Thanks for the offer, lindsey, but I'll decline for lack of interest. I do take my own advice and try to avoid pursuing baseless health claims. Gundry's are most certainly baseless.

If you look around, it's not hard to find many articles not just questioning what Gundry does but actually calling him out on his fabricated "findings" and self-promoting recommendations.

Here's an article from the Washington Post that calls the discussions of the dangers of lectins "pseudoscience"

Wash Post - Pseudoscience diet fad - avoiding lectins

A cardiologist has a blog entitled "The Skeptical Cardiologist". The guy is a Board Certified Cardiologist and has also been a Principal Investigator for published clinical research studies.

He quotes from Dr Gundry's bio on his website. Dr Gundry said that since leaving Loma Linda, he has spent his time " developing the principles of Holobiotics that have since changed the lives of countless men and women.”

The skeptical cardiologist goes on to say (this is a quote of the SC words}:

"Need I mention that “holobiotics” is (?are) not real?"

What he's saying, is that this is not a term used in science, nutrition or medicine. Only by Dr Gundry. It is a made up word.

Here's a link to the article, discussing Gundry, entitled

HOW TO SPOT A QUACK HEALTH SITE: RED FLAG #1, PRIMARY GOAL IS SELLING SUPPLEMENTS

There are many other interesting pieces in that blog too, including one entitled

"STILL MORE REASONS NOT TO TAKE WORTHLESS VITAMINS AND MULTIVITAMINS"., recommendations based on analyses of studies.

I recommend looking around.

I found other legit citations challenging Gundry's unsupported allegations but these are enough. Keep your eyes open. Good luck.

Elmer, have you ever heard of people actually feeling better from a no lectin diet? So many people feel better. I, myself, have felt better from eating less lectins. That means less peanuts, cashews, brown rice, and most fruits. Gundry's claims are not a bit baseless, and I do not agree with you at all.

Oh, by the way Elmer, have you actually read the Plant Paradox? Because if you did, you wouldn’t believe the things you do about Dr. Gundry.

basil, take a look at the Washington Post article I linked above. Facts are stubborn things. As of the writing of that article about a year ago, there had been NO CLINICAL TRIALS or STUDIES, not one, involving lectins in food. Do you understand what that means?

If you want to understand the veracity of what someone alleges, you need to read what others say about them, not what they say about themselves.

With medical and scientific knowledge, people publish preliminary findings in academic journals so that others can reproduce, test and prove or disprove. New findings are supposed to be reproduce-able by others. Heck, even research in the humanities is subject to peer review. This guy hasn't done that at all. Zero.

Do you understand what that means? The effects he suggests are made up and bogus. They haven't been demonstrated nor proven. And so not accepted by anyone else and most certainly not by experts in the fields he pretends to know about. Nada in support.

One of Gwyneth Paltrow's goop docs peddling nutrition misinformation. She's famous for promoting quackery.

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2017/04/the-next-gluten/523686/

Yes, exactly, cindymac, I referenced that article in the other thread. There's lots to find about him, none of it positive from legit sources. The guy's a snake oil seller.

basilcook3 -- Have you heard of people feeling better after taking placebo meds?

I even shy away from a prescription medication that claims less than a 4% benefit over its competition. Margin of error is four percent!

Under some limited circumstances I feel lectins deserve some attention. For me, that means making sure that some beans that I know are high in lectins (red kidney beans, for instance) are adequately cooked.

Like Elmer, I'd look for clinical studies before making any sort of huge dietary changes. But since I have read several articles about kidney bean lectins, and adequate cooking is not an onerous precaution, I will err on the side of safety when preparing kidney beans.

https://poisonousplants.ansci.cornell.edu/toxicagents/lectins.html

You could sell pills that make up for the loss of chicken in our diets. Fudd's Faux Fowl pills.

elmer, you are such a skeptic. I have read Plant Paradox and I have also read a lot of Dr. Gundy's blog articles, and I do not recall reading the word "holobiotics."

Did it ever occur to you, elmer, that folks who criticize Dr. Gundry may harbor a bit of jealousy that he is doing so well? (Rhetorical question. I know your answer is "no.")

