[crntaylor]

If you're a lone voice in opposition to the medical and scientific establishment, then to take you seriously I'd expect to be seeing some pretty extraordinary evidence.

Things that would make me more sceptical of your claims would include:

1. A glossy website with slick before/after photos that appears to be primarily an advertisement for your (expensive) courses.

2. Putting all of your evidence in a non-peer reviewed newsletter that you then charge $7 / month for. He's clearly heard of journals (he's even published in some of them, although none of them particularly prestigious) so why isn't he using them?

3. The invention of bogus mathematical equations to "back up" your claims (Health = Nutrients/Calories... please).

4. Any claim to be able to cure a wide variety of unrelated illnesses with a simple treatment (cf. allergies, asthma, acne, autoimmune disease (!), chronic fatigue syndrome, depression, diabetes, migraines, and, somewhat mysteriously, "others").

5. Any association at all with Mehmet Oz.

This guy doesn't even begin to pass the smell test.

[MDS100]

@Newsletter subscriber: Also some other very common quack sign: > Overly focused on nutrition and supplements for healing all kinds of maladies.

> Toxins everywhere

> Fear mongering

Seems very much you are wasting your 7$: http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/your-disease-y...

His formula doesn't make any sense. Health=micronutrients/kcal is a useless approximation. Implies that if you reduce kcal by switiching to more micronutrient dense foods, you'll always be healthier. Which is untrue (there are problems such as starvation, hypervitaminosis, drinking saltwater would be a great idea...) and highly depends on a plethora of other factors.

It's pseudoscience.

(And I say that as a future MD who also does science based sports/nutritional consulting, so be assured I know of the importance of diet and exercise in disease&health.) There are far better sources out there.

[IamBren]

> His formula doesn't make any sense. > It's pseudoscience.

This "formula" appears to be meant as a shortcut to remind people following his plan to eat higher micronutrient per calorie foods. I don't think it was ever meant to be a proper math equation or anything, and I'm surprised people are picking this one aspect out of context to ridicule it endlessly without truly understanding what Dr. Fuhrman means by it.

[bosie]

> There are far better sources out there

Don't hold back on us, please.

[IamBren]

I agree with you on needing evidence, and as I said before, he references every claim in his books, in his newsletters, and even on his blog. As to whether they are solid references, I don't know. Most of them are from medical journals and studies I don't have access to.

But either way, who benefits? His entire plain consists of cutting out things like salt, sugar and added fats, and only eating vegetables, fruits, nuts, beans and seeds in some order (as a very basic summary). What does he have to gain aside from maybe selling a book? Once you know the plan most people need nothing else from him.

As to your lone voice claim, I haven't seen that. He works with several doctors, nutritionists, and researchers (NOT just Oz) and seems to have a thriving medical practice that has helped thousands of people.

As to the rest of your concerns:

1. What courses? I've never seen him sell any courses, unless you mean site membership, which is optional and for support only if you need it. Unless he has stock in all the major produce growers of the world, I'm not sure what he truly has to sell once a person buys the book and follows his plan. Everything else (like supplements) is optional and for support only if you need it.

2. $7 one time, not monthly. I'm puzzled why why these aren't free too. Like I said, he references every one of his claims, if you're into that. There are hundreds of references to various medical journals, papers, studies, etc. in his book Eat To Live, for example.

3. I think he uses H = N/C not as a true math equation, but as more of a shortcut to help people remember to get as many nutrients per calorie as they can (which is fundamental to his plan). I'm surprised you and others are getting hung up on this (and with such ridicule) without even bothering to understand it in context.

4. True, but what's his incentive? To sell more produce? He doesn't sell a miracle cure, and I can tell you right now that eating the way he wants you to eat is certainly not simple for me and many others. One thing I've noticed is that the bulk of people coming to him seem to be those (like me) who have spent years in pain due to "incurable" diseases, or people who have already had multiple bypass surgeries and everything else, and are sent home to prepare for death. It seems suffering provides extreme motivation.

5. I can't disagree with you on this one.

I can understand your skepticism a little, but it's not as if his website is a long form sales letter with javascript BUT WAIT popups when you try to exit it. Isn't one function of a website, I would say the primary function even, to market something? He markets his ideas and sells optional products for the benefit of his patients. What's shady about that? No miracle cure diets, pills, "free reports", etc. No long form sales letters.

I'd just hate for people to live a life of pain and suffering believing "inflammation in the colon has nothing to do with what is eaten" when it probably does, and when something can be done about it that doesn't necessarily involve their colon being removed and/or an early death.

[crntaylor]

> But either way, who benefits?

He's selling his books, his $7 newsletters and $50 / month memberships to some kind of club (or just $3000 for one-off lifetime membership!)

Re: his 'health equation'. It's obvious to you and me that you can't take it literally. But is is obvious to everyone? Particularly, is it obvious to the people he's marketing to? There's no need for a mnemonic to help people remember "get as many nutrients per calorie as you can". The equation is there to give a veneer of scientific legitimacy to his books and courses.

> I'd just hate for people to live a life of pain and suffering believing "inflammation in the colon has nothing to do with what is eaten" when it probably does.

The problem is that the medical establishment is, at best, undecided on whether diet is a factor in ulcerative colitis. I'm sure that there are some things the medical establishment is wrong about. But they are right about a great many things too.

Your claim that they are "probably" wrong is apparently based only on what this guy says on his website - a site that which seems to exist mainly to market his ideas, and sell his books, newsletters, nutritional supplements, foods and website memberships.