Re: Enig & Fallon's new book

[Guest guest]

At 03:59 PM 12/16/04 -0500, you wrote:

>

>I just picked up their new book, _Eat Fat Lose Fat_ and I'm afraid I'm

>already disappointed. It does look like it has a lot of interesting

>information, including abundant coconut-based recipes, but the very first

>*page* contains what can at best be charitably considered an incomplete

>statement.

*snip*

,

I think part of the problem may in fact be that they ARE trying to write

for the mainstream (that's a guess on my part). I don't think they're

trying to write cookbooks for people like us - ya know - the purists

.... they may be trying to suck in the SAD'ers.

This theory makes sense (to me) based on the recipe section of NT (which

others have commented on in terms of including so many grains, etc.).

I'd say the same of what you described about the recipes in this new book -

except if it really *is* riddled with white flour etc., then that's pretty

ooky, from *our* standpoint. From a SAD'er standpoint, though .... ???

It's nice to be pure, but sometimes you just have to settle for *better*.

I'll have to get the book, though, before I can really say much on its

contents. Sure, make me run to Amazon again. Thanks.

MFJ

Putting it in our hands gives us so much hope. ~C. Masterjohn

[Guest guest]

Idol wrote:

>My question is this: are they crazy? Low-carbing certainly isn't necessary

>for everyone (for that matter, not everyone gets fat eating modern foods)

>but even the people who don't need to reduce carbs per se should avoid

>refined sugars and starches. Even rapadura is at best a compromise food

>(and that's being optimistic) except presumably when used as fermentation

>starter.

>

>But it gets worse. The recipe section is riddled with bread crumbs,

>unbleached white flour, sugar, corn, rice noodles, and other such

>ingredients. I'd venture to guess that the vast majority of overweight

>people simply shouldn't eat such things ever, period, end of story, even if

>they're able to tolerate a respectable amount of healthier carbs.

>

>I can only conclude that their positive focus on good fat (and perhaps

>their own metabolic blessings which keep them from having weight problems

>themselves) have blinded them to the sound science that supports

>low-carbing and opposes the sort of refined and otherwise concentrated

>carbs they at least implicitly support in this book. I'm certainly going

>to read further, and a cursory examination of the recipe section suggests

>that there might be enough adaptable recipes to make the book at least

>somewhat useable, but so far, I'm grievously disappointed.

>

,

I very much respect your open minded honesty. It *almost* sounds from

your review that the book is a sugarcoated appeal to the politically

correct crowd.

As a former vegan, I owe a debt of gratitude to WAPF for sure. Through

trial and error I have found starch to be a big no no for me. I am

healthier and slimmer without much effort, so long as I stick to whole

starch-free foods. I see a HUGE difference in energy since going lower

carb.

What you write reminds me that unbleached four was in one recipe in NT

for pie. I felt this cave in was unnecessary when I read it. Nuts are

a simple substitute in pies. Too bad the gate is now wide open on these

foods. What would Weston think?

Deanna

[Guest guest]

On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 15:59:45 -0500, Idol <Idol@...> wrote:

Meh, , give 'em a break. They're trying to raise money and awareness.

Because of the weight-loss focus, they'll get a lot of press,

especially if the diet takes off. Much more than via some obscure

cookbook with intimidating concepts and recipes including making your

own ketchup.

If it does very well, it will bring WAPF and its message into many

people's homes and hearts.

Are you so cloistered and elite that you don't grasp the tragic

reality of most SAD'ers existence?

If so, I envy you. :-)

B.

>

> <HTML>

> <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC " -//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN "

" http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd " >

> <BODY>

> <FONT FACE= " monospace " SIZE= " 3 " >

> Important <B>Native Nutrition</B> Addresses

> <UL>

> <LI>Native Nutrition on the <A

HREF= " / " >WEB</A>

> <LI>Search the message <A HREF= " http://onibasu.dyndns.org/ " >ARCHIVE</A>

& mdash; <B>NEW FEATURE!</B></LI>

> <LI>Change your group <A

HREF= " /join " >SETTINGS</A></\

LI>

> <LI><A HREF= " mailto: " >POST</A> a

message</LI>

> <LI><A

HREF= " mailto: -subscribe " >SUBSCRIBE</A> to the

list</LI>

> <LI><A

HREF= " mailto: -unsubscribe " >UNSUBSCRIBE</A> from

the list</LI>

> <LI>Send an <A

HREF= " mailto: -owner " >EMAIL</A> to the List Owner

& Moderators</LI>

> </UL></FONT>

> <PRE><FONT FACE= " monospace " SIZE= " 3 " >List Owner: Idol

> Moderators: Heidi Schuppenhauer

> Wanita Sears

> </FONT></PRE>

> </BODY>

> </HTML>

>

[Guest guest]

