I’m very familiar with his work and I’ve read his book. His logic is not “science”. His misrepresents and misinterprets studies because he knows that almost no one is going to bother to look up and read the primary sources.
You also have seemed to have missed my simple point. There is nothing wrong with the plan he describes. He’s promoting a perfectly healthy diet. It’s just that the logic underlying it is wrong. Take the bolded for example. He’s just pulling that out of thin air. Find me someone on the side of “dogma” that recommends that as a maintenance diet for an adult. Even for a very tiny adult, you’re not going to get to 1200.
Also gaining weight while actually doing that is thermodynamically impossible. Especially on a continual basis.
This claim is just absolute garbage on it’s face.
This is kind of the thing he just does over and over again. It’s sad that educated people fall for it. And they always fall back on the same excuse: Well his recommendations work. And they do. It does not mean that all the idiocy that he used to get to that conclusion is correct also.
As duped person enamored by his(Dr. Fung's) strategy, I may have been blind to some of his con like suppositions. I always am willing to learn. Can you please remind or identify for me some of the idiotic claims?
Comment