In Defense of Food” (2009) was written by Michael Pollan who is a Professor of Journalism at University of California at Berkeley. Pollan is not a doctor, a scientist, or a nutritionist - he’s a journalist.

Pollan's message is:

Go back to nature, eat whole foods. Don’t diet.
Don't overeat; instead eat slowly, and enjoy your meals.
Our curse is processed food.
Artificially 'improved' foods and natural foods have very little in common..

The best-selling, "In Defense of Food" provides a guided tour of 20th century food science, a history of "nutritionism" in America and a snapshot of the marriage of government and the food industry. It then works as a hard-sell for the “real food” movement.   Pollan's arguments are basically:

• High-fructose corn syrup is the devil's brew. It must be removed from one’s diet.
  
  
• Avoid any food product that makes health claims, these mean it's probably not really food.
  
  
• In a supermarket, don't shop in the center aisles. Avoid anything that can't rot, anything with an ingredient you can't pronounce.
  
  
• "Don't get your fuel from the same place your car does." Avoid buying foods sold at mini-markets.
  
  
• "You are what you eat eats too." One must pay attention to what is fed to one’s food.
  
  
• "Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants." By which Pollan means: Eat natural food, the kind your grandmother served because the food industry had not yet learned that the big money was in processing, not harvesting. Use meat sparingly. Eat your greens, the leafier and more varied the better.
   
• In short: Kiss the Western diet goodbye. Look to the cultures where people eat well and live long. Trust your gut. Literally.

 In all this, Pollan insists that you have to save yourself. He says that the government is so overwhelmed by the lobbying and marketing power of the processed food industry that the American diet is now 50% sugar in one form or another, and calories that provide "virtually nothing but energy." Politicians are terrified to take on the food industry. And as for the medical profession, the key moment, Pollan writes, is when "doctors kick the fast-food franchises out of the hospital".

Pollan is a not a scientist,  and doesn't seem to find it very important to ground his assertions with unimpeachable facts. His book is based on notions of a romanticized past, and his advice can sometimes be contradictory ("don't eat anything your grandmother wouldn't recognize" but "eat tofu" - - If your grandmother didn't come from Asia, it's doubtful she would recognize anything made of bean curd) and he tends to cite sources that he likes, rather than sources he's really investigated.

For example, Pollan would never list a dairy-industry pamphlet as one of his sources, but he gleefully quotes some rather doubtful statements from an organic-food-industry pamphlet, and apparently didn't bother to ask even one secondary source to verify them.

He writes a compelling essay showing that nutrition and dietary habits are incredibly difficult for scientists to study, and implies that any information based on nutritional studies is flawed, yet quotes certain studies as if they are somehow immune to this problem. Pollan maintains that the American government's health-education programs are a major cause of the obesity epidemic, yet his descriptions of these programs contain many inaccuracies. 

 Pollan's tone appears occasionally condescending. He seems overly impressed with some of his own statements, such as his claim that humans are the only animals that turn to experts to tell them what to eat. Even if one accepts that this is true, humans do a lot of things that animals don't do, and in many cases, we should be glad of it.

Some people seem to reverence this book like the Bible.  Personally, I found it an interesting book, but one that needs be read critically, taking Pollen’s "facts" with a grain of salt. I, personally, didn't actually find the book insightful. He made a lot of scientific claims, but failed to support them. A great many readers seem to greatly care about Pollan's personal opinions, however, I’m not one of them.

Clearly the grandmothers with which Pollan is familiar were different from my own. I’m over 65 years old, and my own grandmothers, who were both born in the late 1800s, spent a lot of time processing and preserving their food, and most everything they cooked, including vegetables, contained a great deal of added saturated fat, sugar and/or white flour and other starchy foods. Pollan’s “real” food arguments, and his assumptions about the eating histories of our ancestors, seemed a bit naïve; and his opinions appeared to be strongly influenced by his own personal educational, economic, and cultural biases.

 I found the following food and health expert’s critique to be rather refreshing.

A Critique of Michael Pollan’s “In Defense of Food”
         by Mike Gibney, 4/23/2012
                      Professor of Food & Health at University College in Dublin, Ireland.

Michael Pollan’s book “In Defense of Food’ has been a global best seller within the genre of books on food and health. It appears to be extremely popular among journalists since it bashes conventional wisdom on food. Twice, correspondents for the Irish Times chose to feature this book and marvel at its wisdom. Pollan’s book is peppered with half-truths, circular arguments and highly selective supporting material. His fundamental point is that we should focus our dietary choice on foods and not bother too much, if at all, with all of this nutritional advice that abounds today.

