Chris Johnson He's the dude who wrote this and other works on diet: [ame="http://www.amazon.com/Target-Living-Nutrition-power-feeling/dp/0972728147"]Amazon.com: On Target Living Nutrition: The power of feeling your best (9780972728140): Chris Johnson: Books[/ame] This is his site: http://www.ontargetliving.com/ My parents went to one of his seminars and then bought all his stuff (nutrition and exorcise). I've been trying to find out what the professional consensus is about him. All the reviews of his book an amazon are good but there are only a handful of them. Anyone know anything more? Please help, my mother is trying to feed me cod liver oil and I'm 23.
I'll have a proper look tomorrow night, but at first glance it looks like the usual wheatgrass and flax seed with low saturated fat style diet that's been flying around since the late seventies in different forms, usually with lots of keywords like 'wholesome' 'vibrant' and 'enriched'. I can't find any specifics of his diet plan at the moment though so this could be way off.
I refuse to click on a single link on that website. Let me tell you why: The exercise of the month is a core exercise. The product of the month is a meal patterning audio cd (I don't know what this means). They have a wellness speaker (I don't know what this means either). The wellness speaker is holding a plant and a bottle of diet coke when you touch him with the mouse pointer (this means that he is weird). Having said all of that, cod liver oil won't kill you. Well, not unless you're drinking it by the pint.
Almost all of the nutritional info you need is online and free, Thelistmaker. Try doing some research on primal/paleo eating. Raw milk + paleo = super health.
I goggled it but couldn't find any article remotely postulating a chain of causation for it's supposed benefits. Sorry Dude but it does sound like a fad diet with no scientific basis.
Primal/paleo dieting is a fad and what you posted is not? There is a bloke on the website drinking coke for Christ sake.
I have seen enough to suspect they are both fads, however the paleo diet makes more outlandish claims. Do you have any scientific evidence to back up the paleo diet claim that grains are bad for you?
Thelistmaker, the paleo approach to nutrition can not be summed up by eliminating grains, although a lot of people seem to feel massively better when off them. Even then, as with any diet or eating style, everyone makes little changes that are unique to them to help the diet suit them better. It's no different with grains. If you like grains, stick to the ones that have the highest success rating and avoid white rice, white bread, etc. Anything that's not white (and I hope that doesn't sound racist ). May I ask what the basics behind what you are eating now is? Do you eat vegetables, fruits, any kind of meat, nuts, seeds, dairy, or anything natural? I don't see how the paleo diet can be considered outlandish. It's a far more instinctive way of eating than living off of microwaved instant-meals and low-fat cereal! Steve, I know, right?
The paleo approach gets a lot of accusations thrown at it, the 'fad diet' is a pretty common one, despite it's attempt to actually find the most natural diet rather than most diet's approach of establishing itself then trying to prove how natural it is. I've also seen claims that paloelithic people only lived until 30 (way more of a lifestyle issue than just diet), there's too much fat in the diet (Ancel Keys has a lot to answer for), there's not enough grains in the diet (there's no minimum requirement) and most confusingly that there's not enough protein (maybe vegetarian paleo?). The worst argument I've seen is that we can't completely replicate the diet. For a start this argument fails at the start as not getting a 100% hit rate means you should quit obviously . Look at what is often considered a 'healthy diet', take away any weird flax oils, kelp vitamins, himalayan berries or krill oil supplements and add back in some of the demonized saturated fats that after 30 years are still associated with heart disease rather than any direct mechanism being established, yet even at a GCSE biology level most students could list why saturated fats are important for humans. What you're left with is a diet full of whole foods and a better macronutrient balance than most diets. On top of all that the #1 effect of the paleo/primal diets are health, fat loss is a pleasant side effect.
What set alarm bells ringing for me was not the absence of grains itself, but the reasons for it. From what I've been able to find off google [please correct me if I'm wrong] the reason given by paleo diet advocated for not eating grains is that 'cavemen didn't eat grains'. If there was a good reason for not eating grains I'd expect people to quote scientific studies saying things like 'the starch found in cereal does bad thing X'. If the reason given for not eating grains is so bad how can I take the rest of the diet seriously? . http://www.skepdic.com/testimon.html Am I interpreting you correctly: that the paleo diet isn't a specific plan it's actually a broad principle like 'eat less processed food?' If so how do you define 'real food'? For example would this exclude GM? would it include the amount of pesticides sprayed on crops / hormones given to the meat? and does it also include altering by cooking ie 'raw is better'? Unfortunately my diet is too erratic to give you any sort of plan. The only constant is I try to eat at least 5 fruit and veg a day and I don't eat meat. That's certainly a better argument then I have seen on many of the paleo diet sites. Have I set my expectations too high to consider that unless the explanation of a diet plan contains a lot of biochemistry saying things like 'food X was show to do Y in these studies' it is diet advice given by an unqualified, unscientific person. Also it doesn't help that the 1st few site that come up on google have a naturalistic fallacy as their best argument: http://www.iscid.org/encyclopedia/Naturalistic_Fallacy and make weird and fallacious claims about evolution that show no knowledge of natural selection eg "we didntz evolve to eat that [about dairy]" At the minute I hold that the only rational position is to skeptical of any new diet unless sufficient evidence is shown.
If you want to know more about primal living go to www.marksdailyapple.com. There is more than enough cited evidence there to get you started. It will answer every question you have asked in this thread.
Thelistmaker, I definitely agree with you on that point. The "Grok didn't have it" argument gets old really fast and really isn't that strong. However, there's still a huge amount amount of modern evidence to support the actual diet.
