Low-carb book's defense: author Gary Taubes response in the NY Times

[sugarless4life]

Originally Posted by ItsTheWooo

I am aware there are exceptions, I am one of them. But most people cannot and will not do this (eat differently, involving a bit of self isolation) for life, and you must appreciate that this is true for a lot of people.

That is a complete copout. IMO, its a part of that "victim mentality" .. ("I can't help how I eat, I just want to fit in...its not my fault...") Sooner or later, stand up and take responsibility for what YOU put in YOUR mouth, and accept the fact that YOU made the choice.

Betty

[ItsTheWooo]

And I don't see this is an issue of being a "follower" vs being an "individual"... whether or not we can or cannot stick to a diet is obviously muchm ore complex than that (even if "follower" and "individual" were real classes of people, which they aren't; we can be followers in one way and individuals in other ways).

It's just this one issue (food, socialization, culture, feeling comfortable with being a member of your social group, a sense of belonging)... people are "followers" in the sense that yes, food is an integral part of social rituals and we tend to "follow" the foods everyone else eats. A major reason diets fail, particularly low carb diets, is that it is very hard to eat differently for life. I don't see why this is such an amazingly controversial viewpoint.

[fawn]

You know, I feel like by standing out in social situations, I am initiating change. I refuse to isolate myself.

This is as important to me as religion is to others. I shall witness all that I know and shall be an example for change.

[sugarless4life]

Originally Posted by fawn

You know, I feel like by standing out in social situations, I am initiating change. I refuse to isolate myself.

This is as important to me as religion is to others. I shall witness all that I know and shall be an example for change.

Amen, Fawn! Challenge the status quo at EVERY opportunity.

Betty

[ItsTheWooo]

Originally Posted by sugarless4life

That is a complete copout. IMO, its a part of that "victim mentality" .. ("I can't help how I eat, I just want to fit in...its not my fault...") Sooner or later, stand up and take responsibility for what YOU put in YOUR mouth, and accept the fact that YOU made the choice.

Betty

None of this changes the fact that what I said is true.
If we supported low carb from the medical establishment down as a valid method to control obesity, perhaps superior to the low fat diet for the majority of cases of obesity, then we could do a lot to reduce the same pressures that make success (following the diet) so much more difficult for so many of us.

Someone with a history of obesity eats low carb and refuses starches/sugars. What do people think observing this person?
1) Obesity is not a disease, it is an issue of control and choice; calories in, calories out. (i.e. the obese choose to eat too many calories and to exercise too little)
2) Therefore, a special diet is unwarranted: calories in, calories out, all calories are the same, all food affects us similarly.
3) Therefore, by eating low carb you are just being obnoxious, arrogant, or naive.

(If you are still fat, you are likely more obviously sinful as well (low carbing while fat is like being fat twice fold; not only are you a gluttonous sloth for being obese, but by following a diet that purports obesity is NOT a matter of gluttony/sloth, which does not promote starvation and excessive activity to "burn off" your greedy calories... you're almost validating your own sin). When you lose the weight, then you cease being sinful and become merely obnoxious, arrogant, and naive)

Intuitively all of us who are obese and also following/aware of low carb diets know this is true: this is what people think about us, and our eating plans.

And, when everyone is piled around a box of donuts, or urging you to get dessert or whatever... no part of me WANTS to eat that crap, but sometimes I feel so that I *have* to say no. And no one really gets it, because no one follows special eating plans unless they are absolutely medically necessary (even then, not always/often is this so).

The problem could be greatly attenuated if the medical necessity of low carb were understood. As it stands, low carb is not only considered NOT a medical necessity, but rather harmful to health.

If we can't see this is a major factor which is contributing to rebound weight gain, well I can't say anything else to clarify it then.

Will doesn't even exist. Its an undefined notion which tries to explain "good" behavior vs "bad" behavior. It seems to have no real meaning, but intimates some kind of moral worth or superiority or intrinsic value that those without will do not have. Will does not and cannot explain behavior. Will cannot cause behavior. Will does not exist. It is as unscientific as saying rain is caused by god being pleased with a people. It's a worthless explanation.

Support is everything. Education is not enough; education without support is meaningless.
Personal responsibility is the result of a proper education and proper support. Personal responsibility is not some divine awakening, or a product of "will" (evidence of inherent goodness and value). People can only behave (i.e. be "responsible") as well as their education and resources.