Pollen’s belief that health is the driver of food choice in the modern era is a cornerstone of his argument. Take for example the statement he makes: “That eating should be foremost about bodily health is a relatively new, and I think, destructive idea”.

The interest in healthy eating is as old as civilization and this obsession is the pursuit of a relatively minor section of society. The vast majority chooses food that they plan to enjoy and, in making those choices, take care to get some level of balance as regards to their personal health. Every study that has examined the drivers of food choice have come away with the conclusion that the “go – no go” part of food choice is whether the consumer likes the food.

Pollan’s assumption that it is the pursuit of health that drives food choice is an opinion based his personal reflections and observations. However, our own research, published in peer-reviewed journals shows the opposite. In a survey of over 14,000 consumers across the EU, some 71% either ‘agreed strongly’ or ‘agreed’ with the statement: “I do not need to make changes to my diet as my diet is already healthy enough”. Figure that Mr. Pollan!

The putative obsession with food and health of modern consumers that Pollan puts forward arises from the dogmatism and doctrine, which he calls “nutritionism”. He argues that nutrition has reduced the food and health issue to nutrients. In his view, nutritionists see foods solely as purveyors of nutrients and summarizes their view thus: “Foods are essentially the sum of their nutrient parts”. He quotes his fellow food saviour and author Marion Nestle who says of nutrition: “…it takes the nutrient out of the food, the food out of the diet and the diet out of the lifestyle”.

Eloquent, but utter baloney! This needs to rebutted along several lines. In 1996, I chaired a joint WHO-FAO committee that issued a report entitled “Preparation and use of food-based dietary guidelines”. The notion behind this was that many developing countries did not have detailed data on the nutrient content of their food supply, that they didn’t have nutritional surveys and that we should encourage the development of healthy eating advice in terms that consumers can understand. Indeed, statistical techniques such as cluster analysis are widely used to study food intake patterns and moreover, there are many examples of systems that score food choice for their nutritional quality. To write a book based on the impression that nutritionists see foods solely in terms of nutrients is simply daft.

Let me go a little further with this. Take the disease spina bifida, which is one of several forms of neural tube defects (NTD) that occur early in pregnancy. Extensive human intervention studies have shown that an increased intake of the B vitamin, folic acid, will significantly reduce the re-occurrence of an NTD birth in women who have previously had a child with this condition. This research has led to a threshold value of folic acid in blood above which this reduction occurs and the research shows that in human intervention studies, it is not possible to attain this threshold with normal foods, naturally rich in folate. Such folate has a rather low bioavailability and the threshold can only be reached if the volunteers consumed foods fortified with synthetic folic acid. This has led to the mandatory fortification of flour in the US with folic acid leading to a dramatic reduction in the incidence of new cases of spina bifida.

What is laughable about Pollan’s approach is that he himself engages in his so-called reductionism because he devotes at least almost 11 pages to the argument for and against the polyunsaturated fats from plants (omega-6 variety) and the polyunsaturated fats from fish (omega-3 variety), ultimately favouring the latter and then ends up with the statement: ”Could it be that the problem with the Western diet is a gross deficiency in this nutrient?” Now Michael you can’t have it both ways. You can’t decry nutritionists for studying individual nutrients in relation to health and then proceed to do so yourself! And remarkably, this champion of foods over nutrients goes on to argue that older persons should take multivitamins. Don’t take a bow Michael. Just stop doing summersaults.

The final piece in his jigsaw is to dismiss the modern processed food, as though bread, cheese, yogurt, pasta, wine, chocolate, coffee and the like are not processed. Their processing details were worked out long ago and so they don’t qualify for the derogatory tag of “processed”. The first sugar refinery was built in Crete in 1000 AD and that the Arabic name for Crete, Qandi, gave rise to what we today call “candy”. This process requires the sugar can to be pulped in water, the water filtered through muslin and the water evaporated in the searing heat of the Crete sunshine, which is why Crete was chosen and not Cork. And Pollan makes the inevitable mistake of the agricultural romanticist that organic food is nutritionally superior to conventionally farmed food, which is palpably untrue.