-

>I think part of the problem may in fact be that they ARE trying to write

>for the mainstream (that's a guess on my part). I don't think they're

>trying to write cookbooks for people like us - ya know - the purists

>... they may be trying to suck in the SAD'ers.

This isn't a purist-vs-realist issue, though. This is good-vs-bad, plain

and simple. IMO an example of an acceptable compromise would be saying

something like " eat beef with the fat, not lean beef, and if you can, get

grass-fed beef " . Stopping people's fears of beef and animal fat would be a

huge improvement; getting people to move to grass-fed would be a

significant further improvement. Atkins used to offer a pretty good set of

compromise-for-mainstream-adoption recommendations, though obviously he

should've recommended grass-fed as a better option rather than just

organic. (He touted in one book, IIRC.)

This is just nuts-and-bolts bad science. Tremendous numbers of overweight

people -- the EXACT, SPECIFIC audience this book is meant for -- CANNOT

lose, even with coconut oil, if their diet includes sugar and flour.

>This theory makes sense (to me) based on the recipe section of NT (which

>others have commented on in terms of including so many grains, etc.).

NT, though, isn't meant for weight loss. Lots of people can do OK on

properly-prepared grains, though frankly I think pretty much all modern

people, existing as they do in a devitalized world, could probably benefit

by eschewing them.

>It's nice to be pure, but sometimes you just have to settle for *better*.

> I'll have to get the book, though, before I can really say much on its

>contents. Sure, make me run to Amazon again. Thanks.

Atkins is (or rather, was) a good example of " better " (before he started

producing and endorsing fake food products and sugar alcohols and other

crap like that). And he reached a mainstream audience far larger than

anything Fallon, Enig and the WAP Foundation have yet come close to

approaching. Furthermore, the inclusion of flour and sugar and rice

noodles and whatnot in _Eat Fat, Lose Fat_ will *directly* counteract the

avowed purpose of the book -- helping people lose weight. Sure, some

people will be able to lose weight just by replacing some of the crap in

their diets with good fats, just like some people are able to partake

abundantly of Atkins fake foods and still lose weigh. But a lot of other

people will try it, fail to lose weight (or enough weight) and give up on

the whole thing. A lot of people try Atkins the fake-food way, or started

adding his fake foods (and others) to their diets once they hit the market,

and I'm willing to bet that their weight-loss failures contributed mightily

to the peaking and subsequent decline of low-carb eating. People

erroneously say things like " sugar alcohols don't count " , and the " sugar

and flour are fine " take-home message of this book is the same thing. I'm

afraid it's going to torpedo the really good message that Fallon and Enig

do offer.

Let me put it more directly. Atkins became hugely popular because his diet

*worked*, and not just for a few people, but for the vast majority of

people who actually tried it. Then the fake foods hit the market, people

started having trouble, and low-carbing faltered -- because its success

percentage dropped. While I'm sure many people can lose weight the _Eat

Fat Lose Fat_ way, it'll *never* achieve a success rate approaching

Atkins's initial, pre-fake-food rate, and therefore it won't catch on in

the same way.

Not only that, Atkins and low-carbing are still in the air. They're not

dead yet -- far from it. Fallon and Enig could've capitalized *enormously*

on the success and popularity of low-carbing by saying " look, here's what

Atkins never told you about fats " (he actually advocated a MAYONNAISE FAST

for certainly metabolically resistant people!) and " here's why you

shouldn't eat any of those fake or refined carbs, and if you do eat carbs,

here's what you should know " .