Some people have advantages others don't have, intrinsic and extrinsic. And that explains behavior.

The only way to change behavior is to reduce those limiting extrinsic factors as much as possible.

Support (and education, which is closely connected and tends to cause support) is a good place to start.

[ItsTheWooo]

Originally Posted by fawn

You know, I feel like by standing out in social situations, I am initiating change. I refuse to isolate myself.

This is as important to me as religion is to others. I shall witness all that I know and shall be an example for change.

That is a positive way to frame what you are doing, fawn.

But it really doesn't much affect my point.

I am aware that we as individuals can be exceptions to trends. But none of this has anything to do with the point: a major reason low carb diets fail is because of lack of support related to lack of education about obesity and how to control it.

[rhlong]

Originally Posted by ItsTheWooo

And I don't see this is an issue of being a "follower" vs being an "individual"... whether or not we can or cannot stick to a diet is obviously muchm ore complex than that (even if "follower" and "individual" were real classes of people, which they aren't; we can be followers in one way and individuals in other ways).

It's just this one issue (food, socialization, culture, feeling comfortable with being a member of your social group, a sense of belonging)... people are "followers" in the sense that yes, food is an integral part of social rituals and we tend to "follow" the foods everyone else eats. A major reason diets fail, particularly low carb diets, is that it is very hard to eat differently for life. I don't see why this is such an amazingly controversial viewpoint.

I agree with your sentiment. Food in any society is as much part of culture as language, identity, arts etc. Our culture does not accept low carb diets as norm. A permanent change in one's diet or way of eating is a difficult thing to stick too especially when it is beyond mainstream thinking. Most people follow the cultural norms of their community.

Side story, I had a boss who told me she developed food allergies as an adult. Even though she absolutely had to mind the allergies to avoid being sick she still said there were time where she tested her limits. One time she ate a biscuit at a family event and had to be taken away by ambulance. Even she, who had immediate violent effects at the taste of certain foods, still sucummbed to temptation.

[fluffybear2]

Originally Posted by JessicaH

Well... here goes my theory....

Around the 1970's manufacturers discovered that they could give foods a longer shelf life and mass produce if they added chemical ingredients. Some of the first mass produced items were breads, desserts, and candies... oh and lets not forget soda! Knowing that these foods could be mass produced and done so for very little money, the FDA recommends that grains/starchs should be the mainstay of our diet.

Prior to this, we ate real food that was not modified to extend the shelf life of the food. Our foods were not pumped full of fillers to make them cheaper, or fake flavoring and preservatives. In an attempt to make things 'low fat' (which the FDA was telling us all we HAD to do!), the food manufacturers removed the so called bad fats and replaced them with sugars (because they no longer tasted good without the natural fats) and starches to help us feel full.

The kickback to altering our foods is that the nation has become fat. I hate to say it, but in many cases it seems the poorer a family is, the bigger they seem to be. All they can afford are the high starch, high sugar, processed foods. In addition, time constraints on families with two working parents often restricts their ability to cook. These items combined.... less time to cook, real food costs more, people are moving less, and the mass availability of processed foods... have led us to become dependent on the 'fake foods' so readily available. In addition, we have been told (at least for my lifetime) to trust the FDA, that they know what is best for us. I was raised to believe that low fat was necessary to live a healthy life. However, my great grandmother (92 years old) is my living proof that real food is best. She always ate real food, didn't ever have a weight problem, and never had the digestive problems that people are having en mass today.

Anyway... that's my two cents... or at least an overview of it. I wish you all the best in your search for health. Take care and remember, just becuase someone told you real food was 'bad' doesn't mean they are right. You know what works and what makes you feel good. So do it!

Changing things to make longer shelf-life for foods started a LONG time before the 1970's. One of the first things they did was to strip rice and flour of their husks and wheat germ. They didn't just do this because white rice and bread looked better. They did it to preserve the shelf life so it wouldn't turn rancid. Chemical additives to our food have been around for a long time. Coca Cola was invented in 1886 and mass produced first in the 1800's and packaged bread has been around for 100 years. Also, packaged dry cereals were invented in the late 1800's and were successfuly mass marketed by the early part of the 20th century. Also margarine was invented in the 1800's as a cheap substitute for butter. It was white and came with little packets of food color to mix in with it to make it look like real butter. I was born in 1946 and believe me there were an abundance of packaged food with preservatives when I was growing up in the 40's, 50's and 60's. My high school even had vending machines with candy bars and soft drinks and that was in the early 1960's. And frozen TV dinners and those little pot pies were invented in the 1950's. So, junk food has been around for the better part of 100 years or even longer!

