stargazer1111
Member
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2017
- Messages
- 425
How do people even believe in grant so much. It's literally N=1. I remember years ago he kept postponing his hormonal panel because he didn't want to pay. Bro you put all this effort writing these books but you are going to be cheap over that it's pathetic. And his hormonal panel is minimal we need way more information. People shouldn't change their entire diet because of one person wild theory but of course I fell for that because I was vulnerable and had a skin issue.
Grant eczema wasn't even a big deal. I had it on my hand and it goes away even without treatment has zero to do with vitamin A. Last time I was on his blog it was a cult with no one healing and everyone saying they needed few more years lmao.
Biggest regret I have in life is wasting one year on this diet when I could have enjoyed so much food and not been paranoid over a sprinkle of pepper. It's so retarded even thinking about it pisses me off. The guy is a complete charlatan no different than delusional carnivore dieters. One look at him and I see a puffy man looking like a middle aged woman. Don't even get me started on his hamster experiment where he killed those poor things. His books are a joke and you have to be in a very desperate mindset to buy into it.
I don't believe he even follows his diet. This is not a normal diet and goes against everything my ancestors ate he literally tries to rewrite history. He could be lying about everything because he's so invested in his theory. His sidekick 'Dr. Waston' is even worse and more despicable.
I am an actual scientist who studies biomedical science. I am not saying that to be arrogant, but just pointing out that I have a fair amount of biomedical scientific training. I've read all of his books in detail. There are so many problems that I can't list them all.
I'll give you one egregious example. He claims in his books that the number of molecules of vitamin A that would be needed to support vision is so large that it would be lethal to anyone based on the prevailing theory of how vision uses vitamin A.
This is just flat out incorrect. I did the math using the molecular weight of vitamin A and avogardo's number. Even a fraction of the RDA (which is 900 ug for men and 700 ug for women) would provide more than enough molecules of vitamin A to support vision and these doses are well demonstrated to be safe in the literature.
He jumps to conclusion after conclusion based entirely on circumstantial evidence and personal anecdote.
The books are free and I don't see him making money off this so I don't doubt that his intentions are pure. I think he's a good but exceedingly incorrect guy.