Originally Posted by CrescentMoonie
Um...go see a registered dietitian (not any kind of "nutritionist" or any other unprotected term). Whole 30 was started by two people with literally no background in nutrition at all. Your doc shouldn't be prescribing anything like that.
The Whole 30: A Dietitian Review
Meh. I certainly appreciate skepticism in matters of healthcare, but that dietitian's 'analysis' wasn't particularly enlightening or really all that critical in the slightest. Her only criticism of the diet seems to be that it is too exclusionary and isn't much use to a healthy person, long term....which is such a misunderstanding of the the diet's stated purpose/rules (it's a 30 day long, intentionally exclusionary diet, with gradual re-introduction of the banned foods after 30 days) as to render all of her following analysis worthless.
...to paraphrase Digamma, with diet in particular, why let the perfect be an enemy of the good? If the most damning criticism a dietitian can come upwith against a diet is 'it's pretty good' (even after inventing her own rules), should I really abandon all my efforts up until this point in order to pursue a definition that has a certain seal attached to it?