[ItsTheWooo]

Originally Posted by rhlong

I agree with your sentiment. Food in any society is as much part of culture as language, identity, arts etc. Our culture does not accept low carb diets as norm. A permanent change in one's diet or way of eating is a difficult thing to stick too especially when it is beyond mainstream thinking. Most people follow the cultural norms of their community.

Side story, I had a boss who told me she developed food allergies as an adult. Even though she absolutely had to mind the allergies to avoid being sick she still said there were time where she tested her limits. One time she ate a biscuit at a family event and had to be taken away by ambulance. Even she, who had immediate violent effects at the taste of certain foods, still sucummbed to temptation.

And imagine how hard it must be to eat in a way that your doctor tells you is going to give you heart disease (or at best begrudgingly accepts that if you lose weight on the diet it MIGHT mitigate the unhealthfulness of it)... your neighbors, family, friends, coworkers etc disapprove of it in various ways.

When the steam of determination to be thin runs out... how are you going to resist this pressure?

Yes, this is definitely a reason people cannot maintain a low carb diet for life.
It's not because bread is necessary as so many nutritionists say... it's because nutritionists say bread is necessary and it spreads like a cancer to all people that one feels isolated and hindered for not eating bread!

[sugarless4life]

When the steam of determination to be thin runs out... how are you going to resist this pressure?

Yes, this is definitely a reason people cannot maintain a low carb diet for life.

Who said the steam ever has to run out unless you choose for it to?

There's a huge difference between CANNOT and WILL NOT.

Betty

[ItsNot2L8]

Originally Posted by ItsTheWooo

And I don't see this is an issue of being a "follower" vs being an "individual"... whether or not we can or cannot stick to a diet is obviously muchm ore complex than that (even if "follower" and "individual" were real classes of people, which they aren't; we can be followers in one way and individuals in other ways).

It's just this one issue (food, socialization, culture, feeling comfortable with being a member of your social group, a sense of belonging)... people are "followers" in the sense that yes, food is an integral part of social rituals and we tend to "follow" the foods everyone else eats. A major reason diets fail, particularly low carb diets, is that it is very hard to eat differently for life. I don't see why this is such an amazingly controversial viewpoint.

Yep . At work I'm more of a leader, socially I'm more of a follower. I don't believe that makes me a weak or unimaginative person, as some people might seem to look at it. And as much as anyone wants to say "holidays should be about family and friends and celebration," in reality holidays are so closely tied to certain foods that for the majority of people, it's very difficult to disconnect one from the other. Not impossible, but difficult.

Originally Posted by fawn

You know, I feel like by standing out in social situations, I am initiating change. I refuse to isolate myself.

This is as important to me as religion is to others. I shall witness all that I know and shall be an example for change.

Fawn, you are an inspiration to so many people here, including me. Some of your posts were the catalyst for me to stop drinking diet sodas and using artificial sweeteners (5 weeks now!), but I have to say one thing, for me it was a lot easier socially and logistically to consistently eat low-carb, healthy foods when I lived in Sonoma County than it is living here in Tennessee. That's just my experience and may not hold true for others, but there's a reason Tennessee ranks #5 in the nation for obesity.

Although you aren't isolating yourself, you are setting yourself apart as 'different' and that's not easy for a lot of people to do, especially people who are just starting out and don't yet have all the knowledge and experience or the results to prove it. I'm not saying it's impossible or shouldn't be encouraged, I'm just acknowledging that sometimes it's hard.

Originally Posted by sugarless4life

Who said the steam ever has to run out unless you choose for it to?

There's a huge difference between CANNOT and WILL NOT.

Betty

Betty, you're another inspiration! I'm still running 3X/week, even though I still don't like it very much .

Whether or not people cannot or will not stay on a low-carb eating plan long-term, the bottom line is for whatever reason, they do not. I believe that the social and logistical difficulties most people face when they start low-carb are one big reason, and although I'm a huge fan of personal responsibility and facing the consequences of your choices, I liken it to trying to quit smoking when everyone around you smokes, stores sell cigarettes for cheap, and the medical establishment is telling you that smoking will help you breath better because it makes you cough and rids your lungs of toxins. Edited to add and one of your fondest childhood memories is sitting on your father's knee while he smokes a pipe and reads you The Night Before Christmas.

