>When in reality, the human GI evolved to support an extremely broad range of inputs as it's most significant factor. While we can agree that innovation should

>When in reality, the human GI evolved to support an extremely broad range of inputs as it's most significant factor. While we can agree that innovation should not be stifled, the idea that we can determine the processes by which the body utilizes nutrients and their interdependent effects, after a few months of research, is utterly hubristic. I often make the claim that the human body (other animals are close too) exhibits one of the highest levels of complexity out of all the known systems in the universe, far exceeding the complexity of man mad systems. I challenge anyone to put forward a counter-example... I've been researching nutrition for 5 years and read hundreds of papers on PubMed and, involved with QS (quantified self) and life extension movements, track my bloodwork in Google Spreadsheets etc. You may be wondering, why would someone invest such an extraordinary amount of time (1000+ man hours) an energy in this topic? Well I used to think very differently about my health. As a young strong-willed software developer, I arrogantly assumed like many before I knew it all in my teenage years. My mental model of the body, was not dissimilar to your current views on GI (the body will just handle whatever you throw at it). As a result after 10 years of eating badly I ended up with a chronic disease (Psoriatic Arthritis). Being a teenager I knew better and ate anything I wanted, which specifically was an extreme diet consisting entirely of pasta, milk and coke. Because that's what my body "wanted". Now I'm in my 30's and undoing the damage, but I've learned that this system really is complicated, more so than a rocket or microprocessor. You're right in the sense that the body can tolerate it for a while, but it's not designed to cope with abuse over a period of many years. Eventually you will pay the price. Even now though, I wouldn't consider myself an "expert", although some of my peers might. But I have learned enough know when someone is out of their depth. This guy is well intentioned but that does not mean he's justified in making such grandiose claims. For example he says "Vitamin D" and "Vitamin K", without acknowledging various forms exist. For example he says he takes "Vitamin D(400IU):" What exactly is 'Vitamin D'? Cholecalciferol (D3) [1] is quite different from Ergocalciferol (D2)[2] D3 levels are particularly important when talking about overall health. Or take "Vitamin K" for example, are we talking about the philoquinone (K1) [3] or the menaquinone (K2) [4] group? Even if then, if one is talking Vitamin K2, there are various menaquinones forms so is he suggesting Mk4, mk7 or some other form? [5]. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cholecalciferol http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cholecalciferol [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ergocalciferol http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ergocalciferol [3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phylloquinone http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phylloquinone [4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitamin_k2 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitamin_k2 [5] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10084398 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10084398