Dr. Steven Gundry has become a controversial figure in the health and wellness space. Once a respected cardiothoracic surgeon at Loma Linda University Medical Center, he’s now better known for promoting a lectin-free diet and marketing a range of supplements. Given his association with Loma Linda—a medical institution affiliated with the Seventh-day Adventist Church—many have asked whether Dr. Gundry himself is a Seventh-day Adventist.
This question speaks not just to religious affiliation, but to how personal philosophy can intersect with medical practice and public health messaging.
Loma Linda and Its Religious Foundation
Loma Linda University is owned and operated by the Seventh-day Adventist Church. Its health system is heavily influenced by Adventist principles, particularly in regard to diet, lifestyle, and holistic wellness. Vegetarianism, avoidance of caffeine and alcohol, and emphasis on preventive care are central to its health doctrine.
Dr. Gundry held a high-ranking position within this institution for many years. His time there gave him exposure to long-standing Adventist health philosophies, including the promotion of plant-based eating for chronic disease prevention. Loma Linda itself is located in one of the world’s five “Blue Zones,” known for longevity and low rates of age-related disease—a designation frequently credited to the Adventist lifestyle.
No Evidence of Personal Religious Affiliation
Despite his long tenure at Loma Linda, there is no verified public record indicating that Dr. Steven Gundry is, or ever was, a member of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. While he worked closely within a religiously affiliated environment, his public commentary and published works do not cite Adventist theology or identify him with the faith.
Moreover, Gundry’s current dietary teachings diverge significantly from standard Adventist nutritional principles. Seventh-day Adventists typically promote whole grains, legumes, and a plant-based diet. In contrast, Gundry’s protocol restricts many of these foods due to their lectin content.
Dietary Philosophy and Commercial Endeavors
Dr. Gundry’s shift from conventional surgery to dietary intervention marked a clear professional reorientation. He left Loma Linda to focus on what he describes as the root causes of chronic disease—particularly gut inflammation linked to certain plant proteins. This led to the development of his “Plant Paradox” dietary framework.
His brand, Gundry MD, markets a suite of nutritional supplements that reflect his focus on microbiome health and metabolic support. Key products include:
- MCT Wellness: Formulated with medium-chain triglycerides and polyphenols, this supplement is marketed for enhancing energy, metabolism, and fat processing.
- Bio Complete 3: A gut-health formula combining prebiotics, probiotics, and postbiotics to support digestive function and immune response.
- Gundry MD Total Restore: Designed to strengthen the intestinal barrier and reduce symptoms of digestive discomfort.
These products are positioned within a larger ecosystem of lectin-free recipes, wellness guides, and health coaching. While some ingredients have established roles in digestive or metabolic support, the efficacy of the complete formulations has not been validated through independent, peer-reviewed clinical trials.
Distinguishing Background from Belief
Working within a religiously affiliated institution does not imply shared belief. Dr. Gundry’s time at Loma Linda exposed him to a population with uniquely low rates of chronic disease, which may have shaped his thinking. However, his departure and subsequent work suggest a more individualized, commercially-driven philosophy that differs markedly from the collective practices of the Seventh-day Adventist community.
From a public health perspective, it is important to evaluate dietary and medical claims based on scientific merit—not personal affiliation. Dr. Gundry’s religious beliefs, or lack thereof, are ultimately less important than the validity and transparency of the health information he promotes.
For readers seeking to improve their health, the focus should remain on interventions supported by the broader medical literature, not on perceived ideological or religious associations.