[Goldenrod]

Oh, man, what a great thread!

I have so much to say about all this (big surprise, LOL), but I'm just about on my way out the door. Going to Outback -- can't wait for a salad with blue cheese dressing, the Outback special (sirloin steak), and double broccoli!! YUM. It doesn't get much better than that.

Anyway, I have a bunch of things to do tonight, but I'll try to find time to get my thoughts together on this. For now, I just wanted to say I'm enjoying the debate. There are differing opinions here, but it seems like everyone's well-spoken, well-intentioned, and respectful of other posters' points of view. (Even if you disagree, there's a polite way of saying so, and a not-so-polite way, and I've seen the latter too often on these boards!)

It's nice to be reading an honest debate for once.

[~mina~]

if you look at last paragraph at the bottom of the left column on second page of the study [that Gina uses to 'refute' Taubes], you’ll see the following sentence:

For inclusion in this analysis, each period of formula feeding had to be [greater than or equal to] 2 wk and the subject had to have remained weight stable (to within 1 kg) within that period.

This means that in selecting the subjects for this study, the authors purposefully left out those who had not maintained their weight on whatever dietary regimen they were on. We don’t know if those not selected for the study gained or lost weight on isocaloric diets with lower or higher carbohydrate content. Since all the patients in this published paper were selected because they did not have a variation in their weights with diets of differing macronutrient compositions, it seems a little bizarre to me to use this paper to ‘prove’ that a calorie is a calorie.

Um, yep, Gina, the weight doesn’t change no matter what you feed the subjects if you’ve selected for inclusion in your paper only subjects who showed no weight change. It doesn’t mean squat.

see what else Dr Eades has to say about all of this

[~mina~]

I see what ItsTheWoo is saying from this viewpoint (and maybe I am misinterpreting it):

The Low Fat Dogma: so ingrained in the mentality of the general poulation. Why? well for one thing the surgeon general, C. Everett Koop, practically brainwashed everyone into believing it. In 1988 he announced that high fat foods were the main cause of heart disease (among other things). He even said it was worse than tobacco.

The 'we need to avoid fats' mentality went crazy.. and now we are struggling with epidemics of diabetes, heart disease and everything in between.. even in children! children now are experiencing the diseases that were previously only known to adults.

Yes people have their own minds. Yes people can make their own decisions and study it for themselves.. but the majority of people will listen to what the 'authorities' on health have to say... or worse, what the majority says. This is better known as "the phenomenon of informational cascades"

The point is that large groups of people can reach a “consensus” without most of them really understanding the issue: Once a critical mass of people starts a trend, the rest make the rational decision to go along because they figure the trend-setters can’t all be wrong. The danger is that you end up with the blind leading the blind…

read more here

[sugarless4life]

I believe that the social and logistical difficulties most people face when they start low-carb are one big reason, and although I'm a huge fan of personal responsibility and facing the consequences of your choices, I liken it to trying to quit smoking when everyone around you smokes, stores sell cigarettes for cheap, and the medical establishment is telling you that smoking will help you breath better because it makes you cough and rids your lungs of toxins.

Shelly, perhaps I oversimplify things, but to me its a clear cut decision of the WILL. When I started Atkins in January 2002, I had a choice: make this yet another "crash diet" (been there, done that a bazillion times and ultimately failed) or decide from the get-go that this would be a lifetime change. Well, i don't have to tell you which it is... but the fact is, I could have copped out early, given in to peer pressure or societal pressure and jumped ship after losing a few pounds and running a few miles....could have blamed it on society, friends, family, acquaintances, the government, WHOEVER .. if I needed an excuse, I surely could have found one. But I stayed the course, despite the unpopularity of all ... point being, IT WAS AN ACT OF MY WILL that drove me to stand firm .. and BTW, it *still* is an act of my will .. particularly challenging in maintenance, let me tell ya .. I *still* hear people say "don't you miss eating normal food?" "are you *still* on that diet?" "you don't need to lose any more weight!" yadda yadda .. and by an act of my WILL I ignore those comments and keep focused. The day I let other people/entities influence my weight is the day I could fail ... and I have way too much time/energy invested to ever allow that.

