It worked for me.

I think one cause is that people are sometimes willing to try anything that might give them an edge, which can open the door to all kinds of questionable things. Most conditions will improve over time without any sort of intervention (taking a pill, seeing some sort of consultant or whatever) and people often go in for an intervention when the condition is at its worst and can only improve. The question is whether the condition improved because of the intervention or if it would have gone away by itself. This can lead to a lot of urban myths becoming accepted as fact. Another point is that people who are willing to spend time or money on interventions are likely to look after themselves in other ways. If you're happy to spend a load of cash on a food supplement, there's a good chance you'll also be eating carefully, getting plenty of exercise and keeping an eye on mental health. I think also what people really want to get out of "alternative" consultations is not some sort of detailed plan but just a chance for a sit down and a chat with someone who's going to listen and empathise with them.

I'm a sceptic as I think the Imunozen thread shows, but I'm also sceptical of medical claims unless I can find out if they're true. When I was working out how to shift my bulk a few years ago I examined a lot of the claims about diet and weight loss and found a lot of them to be lacking. As I had lot of weight I needed to lose I wanted to make sure I was going to do things that were sustainable and actually work. One I checked was the government advice to eat the 5 pieces of fruit or veg a day which turned out to be just an arbitrary number chosen to get people eating a range of foods. Also, the "no more than 6g of salt a day" guideline certainly isn't a consensus (as the quango responsible for pushing it grudgingly admits).

One of the reasons I'm so sceptical is that a few years ago someone introduced me to the Mayo Clinic diet. I had a look at it but it didn't seem to add up. I did a bit of checking and found that it was a dangerously low calorie crash diet based on atrocious science. I'd been following it for a couple of days but when I found this out I stopped it and did the only sensible thing: nip out to buy some cakes and a nice pie. I certainly wasn't too impressed when I found out that Margaret Thatcher followed it for a while during the 1970s. Out of date and gimmicky diets are a waste of time and money. Low carb was the advice given in the 50s and 60s but things have moved on since then among people who keep their knowledge up to date. The eating plan where I lost 50 kg was a high carb/low calorie one. My weight has gone up by a couple of kilos since then but it's stable, I'm very fit and healthy, and I can get it down reasonably quickly if I need to.

The claim that fruit and veg is lacking in nutrients is pretty common, especially among manufacturers of vitamin pills. However guideline daily amounts and nutritional breakdowns are based on these foods as they are now. Cases of malnutrition are pretty much unheard of except for people on very restricted diets such as anorexics. Being actively involved in sport means you have different requirements to someone who sits at a desk all day and doesn't get any exercise. When I was seeing a dietician to get my weight loss moving again she told me to make sure I was eating enough to keep up with my training. Conventional food from a supermarket works fine for me. I do sometimes wonder about supplements but I'm not sure what they'd do for me that normal food hasn't done.