I received my cardiac stent on March 14. By March 30 I had received some of Dr. Gundry's supplements and began taking them.

At the time I received the stent, my total cholesterol level was 155. "Normal" is less than 200. If you're familiar with the Framingham Heart Study, you'll know that in the first 50 years of the study, only five people with a cholesterol level below 150 developed coronary artery disease. It's often said that if you can keep your cholesterol level at or below 150 you'll never have a heart attack. So, mine was 155, which shouldn't have been a lot to worry about. My LDL (bad cholesterol) was 101 ("normal" is less than 130).

About 8 or so years ago, my cholesterol was higher (183 with LDL at 120), and I was put on Lipitor. The lowest cholesterol level I had while on Lipitor was 143, with LDL at 83. I'd been off Lipitor entirely for about 5 years. I was put on it again after the stent (because I have three other cardiac arteries with blockages -- 50%, 70%, and 90%). Studies have shown that taking a statin will not only lower cholesterol, but it will help remove plaque from the arteries.

So, on Thursday of last week, I had blood drawn for new lab tests, including a Lipid Panel. My cholesterol level is now 92 with an LDL of 33. Yes, I know the Lipitor factors into the lower levels, but not that much. Remember, previously I was on Lipitor for a much longer period of time and my lowest total cholesterol and LDL levels were 143 andd 83. The reason for the much lower levels this time? Obviously, it's Dr. Gundry's supplements.

Try this link but maybe you won't, you appear to have ignored the others. The third photo on the page shows him standing in scrubs. the word "holobiotics" appears in the paragraph to the left of the photo and the one below it.

Made up word and made up science

"Did it ever occur to you, elmer, that folks who criticize Dr. Gundry may harbor a bit of jealousy that he is doing so well? (Rhetorical question. I know your answer is "no.")"

Not only is my answer No, but this is a preposterous statement. Why would experts be jealous of a marginalized no-nothing's mumbo jumbo?

Do you really think the world of cardiac researchers, cardiologists and Cardiothoracic surgeons wouldn't jump at a silver bullet for better heart health? But they would rigorously test it before promoting it, something Gundry has never done with the junk he sells. Do you wonder why?

He's considered a bozo and a flake. Yes, really! Experts don't sell overpriced supplements on websites. If you read the one link, he sells a vitamin G6, something he apparently has made up that also has no basis in science.

As I said in either this or the other thread, charlatans and quacks never have trouble finding honest but gullible people to fool. I try not to be fooled by nonsense. Do as you like, I wish you good health all the same.

We don't need to discuss it further. Someone you CAN discuss it with is your heart surgeon or one of your other doctors. Ask them about his ideas concerning the made up holobiotics. Ask what they think of Dr. Gundry's supplements, website and unsupported/untested theories, especially his theory of the effect of lectins on health. Real docs don't tend to follow the bogus things others do so they may have no comment. Report back what you find out.

The reason for the much lower levels this time? Obviously, it's Dr. Gundry's supplements.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc, just because B comes after A, does not mean that A is the cause of B

. But I am happy for you, that you have lower levels.

Posters who consider themselves "experts" and constantly know-it-all often with questionable proof should at least preface their remarks with IMHO which would make them less smug and dictatorial to the rest of the world, that is unless they care not about the rest of the world, and simply believe their own opinions should always unquestionably be first.

Isn't any and every comment, whether here or in the real world, an opinion unless a third party source is referenced? If so, then that part of a comment is the opinion of that source.

That's as true of your comment as for mine or anyone else's. It goes without saying. Thanks for the insults, though.

I don't think people should be expected to preface their comments with an "IMHO" on a forum like this where almost everything that anyone says is a personal opinion. I tend to in contentious threads but by default I also read everyone's comments as an expression of their own beliefs and opinions.

Elmer, there were a number of people posting on this thread, please don't assume that anyone was insulting you. I myself thought she was referring to someone else. (I had to look over my comments to make sure I wasn't in the hot seat).

Sorry Lucille, I always like your comments. It was directed to dandy.

You, Lucille, always seem very thoughtful.

Perfect comment, Elmer.

Elmer - IYHO ?