In a recent episode of “The Checkup” podcast, social media’s “Dr. Mike,” Mikhail Varshavski, DO, engaged in a robust discussion with cardiothoracic surgeon and bestselling author, Dr. Steven Gundry, concerning some of his more debated health viewpoints. Dr. Gundry, known for books like “The Plant Paradox” and “Gut Check,” has garnered significant attention, and equally strong criticism, for suggesting that commonly perceived healthy foods might actually be detrimental to health.
Dr. Gundry’s central argument revolves around lectins, proteins found in foods such as beans, tomatoes, whole grains, and bell peppers. He posits that these lectins are harmful to gut health, a claim that has been widely contested by the broader medical and nutritional community. This is largely because substantial evidence supports the health benefits of diets rich in these very foods, associating them with reduced disease risk and improved overall well-being, without necessitating their elimination.
Dr. Mike, openly acknowledging his initial skepticism, initiated the conversation by emphasizing the potential impact of Dr. Gundry’s pronouncements on his large audience. “I have 25 million subscribers… who listen to every word I say,” Dr. Mike stated, highlighting the responsibility that comes with health messaging. He expressed concern that Dr. Gundry’s assertive pronouncements, such as labeling “apples are horrible” or claiming “the worst thing you could do for your mitochondria is a fruit smoothie,” could be misconstrued, leading individuals to make ill-advised health choices. Dr. Mike urged Dr. Gundry to consider this potential for misinterpretation in his future publications and public speaking engagements.
The conversation then delved into the genesis of Dr. Gundry’s dietary philosophy. Dr. Gundry recounted his transition from cardiac surgery to preventative medicine, driven by the limitations he observed in conventional treatment approaches. He noted the recurring nature of heart procedures, stating, “as a heart surgeon, we knew that if we put a stent in someone or did a bypass, we’d probably see them for their next procedure in 5 to 7 years in general.” This cyclical pattern, coupled with the perceived inadequacy of standard interventions like statins and lifestyle modifications to fundamentally alter disease progression, spurred him to seek alternative approaches.
A pivotal moment in Dr. Gundry’s career occurred 28 years prior when he encountered a patient, “Big Ed,” from Miami, Florida. Dr. Gundry described witnessing Big Ed reverse 50% of severe coronary artery blockages within 6 months through dietary changes and a self-prescribed regimen of health food store supplements. This anecdotal case profoundly impacted Dr. Gundry, leading him to dedicate years to understanding the mechanisms behind such dramatic health improvements.
Dr. Mike, a family medicine physician, raised a critical point about the weight of anecdotal evidence in medicine. He questioned why this single case of “Big Ed” was so transformative for Dr. Gundry, when the medical field generally prioritizes rigorous, controlled studies over individual testimonials. Dr. Mike illustrated his point with the humorous, yet scientifically unsound, example of patients attributing good health to long-term smoking, to emphasize the danger of generalizing from individual experiences.
In a surprising turn, Dr. Gundry responded, “Actually, let me stop you right there. Probably it’s because he smoked that he is doing so well.” This statement immediately signaled the unconventional direction of Dr. Gundry’s perspective, prompting Dr. Mike to seek clarification.
Dr. Gundry elaborated on this provocative idea by referencing the “Blue Zones,” regions known for exceptional longevity. He asserted that a commonality among men in certain Blue Zones, particularly Sardinia, is heavy smoking. Dr. Gundry proposed a counterintuitive interpretation: instead of focusing on the negative impacts of smoking, perhaps researchers should investigate how these long-lived smokers mitigate the harms typically associated with smoking. He suggested that nicotine might possess unrecognized benefits, acting as a “mitochondrial uncoupler.”
Dr. Gundry then ventured into a detailed explanation connecting smoking, vitamin C, and vascular health. He explained that blood vessel flexing causes collagen breakdown, which vitamin C usually repairs. However, in smokers with diets low in vitamin C, the vitamin C is depleted combating oxidative stress from smoking. This, according to Dr. Gundry, leads to inadequately repaired collagen, triggering inflammation and cholesterol deposition as a “spackling compound.”
To support his claims, Dr. Gundry referenced the dietary habits of Blue Zone populations, particularly their consumption of vitamin C-rich foods and olive oil, which he claimed boosts vitamin C production. He argued that these dietary factors could negate the negative effects of smoking, even revealing potential positive effects of nicotine.
Dr. Mike challenged this assertion, questioning the existence of research demonstrating that a high vitamin C diet could negate smoking risks. Dr. Gundry again invoked Blue Zones as evidence, but Dr. Mike countered that Blue Zones are observational studies, not controlled research, and reminded Dr. Gundry that he himself has been critical of Blue Zones methodology, particularly concerning data accuracy in Okinawa.
Dr. Gundry clarified his stance, stating his use of Blue Zone examples was specific to coronary artery disease and longevity, not as blanket endorsements. He pointed to the Kitavans of Papua New Guinea, studied by Staffan Lindeberg, who smoke heavily yet reportedly have no documented cases of stroke, coronary artery disease, or lung cancer. Dr. Gundry reiterated his point about reconsidering the lens through which smoking is viewed, suggesting a potential overlooked benefit of nicotine in certain contexts.
Despite Dr. Gundry’s attempts to contextualize his controversial views within Blue Zone studies and specific biochemical mechanisms, Dr. Mike remained skeptical. The exchange highlighted the fundamental differences in their approaches to health and evidence, with Dr. Gundry emphasizing anecdotal observations and reinterpreting existing data through his unique lens, while Dr. Mike prioritized established medical consensus and rigorous scientific evidence. The conversation served as a compelling example of the ongoing debate within the health and wellness sphere regarding unconventional theories and the interpretation of nutritional science, particularly as championed by figures like Doctor Gundry.
