hope you can find one to suit you.

Rosebud

can't you drink like crystal light and junk like that...without sugar?

Atkins and Ornish are poles apart, from what I've seen, you can eat on Atkins what you cant on Ornish and vice versa.

Its a personal choice that depends on which you think is the most achievable and healthy, but good luck, you maybe embarking on a WOE that suits you better, I'd be interested to know how you get on, so please let us know how you find it

Jo

Many people drink things besides water. Whether your body can tolerate it or not is another story.

Debbie

Maybe you're mistaking Dean Ornish for some other diet.

His is practically vegan. . . you're allowed like one egg white a week.

NO fat whatsoever, except what occurs in grains. Which means no avocados, no nuts, no coconut, no olives, no sunflower seeds. . . etc.

No salt.

No white flour.

No seafood. No meat. No cheese. Only low-fat yogurt once a day.

No sugar.

You're allowed only certain plant matter.

In other words, if it tastes good, spit it out.

Not meaning to knock anyone else's WOL, but that was too funny...I had to laugh.

Hi Annon,

I've done Ornish, MacDougall, and the Hawaiian Diet. They're all basically the same. They rely on fruits, vege, and grains as the foundation of the diet. They are all extremely low fat. I found them all to be very difficult to stick with. A very low fat diet coupled with a protein deficit left me hungry and with blood sugar fluctuations. I also found them to be very spartan in appeal. Without the fat there just isn't much satisfaction if all you are eating are starches and sugars. I personally find that any WOE that takes you to an extreme is not one that you're going to be able to stay with for very long. That's why Atkins induction is only for two weeks. It's hard to stay with a limited plan for the long haul. Everybody can do it for two weeks. But can you do it for two months? At least with Atkins you get the benefit of ketosis which keeps you from getting hungry. With these high carb/low fat diets, you're hungry all the time.

Some folk have a metabolism that is happy with this kind of plan. You might be one of these. If you have any blood sugar issues though I would strongly suggest working with your GP on an Ornish type of plan. You could hurt yourself otherwise.

Good luck!
Sig

What exactly could you drink on Ornish that you couldn't drink on Atkins?

If you have any kind of blood sugar issues, including insulin resistance, I would absolutely not recommend an Ornish type plan. I can't imagine trying to maintain a normal blood sugar eating pretty much nothing but carbs.

But Lisa--fat causes blood sugar problems, it is so obvious

That cracks me up every time I read it somewhere!

Is this a diet, or is it culinary self-flagellation? I thought KWalt was exaggerating, but he wasn't. And low carb is "extreme?"

After reviewing those menus, something tells me that an invitation to dinner at the Ornish's house isn't the hottest ticket in whatever city he lives in.

It "is" a pretty spartan plan. For me, being able to drink juice just isn't a trade up. I must say in Dr. Ornish's defense that he has helped many people heal from debilitating heart problems. I would have to be very sick to be able to find the strength to stay with his plan though. I'm grateful that there are so many approaches to healing and that I am able follow one that works for me.
Sig

Not to harp on this, but I just did a quick and dirty calculation on one of his recommended menus, and came up with just over 5 grams of fat. For the whole day.

And well, since I've already put enough in this, I found this from the WebMD site:



Notice the person asked a specific question, "How long have you known people to last on your reversal program?" And in response, Ornish spews (he probably has a lot of spewing practice if he follows his own diet) two paragraphs about Lipitor and freedom of choice and Omaha and gravy and Medicare -- but he never answers the question, or even comes close. I wonder why that is? Could it be that human beings will not follow a diet averaging 6 grams of fat in it per day, and Ornish knows this as well as anyone?

Well, so the legend and folklore says, but the facts say otherwise. For one thing, his diet has NEVER, EVER, in ANY STUDY shown to reverse heart disease. EVER.

His TOTAL PROGRAM, which includes meditation sessions, group help, smoking cessation, exercise, and his severely limited diet, had tiny effects on some x-ray exams, but ZERO effect on death rate. In other words, people on the complete Ornish regime died at the same rate as people were not on the plan.

Here's Colpo on the subject:

"The Multicenter Lifestyle Demonstration Project sought to apply the intervention in Ornish's original trial to a larger group of patients recruited from clinics across the US.(40) Practitioners from eight medical centers around the country were trained in all aspects of the Lifestyle program, which they proceeded to administer to patients with coronary artery disease. The study was not a randomized, controlled trial; instead, outcomes in the 194 patients who completed the intervention were compared with 139 patients who did not take part in the Lifestyle program.

After 3 years, there were no significant differences in cardiac event rates nor mortality between patients in the intervention and control groups. The number of cardiac events per patient year of follow-up when comparing the experimental group with the control group was as follows: 0.012 versus 0.012 for myocardial infarction, 0.014 versus 0.006 for stroke, 0.006 versus 0.012 for non-cardiac deaths, and 0.014 versus 0.012 for cardiac deaths (none of the differences were statistically significant)."