I've read a couple of his papers and some of his conclusions seem pretty plausible.
He's an MD, so he's put the work in. He advocates a tough diet ("Don't eat anything with a mother or a face"
. The diet cuts out lots of crap. So, there goes my beer and my Big Mac.
That approach is pretty plausible. Every diet expert will tell you something similar. Esselstyn gets some criticism because others consider he goes too far e.g. don't eat fish. Some people point to the benefits of eating fish.
But what he does do is present evidence. Some people criticise him because of the way his data was collected. His first study was small (n=22), his later study was bigger (n=198) and he admitted the limitations of the latter study (the participants were self-selected and "very determined" . But, at least he had actual patients.
Is he right? I strongly feel there's something in what he says. Does he go too far? I'll leave that to cardiologists.
Contrast that with Joe. He offers no proof. Maybe there's some testimonials, but he could write them himself. e.g. "I drank some of his Hydrogen water and I could immediately teleport myself to Sydney, Australia" - Barbara, San Francisco. I wrote that myself. My apologies to all Barbaras in SF.
If half of what Joe claims for Hydrogen water, he would win the Nobel Prize for Medicine every year for the next decade.
And you seem to like the evidence side of things..."going with what seems to work" i.e. stuff that has worked in the past. Evidence!
Edited: I seem to have unintentionally included a couple of smilies. They add nothing to the post, but I'll let them stay.
Edit history
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
= new reply since forum marked as read