All this to say, I'm not a special case here .. just a really DEDICATED DETERMINED CASE! Going against the flow is never an easy task, it takes hard work and commitment.

I still say, its all about choices and having the WILL to make the right ones day in and day out, despite the pressures to make the wrong ones!

Betty

[ItsNot2L8]

I agree that it's a choice every person makes, I was just getting the feeling that more guilt is being heaped on anyone who doesn't always have the strength of will to take a stand against their families and friends and bosses and doctors and trainers and nutritionists and the whole mainstream medical establishment, and I'm touchy about the whole "leaders" and "followers" thing when seems that "followers" is being used as a put-down. Slight digression, but I have no problem being a follower as long as I use good judgment in choosing what or who to follow...

I'm very lucky that my family favors (although they don't always follow) a lower-carb diet. I'm blessed with curiosity and tenacity and computer literacy, so I can research and make informed choices. Not everyone has the same resources, and while anyone can do it against all odds, I can understand why many don't. I did lose weight on Atkins and maintained it for about 5 years. I was one of those "if I can do it, anyone can" people, until I moved here and gained it all back. I fully own my responsibility for that, but it gave me an understanding of how much harder it can be when you're not surrounded by people who support (or at least don't put down) your choices, and when instead of restaurants serving organic, whole food, there's Shoney's and Steak -n- Shake and Chinese buffets, and when instead of apples and tuna and yogurt in the vending machines, they're filled with chips and candy and cookies.

There's a difference between reasons and excuses (I should know, being the former Queen of Excuses ). I'm just saying that I think a big reason why a lot of people fail on Atkins (or South Beach or Weight Watchers) is environmental. That's not an excuse, it can be overcome, but if you're looking for reasons why so many people fail, I think it's a good place to start.

[sugarless4life]

Thanks, Shelly, that does make sense.

Truthfully, it is a daily battle to stay true .. but it pays huge dividends!

Betty

[Just4Me]

Originally Posted by sugarless4life

... to me its a clear cut decision of the WILL. ...

Before GCBC and its "expose" of the nutritional research that until now "we" (the general populace) have not been privy to, the decision to follow LC as a WOL was not a matter of will, it was a matter of FAITH (i.e., "Even though I've had numerous docs who all told me different things to lose weight, I'm going to cast my lot with Dr. Atkins for the rest of my life based only his books, that his way of eating will only benefit me and cause me no harm. Others disagree vehemently, but I trust him").

As a matter of faith, it was subject to all the pressures anyone faces when attempting to change their faith or belief system. To continue to assert that following LC as a WOL instead of a "diet" is a matter of will oversimplifies the issue of obesity. If obesity is purely a matter of will, then surely there would be no need for LC, and no one would be obese---who would CHOOSE such a state?

Now with the information brought to light in GCBC, we have a more complete picture. Obesity (and its attendant diseases) is not a matter of will after all, it is a pathological (as in DISEASED) and/or genetic condition. We don't say "Oh she's got cancer. She just doesn't have the willpower to stick with the choice not to have cancer." Nor do we say "Dang I've got a cold. Guess my willpower to fight off those germs was too weak."

Armed with the (new to most of us) information in GCBC, we can do at least two things. (1) We can refuse to continue to be blamed for "weak-willedness" and (2) we are then free from that misplaced guilt to address the management of our condition.

Originally Posted by ItsNot2L8

...I was just getting the feeling that more guilt is being heaped on anyone who doesn't always have the strength of will to take a stand ... and I'm touchy about the whole "leaders" and "followers" thing when seems that "followers" is being used as a put-down. ...

I agree, these are loaded terms. "Strength of will" (and its lack) in this country equates to "character" (and its lack). To oversimplify the issue of obesity, as has been done for centuries ("stop being a glutton"; "stop being so lazy"; "just do it"), using such loaded terms merely perpetuates and propagates this message: Obesity is a failing of character.

As for the whole leaders/followers thing: come on now, if there's an issue presented to discuss, discuss the issue, not the people discussing it. That's called an argument ad hominem.

... the ad hominem ("against the person") ... fallac[y] focus[es] our attention on people rather than on arguments or evidence. In [this] argument[], the conclusion is usually "You shouldn't believe So-and-So's argument." The reason for not believing So-and-So is that So-and-So is ... a bad person [a "follower"] .... In an ad hominem argument, the arguer attacks his or her opponent instead of the opponent's argument.

