Re: Skewed muddled thinking throughout, makes no persuasive case

I am not expert on Mercola's diet, but I understand the basics of it. One of his major tenants is that everyone is not the same. In broad groupings of people there are carb types, mixed types and protein types. It sounds like you are definitely a carb type. Your own experience in no way refutes Mercola's contentions.

There are many populations who have lived on large amounts of whole fat raw dairy products and who were healthy and not obese, so I'm not quite sure I understand your point on that.

You mention Mercola picks and chooses from the literature to only support his position. I've been studying nutrition for years and find that Mercola happens to be quite a bit more objective than Ornish and McDougall. There were a few calls for a Nourishing Traditions board here. Mercola at least acknowledges and incorporates many of the irrefutable findings of Price in his work. Best as I can tell, Ornish and McDougall pretend that Price's work doesn't exist.

I personally think Mercola is too hard on whole grains. One also cannot argue with the results that he has achieved. At the same time there is a fairly significant body of evidence that shows than many people do not thrive in the long-term on a vegan or near vegan diet supported by Ornish and McDougall. I'm not saying that there are not people that don't thrive, but just acknowledging the fact that there are many that do not thrive. That point get's back to Mercola's contention that we are not all alike.

I guess in summary, I'm truly not trying to be argumentative, but I was wondering if your review of Mercola's work was more emotion based because Mercola's research points to things that you don't personally agree with. Or perhaps you have chosen your own set of studies to believe and anything that doesn't agree with what you believe must be wrong or "fantasy." Tweet