Pollan is a California food-head, and among the world’s few privileged elite.  Most of the other High Priests of “Healthy Eating” and their “real food” followers tend to give great respect to his unsubstantiated opinions. Pollan’s best-seller status demonstrates that he has been very successful at “preaching to the choir”.

Although a fellow Californian, I am not a “real food” person, nor a Michael Pollan fan.
There are many different ways to look at the world,   and I see a great deal of cultural bias involved in the way that Pollan views it.  As a well-known Journalist, Pollan’s writings have great appeal for educated, white, middle-class, environmentalists, … especially for organic-whole-food-“health-nut” people … many of whom are also employed by the media.

 The End of Overeating (2010) by David Kessler is a compelling, in-depth analysis of why we eat the way we do. Dr. David Kessler, former FDA commissioner shares how our brain chemistry has been hijacked by the foods we most love to eat: those that contain stimulating combinations of fat, sugar, and salt.

Drawn from the latest brain science as well as interviews with top physicians and food industry insiders, The End of Overeating exposes the food industry’s aggressive marketing tactics and reveals how we lost control over food, and gives suggestions on how to regain personal control.

Kessler pores through the research and details the physiological and psychological reasons for why we are drawn to overeat, and the way that big corporations use this research to make food products that are guaranteed to tempt us to over-indulge. It all boils down to sugar, fat, and salt, and how companies spend millions of dollars developing recipes and chemicals that will entice us, to over-ride our natural "homeostasis" that would normally keep us at an even weight.

The first part of the book deals with the physiological research, then the psychology behind overeating, and finally, at the end of the book are chapters devoted to dealing with these triggers in order to help one get beyond the temptations and stay at an even weight. 

 It is certainly true that the obese in our culture are in a Catch 22 situation. Marketing Interests in Society do everything possible to entice us to overeat, and yet we are also stigmatized by Marketing Interests in Society when our bodies become obese as a natural result of overeating.

Of course, … also … that stigmatization of our obesity creates even more marketing opportunities for those same food Marketing Interests as well as a for variety of others, in the form of “diet or non-diet” information and programs; a multitude of “healthy” foods, supplements and drugs; the “health” services of medical professionals, including surgeons, psychologists, nutritionists, trainers; as well as “health related or exercise” facilities and equipment etc

I was not impressed by Kessler’s “solutions” to the problem of obesity. This best-selling book’s primary value to me was its presentation of interesting detailed facts about how Marketing Interests use their best efforts to entice us to eat as much as possible.

Kessler’s presentation represents a popular theory about the current “obesity epidemic”, however, there are also opposing theories.  Mike Gibney, author of a recently published book, “Something to Chew on”, (11/2012) says that when Kessler writes that the incidence of obesity soared from the late 1980s, he ignores the indisputable fact that the rise of obesity is more or less tracked by the industrial revolution.

Gibney goes on to say that this omission is of huge importance, because “If Kessler chooses to ignore the early origins of obesity, then he can be comfortable blaming the advent of foods high in salt, sugar and fat. Others can comfortably blame the advent of high fructose corn syrup, fast food, sugar sweetened beverages”

Gibney continues: “It is a simple fact of life that obesity is one of the drawbacks of affluence where food is abundant and where labour saving devices (and slave labour) are accessible. This is not for one iota to play down the health consequences of obesity. It is simply of enormous importance in understanding the causes of obesity.”

No one book provides every answer to any issue. I found Kessler’s book, “The End of Overeating” extremely interesting reading, and recommend it. However, I did feel the title was a bit misleading, since the book provided very little practical insight or new help toward actually ENDING Overeating.

The Simple Diet - A Diet Review

In "The Simple Diet" (2011) Dr. James Anderson, a professor of medicine and clinical nutrition at the University of Kentucky, shares his scientifically based nutritional plan.  He says that he, himself has used it successfully, and that he has also used it to successfully treat many patients. Dr. Anderson considers his diet to be a budget-friendly weight-loss plan which he favorably compares with commercial diet plans like Nutri-system and Jenny Craig.

The Simple Diet is a replacement meal plan, in which one eats only shakes and packaged entrees of one’s choice, together with any type of fruit (except dried) and/or any type of vegetable prepared without butter or additional fat.