Here's an argument ad hominem as a response: How's about when we discuss Taubes and all the controversy surrounding his book, we make on-topic arguments like adults in discourse (should) do, instead of calling people who agree with him "followers" with its attendant pejorative implications.

The same can be applied to obesity: Instead of attacking the moral failing of the obese person (doesn't matter if that was "you" in your earlier life or me in mine, and now we "have the will") by writing the issue off as one of "will", how about addressing the merits of Taubes's argument: there's a lot of overlooked research (placebo, double-blind, etc.) that indicates obesity might actually be a medical condition in some of the same ways that cancer or influenza or muscular dystrophy or multiple sclerosis or chicken pox are.

This whole post I've been trying to deny my "defensive" instinct, but here I'll allow it a little leeway: Obesity is complex because it also does involve a strong behavioral component. Taubes does not discuss this in his book, for good reason: the book is about the research on obesity and the influence of FOOD on it. Expanding the issue to exhaustively cover behavior, morals, exercise, sleep, and anything else we know/believe/think contributes to obesity would require multiple volumes (or just be a big messy "off topic" "hither and thither" book).

Certain behaviors CORRELATE with obesity (eating too much in general, eating too many carbs, lack of exercise, being poor) but that doesn't mean those behaviors CAUSE obesity. We have applied the argument of "lack of will" to any of those conditions in this country (some people still do). That's a copout, though, imo. It isn't a lack of will power that gets people up before the crack of dawn to work 2 full-time jobs and return home, just to be able to pay rent and power bills. But that's another discussion all together....

[JessicaH]

Originally Posted by fluffybear2

Changing things to make longer shelf-life for foods started a LONG time before the 1970's. One of the first things they did was to strip rice and flour of their husks and wheat germ. They didn't just do this because white rice and bread looked better. They did it to preserve the shelf life so it wouldn't turn rancid. Chemical additives to our food have been around for a long time. Coca Cola was invented in 1886 and mass produced first in the 1800's and packaged bread has been around for 100 years. Also, packaged dry cereals were invented in the late 1800's and were successfuly mass marketed by the early part of the 20th century. Also margarine was invented in the 1800's as a cheap substitute for butter. It was white and came with little packets of food color to mix in with it to make it look like real butter. I was born in 1946 and believe me there were an abundance of packaged food with preservatives when I was growing up in the 40's, 50's and 60's. My high school even had vending machines with candy bars and soft drinks and that was in the early 1960's. And frozen TV dinners and those little pot pies were invented in the 1950's. So, junk food has been around for the better part of 100 years or even longer!

Fluffybear2,

I definitely agree that the processing of foods began long before 1970, but they were not 'proper' in most families. For most, it was still the proper thing to have home cooked dinners and many had to bring their lunches to school. Many families still had stay at home mothers or multi-family households where someone actually cooked real food on a daily basis, so the 'box meals' were not the family's food staple like they have become in today's society.

Serving sizes of things such as soda were only 6 ounces as opposed to the monster mugs of it they sell today. Even desserts were typically homemade and didn't include the ridiculous amounts of chemicals and preservatives that the store bought ones now have.

I guess my general point is that the highly processed items did not become the staple of the family until around 1970. Between now and then, these items have become the mainstay in most households. Be it due to time restrictions (no longer anyone at home to cook because it takes two to pay the bills), convenience (drive thrus with Supersizing and microwave meals), or lack of money (fake, box foods are generally cheaper than a roast with fresh veggies, i.e. your example for the first margarine), people are now desensitized to the fact that real foods are a requirement for good health.

I know too many people that eat low fat, low fat, low fat, and are still dealing with diabetes, high cholesterol, heart disease, obesity, and a miriad of other problems. Their doctors keep telling them they must eat low fat until it is permanently stuck in their head and they would not dare stray from that WOE. They continue to eat their low fat convenient foods, which are full of chemicals and additives, and lets not forget the extra sugar they had to add to make it palatable, and their health problems never go away.

If anything, I thing that Taubes has brought it back to basics... real food results in better health, easier weight control, and a good chance of fewer health problems. That may be oversimplifying things, but that's my take.

Good health and best wishes to you all. Take care and have a great week.



Just4Me: Amen!! I couldn't agree more! Thank you for putting it so eloquently.