To further add to the EI method and why it's flawed:
Dosing excessively high NPK, GH, CO2, light, plus (twice) weekly large water changes, are done to alleviate toxicity of the micros. It appears that everything Tom has done over the past several years are the result of trying to alleviate the toxicity caused by dosing excess traces. This is why his plants grow better after a water change
, because it lowers the toxic range of the trace nutrients. This is why CO2 needs to be "good" (I interpret this to mean high, 30+ppm), to maximize nutrient uptake and why you need, in his words, "good light" (I've always assumed "good" meant high, 100+ PAR, at the substrate) to drive that nutrient uptake. Why "it's not EI without GH", because Ca and Mg alleviate trace nutrient toxicity. It's also why Tom's said that plants grow better in hard water, because higher Ca and Mg reduces trace nutrient toxicity by improving the nutrient ratio balance, which contradicts his own statements that ratios don't matter. Ratios do indeed matter, and they matter a lot. Screw up any one of these and your plants grow poorly or not at all.
To put this into perspective, some of ADA tanks have 2X the light, half the CO2, far less fertilization, and smaller water changes.
A single Grand Solar I light fixture produces 150+PAR at the substrate, 20" deep with lights hung 12" above the surface of their 180x60x60cm tanks, low water column fertilization, CO2 that turns on with the photoperiod and achieves a maximum concentration of 25ppm, with 30% weekly WC.
This directly contrasts all the claims about CO2, algae, light...
The 96hr LC50 of nitrate for guppy fry is ~190ppm. The 24hr LC50 is 267ppm.
Rubin, Elmaraghy, "Studies on the toxicity of ammonia, nitrate and their mixtures to guppy fry"