The diet relies on frozen entrees and diet shake mixes … plus fruits and vegetables … to meet one’s nutritional needs, and Dr. Anderson doesn’t take issue with processed foods or artificial sweeteners. The diet requires the purchase of diet shake mixes like SlimFast or various Protein powders (to be mixed with water or fruit, not skim or soy milk); frozen dinner entrees like Lean Cuisine or Smart Ones; high protein snack bars like Luna (optional); some soups (optional); and fresh, canned, or frozen vegetables and fruits. There are a large selection of "diet friendly" meal options offered in the plan, most widely available in American supermarkets, and the diet does not allow for any foods (except those existing within the frozen entrees) which are typical household staples, like breads, pastas, rice, cereals or dairy products (nonfat plain greek yogurt is considered an acceptable protein shake substitute).

The rules of Phase 1 are to eat only 3 protein shakes … either a ready-made brand like slim-fast or protein powder mixed with water (soup also qualifies as a shake), 2 packaged frozen entrees, and 5 or more fruits or vegetables a day. Ordinarily one would have a shake for Breakfast; a shake mid-morning; a shake mid-afternoon; a frozen entrée for Lunch; a frozen entrée for Dinner; and fruit and vegetables at any time. One is to also drink at least 8 glasses of water or other non-caloric beverage. Coffee, tea, and diet sodas are acceptable. 

If necessary or desired, one can also have up to 1 protein bar daily, but this is additional, not a replacement for the shake or entrée. If a person is still hungry, additional shakes and more fruits and vegetables are recommended instead of adding extra foods, or eating additional bars. Phase 2 gradually brings in other foods.

The plan is based on the premise that by exercising a bit more and eating pre-measured low calorie entrees, diet shakes, occasional protein bars, and fruits and veggies, one will lose weight. This is a calories-in/calories-out plan, and one’s total calories depend on the specific food items that one chooses. Dr. Anderson provides guidelines for choosing shakes, entrees, soups, and bars; and when followed, the plan will provide between 1100 and 1600 calories daily.

This is a prescriptive plan, but does offer plenty of variety (in shakes, entrees and produce). The cost depends on where one shops and what one is willing to spend. If one goes to Target or Wal-Mart, most entrees will cost $1-2.50, and Slimfast is about $6-8. If one goes to GNC for shake powder, one’s cost can be $30. Snacks and meals are quick to prepare with a minimum of cleanup. “Simple” is the point of the Simple Diet, and it definitely meets that requirement.

The premise of Dr. Anderson’s book, "The Simple Diet"(2011), is that it is possible to lose weight easily in a relatively short period of time using foods that are readily available in any supermarket if you are following the right plan. Dr. Anderson promises that very obese dieters can lose up to 50 pounds in the first 12 weeks of their diet, and that the weight loss can be permanent. In addition to shedding unwanted pounds Dr. Anderson claims that (through weight-loss) this diet will help lower high blood sugar, cholesterol, and blood pressure; that it can help reverse heart disease, type 2 diabetes, and a variety of other obesity induced conditions. The rules of the diet are fairly easy to follow and require little measuring or calorie counting, however, optional tracking of food and calorie counting will be helpful.

Since I am already normal weight with a total energy burn of less than 1200 calories (for details see my previous articles), I modified the diet to reduce it to a daily total of about 900 calories in order to make it a weight-loss possibility for me personally. I did this by being careful with my choices of fruits and vegetables, replacing the lunch entrée meal with vegetables only… having only one entrée daily, and by limiting protein bars.

My shakes were made from 1 scoop of Designer Whey protein powder at 100 calories per scoop. I made them with ice and 4 oz sugar-free Almond Milk which added 20 calories per shake. I occasionally added 1 fruit serving for additional calories. See my recipes for  Chocolate Milkshake, and Strawberry Banana Smoothie.  Fage 0% Greek Yogurt (6 oz container=100 calories); my homemade egg-white custards (50 calories);  my chocolate protein cookie (50 calories); and my protein cream cupcake (substituting sugar-free vanilla syrup for cream) (100 calories) also qualified as shake substitutes.

I enjoyed my bit of experimentation with The Simple Diet, and liked the food choices far better than with Nutri-System, or Jenny Craig. I’ve no personal objection to eating processed food, and found that eating on the plan actually provided me with a more balanced, low-fat diet, than my normal maintenance eating. I plan to do additional experimentation with this diet sometime in the future. 

                                               

The husband and wife authors, Paul Jaminet and Shou-Ching Jaminet of the
“Perfect Health Diet” (2010) are two doctorate-level scientists, (Paul a physicist and Shou-Ching a vascular biologist), who believe that conventional dietary advice is largely mistaken. As is the case with most authors of diet books, they experimented with the diet in their own lives; found it successful for them; and then wrote a book sharing what they learned.

