That video is not for me.

Anti-oxidants is an invention. We have lungs. Oxygen is our fuel. All metabolic processes occur by oxidation. Inhibiting oxidation inhibits all those metabolic processes. For example, white blood cells that fight off intruders perform this function by oxidizing the intruders directly. Or, all of our cells (with the exception of a few types) have upwards of several thousands of mitochondria, all of which perform their various functions by oxidation.

Phyto-nutrients is an invention. If the plants use that stuff to defend themselves against pathogens, it can't possibly be any better for us when we eat it. Plants can't run, they can only defend themselves by become toxic, especially to animals who eat them. Through cycles of natural selection and mutation, plants get more toxic, animals adapt to this, and so forth. We have not adapted to eat any toxic plant in that fashion. On the contrary, we have adapted our food supply to be less toxic and more edible. We have effectively reversed eons of natural selection in that respect, through aptly called artificial selection. If the argument is that the toxic stuff is phyto-nutrients, then we grow plants that contain much less of it precisely because it's toxic to us. It makes no sense to now claim that this toxic stuff somehow has become good for us.

When he talks about the guy who eats a burger for lunch, then he blames the meat itself but omits the bun, that's when I realized he's an idjit. The veggie oil stuff and the omega 3/6 stuff is a red herring because it allows to choose genuine non-food stuff if at least it's got more o3 than o6. The organic stuff vs whatever is bogus. It's simply not possible to get the same yield. Organic, as produced currently, just can't match retail price. Never mind that it's not yet demonstrated that organic wheat for example is any better for us if we eat as much of that as we do the industrial stuff. Organic sugar! What a joke.

As for the toxicity and deficiency argument, I agree to some degree. But, toxicity of what? Deficiency of what? Well, a priori, it's toxicity of non-food stuff and deficiency of genuine food stuff. For example, wheat is not food but nobody thinks of wheat like that, you know, as a drug rather than as food. So before we even begin to answer these two questions, we have to establish what is food and what is not, but then that's already a big problem for most who simply don't see it that way. This is how for example we came up with gluten sensitivity BS, when instead we could just plainly say wheat is not food, it's a drug, and it's toxic with years of consumption, and this toxicity then transmits to our offspring through generational epigenetics, who then develop symptoms of toxicity much sooner than we initially did.

The acidic vs alkalyne stuff is bogus, especially the part where alkalyne stuff is good while acidic stuff is bad. If that's the argument and if plant stuff gets a medal for it while meat gets a thumbs down, this means bye bye low-carb and all that fat. The guy even talks about fat-solubles, which would also get cut cuz the fat gets cut.

Wait a minute, I think I get it. He's arguing for a balanced diet where acid load and alkalyne load are balanced, favoring alkalyne. He's saying we're obligate omnivores cuz of that balanced stuff, but with a preference for mostly plants cuz of that alkalyne load in the colon. Ok, sure, but then why do we even need a gallbladder where bile is stored purely for the purpose of emulsifying fat? Why do we even need pancreatic enzyme lipase, and the common bile duct through which this enzyme travels, purely for the purpose of degrading triglycerides? And the guy even talks about that stuff.

Cognitive dissonance, prolly?

Ya, that video is really not for me.