He doesn't sound angry at all. I've read similar discussions. Most foods in the supermarket are manufactured and flash-baked, not baked or picked. This really works and you'll feel great. Avoiding grains, milk, and corn syrup (found in sodas and juices, hot dogs, and other places you wouldn't think of) as well as all manufactured foods is exactly the best way to go.
The problem is, this can get much more expensive. I'd love to be able to follow that for sustained periods of time. On the other hand, everything you eat that's not manufactured gives much more energy throughout the day. Who cares how much 'heat' a food generates in calories? What matters is what kind of energy you get from it.
"The problem is, this can get much more expensive."
No, the problem is there is no science here. Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence. Claiming that all grains are toxic when uncooked is an extraordinary claim.
As I said, I have no doubt that many of these claims are true. I also have no doubt that some are false. The author gives me no basis for knowing which is which. I happen to be a bit of a nutrition and health nut (vegetarian for 14 years, vegan occasionally, avoid processed foods generally), but I'm also a believer in science. The often ill-informed assertions of some random dude on the Internet are not going to convince me to eat like a cave man.
Mellow people can be crazy too. Though, whether he's crazy or not, there isn't a shred of evidence presented besides the picture of "tribal health" he paints.
I don't think he meant this to be a scientific paper, otherwise, as a physician, he could be liable for giving out medical advice. I can see how he would make this message appear informal. A lot of writing by nutritionists aimed at the general public is similarly informal and easy to understand.
I've read many stories and know that avoiding cereals, grains, and milk is a good idea for weight loss and sugar management.
I was able to google some sources. Note that pesticides may also introduce toxins. I'm with Steve Pavlina on trying things and seeing if they work. The advice seems to be true.
Like he said in the article, he doesn't mean toxic in the unsafe sense. He means toxic in terms of, it's not good for your body. He means it's not the natural way every species on earth has consumed this food for thousands of years.
That link is interesting but I can't find any evidence that it's true. How can I tell that he didn't just make up the story about cereal being bad? It seems like any easy experiment to reproduce -- just buy a rat and a box of corn flakes.
I assume she was still referring to Paul Stitt's book:
"In his book Fighting the Food Giants, Paul Stitt has tells us that the extrusion process used for these cereals destroys most of the nutrients in the grains."
(three paragraphs later, the rat study)
"Let me tell you about two studies which were not published. The first was described by Paul Stitt who wrote about an experiment conducted by a cereal company in which four sets of rats were given special diets... "
Since the book and study described by Paul are about cereal, and both paragraphs are near one another, I think the study is better described in that book. And since the study is attributed to a cereal company, that explains why it went unpublished.
The problem is, this can get much more expensive. I'd love to be able to follow that for sustained periods of time. On the other hand, everything you eat that's not manufactured gives much more energy throughout the day. Who cares how much 'heat' a food generates in calories? What matters is what kind of energy you get from it.