4 ms·
> I read the book. It was a sarcastic comment. Your sarcasm was misplaced. You stated that "the problem is that Steve Jobs ignored Ehret’s concept of a “transi
by fmihaila 8y ago
> I read the book. It was a sarcastic comment.
Your sarcasm was misplaced. You stated that "the problem is that Steve Jobs ignored Ehret’s concept of a “transition diet,” and became taken with the idea of being a fruit-only eater right away."
That was not the problem at all, as @stevehawk stated and my quote proves. You are pushing a pseudo-scientific book from 100 years ago and mentioned Jobs's name to enhance the recommendation's credibility. Jobs's belief in pseudoscience cost him his life.
> The reason I made my original comment is because the benefits of fasting described in the submission are known for almost 100 years now (to a certain extent) and one may find it interesting to know where the roots are coming from.
And the history of modern chemistry traces back to the days of alchemy; it doesn't mean there is any deeper truth to be discovered by reading alchemy books today.
- andreygrehov 8y agoI was wrong saying "the problem is", whereas what I should have said instead is that he didn't even follow the book, so there is no reason to avoid an interesting read. > And the history of modern chemistry traces back to the days of alchemy; it doesn't mean there is any deeper truth to be discovered by reading alchemy books today. You don't need a deeper truth, but be aware why the believed truth is truth, ie seeing the problem from all the angles. You don't know what you don't know.