The primary premise of the book is that disease and ill health are caused by three inter-related factors: food toxins, malnourishment, and chronic infections by bacteria, viruses, fungi, and protozoa; and that all three factors must be addressed by diet.

The Perfect Health Diet is based on “nutrient-rich superfoods” like egg yolks, liver and other organ meats, bone and joint soups, brain and bone marrow, seafood, seaweed, green leafy vegetables, and fermented vegetables. It includes a number of other meats, fats, oils, and “safe starches” to provide sufficient protein and calories

The Perfect Health Diet is approx. 65% fat., 20% carbs and 15% protein by calories, and by weight is approx 65% plants and 35% animal foods. It is a low-carb diet, but not a low-plant diet. Most of the carb calories come from what they call “safe starches” while most of the plant material consists of low-calorie, low-carb vegetables, and a small amount of fruit.

The authors are opposed to “calorie-reduced” diets, and rely on the body and foods eaten to naturally regulate calories without conscious restriction. They believe that a “nutrient-dense” diet reduces appetite. They also recommend Intermittent fasting for weight-loss, such as a 23 hr fast from dinner to dinner; or confining food to an 8 hr window daily with 16 hr fasts between eating periods.

The Basic Keys to the diet are:

*The diet should consist of: by weight, about 2/3 plant foods, 1/3 animal foods. Based on a “standard” 2000 calorie diet, daily fat intake should be 65% of daily food intake, or 1300 calories. Daily carbohydrate intake should be 400 calories, primarily from starches (e.g., rice, potatoes, sweet potatoes, taro), fruits, and berries, as well as a variety of low-calorie vegetables. Daily protein intake should be about 300 calories.

* Do not eat toxic foods such as:

* Do not eat cereal grains — wheat, barley, oats, corn — or foods made from them — bread, pasta, breakfast cereals, oatmeal. The exception is white rice, which count as “safe starches.” Rice noodles, rice crackers, and the like are fine.

* Do not eat calorie-rich legumes. Peas and green beans are fine. Soy and peanuts should be absolutely excluded. Beans might be acceptable with suitable preparation, but it is recommended to avoid them.

* Do not eat foods with added sugar or high-fructose corn syrup. Do not drink anything that contains sugar: healthy drinks are water, tea, and coffee.

* Polyunsaturated fats should be a small fraction of the diet (4% of total calories). To achieve this, do not eat seed oils such as soybean oil, corn oil, safflower oil, sunflower oil, canola oil, or the like. The best cooking oils are coconut oil, clarified butter, and beef tallow; palm oil, lard, olive oil, and avocado oil are next best. Nut butters are another possible source of fats.

* Eat nourishing foods such as: liver, egg yolks, seaweeds, shellfish, vegetable and bone broths. Make sauces from an acid (lemon juice, vinegar), an oil, and herbs. Get sufficient salt.

Overall, the Perfect Health Diet is an good introduction to the world of traditional Paleo eating. It is well referenced and well reasoned. The content ranges from practical to technical. Some of the more technical sections might be intimidating to someone who just wants to be told what they should eat. However, readers with an interest in nutrition or another science will probably find the book interesting.

The Jaminets provide an excellent discussion of the interconversion of different macronutrients which should certainly shake almost anyone out of a fat-phobia, once they realize how any excess carbs eaten are just turned into fat anyway.

Three concepts that are developed throughout the book are:

1. The concept of “Economics of Nutrition”, which is a discussion on food toxicity. With nutrition, the greatest benefit comes from the first amount eaten of any nutrient; each additional amount provides less benefit until eventually the benefit equals zero. Beyond the “plateau range”, a nutrient can become toxic, with increasing amounts becoming more and more toxic.

The authors evaluate the “marginal benefit curve” for carbohydrates, protein, and fats with numerous references to scientific literature.

2. How food is transformed by the body. In other words, what goes in the mouth is not the same as what it becomes in the body. Similarly, different foods produce different by-products after the digestion process. Some foods they address are wheat (and all grains), soy (and all legumes), sugar, and polyunsaturated fats (especially Omega 6s).

3.  Mammalian dietary strategies (omnivores, herbivores, carnivores) that have evolved over time, how humans are similar and where humans differ in dietary needs.

