I read it today and my immediate thought was that his writing style reads like he as the all-knowing doctor talking to dumb people who can't think for themselves. He doesn't even care to verify his statements with evidence.
CONFUSED ABOUT WHAT “good nutrition” is? You shouldn’t be — we know what works and what doesn’t.
Confused about all those different nutritional concepts and opinions? Don't be afraid about the never-ending discussions, I will tell you what to believe so you don't have to think about it.
Despite the “conflicting” scientific studies and media reports designed to confound rather than enlighten, there is no confusion about what constitutes good nutrition. If we were to gather the world’s top nutrition scientists and experts — free from food industry influence — there would be very little debate about the essential properties of good nutrition.
Maybe there would be little debate about whole foods, but the question for scientists is
what whole foods to eat.
Of course, he is right with all about what he is saying about junk food, corn syrup, trans-fats, etc., but that is nothing knew. He repeats the same arguments again and again since he first published his books.
What I am about to share might be shocking …
Indeed shocking given the fact that he just states something without supplying the reader with any scientific evidence.
Carbohydrates are the single most important food for long-term health and well-being.
Oh right. It must be imagination that people need essential amino acids from protein, fat soluble vitamins, choline and cholesterol for brain development. Also that plant sources of vitamins and minerals are less biologically active, a plant based diet leads to deficiencies in many important nutrients like iron, b12, zinc, vitamin a, k and others. Glad that our species survived until today, without having the "single most important food" available during thousands and probably hundreds of thousand years living mostly from hunted animals. Surviving without any carbs is possible (what doesn't mean carbs can not be beneficial for healthy people) while living without protein and fat is virtually impossible, as fruitarians sadly show.
The carbohydrates I am talking about are the real, whole, nourishing plant foods that the human species has thrived on since from the dawn of evolution.
Does he mean domesticated fruits which it's higher sugar content and all-year availability? Or grains, bred for it's higher gluten content, loaded with phytates, lectins and other antinutrients which block mineral absorption and destroy the gut?
Most of the food consumed by humans since the beginning of time has been carbohydrates. In fact, plant foods are comprised mostly of carbohydrates: vegetables, fruits, beans, whole grains, nuts, seeds, herbs, and spices.
He has definitely no clue about our evolutionary history.
These foods contain slowly released sources of sugar that prevent surges of blood sugar and insulin.
Not if you have an impaired carbohydrate metabolism like most people today have.
Carbohydrates contain almost all the vitamins and minerals our bodies need to operate normally and optimally.
Too bad antinutrients don't want to give them away.
I think he is right with the necessity of supplements, whole foods in general, and his whole concept has a lot of value, despite the fact that it is not optimal for most people to eat like that. Nevertheless it's working to a high degree because leaving out processed foods and common allergens while detoxing is still the most important thing when healing. Anyway, his article has nothing to do with science for most parts, it is just selling a concept.
I wonder why he writes such an polemic, unscientific article, because it doesn't sound like his diet concept in the book which came near to the "paleo diet" from Cordain, with avoiding gluten, dairy and sticking mostly to meat, fish, vegetables and fruits. Did he forget his advice to be cautious whith grains and dairy because we only began consuming it with the dawn of agriculture? But then, in his articles he always has the tendency to over-simplificate - maybe to reach the masses who can't grasp complex science.
[quote author=Megan]Selling expensive supplements as a hedge against poor health seems to a big part of this message. You aren't led directly to his store within the text of the article, but the ad for it appears at the top of the page. "Daily Wellness Vitamins. " $117.50 (marked down from $130.75) for women, $94.00 (marked down from $104.80) for men.[/quote]
At least he uses best quality supplements for his patients. Anyway, his practice is so expensive that only really rich patients can use it, which is really sad because often poor people are the ones who got poisoned at work places or maybe became poor due to inabilitys to perform the job anymore and need help. I read in his comments that for some it is even impossible for afford a whole foods diet, not to speak of supplements.
