Robert Ratliff <[log in to unmask]>:
>He did not say nutrition science is meaningless, he said most nutrition
>science was not based on truth.

Tom:
Review the following quote from the original post:

>Loren:
>No need to be impressed.  I'm also a nutritionist, and completely
>convinced that this is the diet that the human body is ideally designed
>for.
>...snipped...
>But most nutrition "science" is based on typical animal and cooked
>food bodies, and is meaningless.
                     ^^^^^^^^^^^

Tom:
Note that he used the word "meaningless" (as well as a a qualifier
that I probably should have also included: "most").

My remarks in the subsection "Dishonest raw/veg*n diet gurus" at:

http://www.beyondveg.com/billings-t/comp-anat/comp-anat-9e.shtml

might be relevant here. As well, the willingness of folks to believe
that some raw diet gurus can get around the laws of physics and
thrive on 1000 calories, rests on gullibility and idealism among the
true believers. See the article, "The Seduction of Raw Vegan Dogma,"
at:

http://www.beyondveg.com/billings-t/seduction/seduction-1a.shtml

Tom Billings