In conclusion, the Perfect Health Diet is similar to the Paleo Diet but with several important differences. The protein intake is lower and certain “safe starches” are a major part of the diet. This makes the macronutrient ratio comparable to that of Pacific islanders. This book provides a lot of information on micronutrients, however, guidance on how to implement the diet on a practical basis is probably insufficient for the majority of readers.

I found the book interesting, enjoyed reading it, and think it is a valuable reference book for a high-fat, low-carb, minimum protein …” way-of-eating”, “diet”, or “lifestyle”.
Am I going to personally experiment with this specific diet? I would probably do so BEFORE Hell froze over, but certainly not until AFTER I've exhausted the possibilities of a multitude of other diets that I find more compatible with my own food taste preferences.

Wheat Belly: Lose the Wheat, Lose the Weight, and Find Your Path Back to Health (2011) by William Davis M.D.   Dr. William Davis, is a cardiologist who advocates eliminating wheat from the diet in order to lose weight and reverse health problems. Davis shares his conclusion that wheat is the single largest contributor to the obesity epidemic, and that the elimination of wheat is the key to dramatic weight loss and optimal health.

In Wheat Belly, Davis exposes the harmful effects of what is actually a product of genetic tinkering and agribusiness being sold to the American public as “wheat” and provides readers with suggestions of how to live a new, wheat-free lifestyle.

I purchased and read this book when it was first published, and did some experimentation with "wheat-free" eating last fall.  During the period when I was not eating wheat, ... while eating approximately the same calories...., my weight dropped into a 3 to 5 lb lower range, but within 2 weeks of returning wheat to my diet, .....while eating approximately the same calories...., my weight returned to it's previous level.  Therefore, the weight result of that personal experiment was about the same as my many experiments with low-carb and zero-carb, in that no actual fat loss occurred in my body as a result of my wheat elimination experiment.

Bread and other wheat products combined with sugar and fat are definitely some of the foods that I find the most difficult to resist eating, even when I'm not at all hungry, and I will probably be doing more experimentation with eliminating or reducing wheat sometime in the future.

Here is a recent article about this concept by CBS news.

Modern wheat a "perfect, chronic poison," doctor says
                     CBS News - September 3, 2012 

Modern wheat is a "perfect, chronic poison," according to Dr. William Davis, a cardiologist who has published a book all about the world's most popular grain.

Davis said that the wheat we eat these days isn't the wheat your grandma had: "It's an 18-inch tall plant created by genetic research in the '60s and '70s," he said on "CBS This Morning." "This thing has many new features nobody told you about, such as there's a new protein in this thing called gliadin. It's not gluten. I'm not addressing people with gluten sensitivities and celiac disease. I'm talking about everybody else because everybody else is susceptible to the gliadin protein that is an opiate. This thing binds into the opiate receptors in your brain and in most people stimulates appetite, such that we consume 440 more calories per day, 365 days per year."

Asked if the farming industry could change back to the grain it formerly produced, Davis said it could, but it would not be economically feasible because it yields less per acre. However, Davis said a movement has begun with people turning away from wheat - and dropping substantial weight.

"If three people lost eight pounds, big deal," he said. "But we're seeing hundreds of thousands of people losing 30, 80, 150 pounds. Diabetics become no longer diabetic; people with arthritis having dramatic relief. People losing leg swelling, acid reflux, irritable bowel syndrome, depression, and on and on every day."

To avoid these wheat-oriented products, Davis suggests eating "real food," such as avocados, olives, olive oil, meats, and vegetables. "(It's) the stuff that is least likely to have been changed by agribusiness," he said. "Certainly not grains. When I say grains, of course, over 90 percent of all grains we eat will be wheat, it's not barley... or flax. It's going to be wheat.

"It's really a wheat issue."

Some health resources, such as the Mayo Clinic, advocate a more balanced diet that does include wheat. But Davis said on "CTM" they're just offering a poor alternative.

"All that literature says is to replace something bad, white enriched products with something less bad, whole grains, and there's an apparent health benefit - 'Let's eat a whole bunch of less bad things.' So I take...unfiltered cigarettes and replace with Salem filtered cigarettes, you should smoke the Salems. That's the logic of nutrition, it's a deeply flawed logic. What if I take it to the next level, and we say, 'Let's eliminate all grains,' what happens then?

"That's when you see, not improvements in health, that's when you see transformations in health."

Watch Davis' full interview in the video below