[mattmanser]

He himself explicitly says that his methodology was NOT scientific because of sample size of 1.

It's all wild speculation on his part wrapped up in speculative scientific language.

Maybe he is right, but your reaction is precisely what we need to stop doing.

[thewopr]

Maybe. But the author of the article at least does make it fairly clear what he's arguing for. Not that his diet is the perfect one, but that we need far more research into the hunger drive, not the chemistry of food and sustenance.

While many scientists would scoff at him making this argument outside of the scholarly journal orbit, it's actually a pretty good place to do it. Many scientists I know read broadly, and many decision makers at funding organizations are looking for ideas and perspectives wherever they find them, not just in journals. Especially as, in most journals, this would have gotten promptly rejected as the "study" wasn't scientific. But the point is made and shouldn't be ignored (IMHO).