A few Wise Traditions issues back they had an article about the various

theories about macroscopic diet composition that are out there (low-fat,

low-carb, etc.) and it troubled me then that in their otherwise-outstanding

article they fundamentally distorted Atkins by characterizing it as a

low-fat high-protein diet which inevitably falls into a vicious cycle of

cravings and blood sugar disturbances (not to mention other health

problems). While it's true that Atkins emphasized the importance of

certain fruits and vegetables and tried to play hide-the-salami with his

high-fat message because of all the pressure brought to bear on him, he

never actually advocated a low-fat diet. Sure, I wish he'd been a lot more

upfront about recommending getting enough fat, and obviously he left a lot

to be desired in certain nutritional respects, but when push came to shove,

he copped to eating and prescribing fat, not just protein.

That mistake, or worse, that dishonesty, seems to have been the seed of the

fundamental failing of this book.

-

[Guest guest]

> Because of the weight-loss focus, they'll get a lot of press,

> especially if the diet takes off. Much more than via some obscure

> cookbook with intimidating concepts and recipes including making your

> own ketchup.

But...but...the ketchup is SO GOOD!

Lynn S.

who really needs to make some...we had meatloaf tonight without it!

peeved husband!

------

Lynn Siprelle * web developer, writer, mama, fiber junky

http://www.siprelle.com * http://www.thenewhomemaker.com

http://www.democracyfororegon.com * http://www.knitting911.net

[Guest guest]

On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 00:18:05 -0500, Idol <Idol@...> wrote:

> That mistake, or worse, that dishonesty, seems to have been the seed of the

> fundamental failing of this book.

,

I haven't yet read it--tho I was looking forward to it--thus I retract

my earlier comments until I review the book.

Thank you and good night,

B.

>

> <HTML>

> <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC " -//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN "

" http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd " >

> <BODY>

> <FONT FACE= " monospace " SIZE= " 3 " >

> Important <B>Native Nutrition</B> Addresses

> <UL>

> <LI>Native Nutrition on the <A

HREF= " / " >WEB</A>

> <LI>Search the message <A HREF= " http://onibasu.dyndns.org/ " >ARCHIVE</A>

& mdash; <B>NEW FEATURE!</B></LI>

> <LI>Change your group <A

HREF= " /join " >SETTINGS</A></\

LI>

> <LI><A HREF= " mailto: " >POST</A> a

message</LI>

> <LI><A

HREF= " mailto: -subscribe " >SUBSCRIBE</A> to the

list</LI>

> <LI><A

HREF= " mailto: -unsubscribe " >UNSUBSCRIBE</A> from

the list</LI>

> <LI>Send an <A

HREF= " mailto: -owner " >EMAIL</A> to the List Owner

& Moderators</LI>

> </UL></FONT>

> <PRE><FONT FACE= " monospace " SIZE= " 3 " >List Owner: Idol

> Moderators: Heidi Schuppenhauer

> Wanita Sears

> </FONT></PRE>

> </BODY>

> </HTML>

>

[Guest guest]

On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 00:18:05 -0500, Idol <Idol@...> wrote:

> That mistake, or worse, that dishonesty, seems to have been the seed of the

> fundamental failing of this book.

,

I haven't yet read--tho I was l looking forward to it--thus I retract

my ealier comments until I do. Can I do that?

Thank you and good night,

B.

>

> <HTML>

> <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC " -//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN "

" http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd " >

> <BODY>

> <FONT FACE= " monospace " SIZE= " 3 " >

> Important <B>Native Nutrition</B> Addresses

> <UL>

> <LI>Native Nutrition on the <A

HREF= " / " >WEB</A>

> <LI>Search the message <A HREF= " http://onibasu.dyndns.org/ " >ARCHIVE</A>

& mdash; <B>NEW FEATURE!</B></LI>

> <LI>Change your group <A

HREF= " /join " >SETTINGS</A></\

LI>

> <LI><A HREF= " mailto: " >POST</A> a

message</LI>

> <LI><A

HREF= " mailto: -subscribe " >SUBSCRIBE</A> to the

list</LI>

> <LI><A

HREF= " mailto: -unsubscribe " >UNSUBSCRIBE</A> from

the list</LI>

> <LI>Send an <A

HREF= " mailto: -owner " >EMAIL</A> to the List Owner

& Moderators</LI>

> </UL></FONT>

> <PRE><FONT FACE= " monospace " SIZE= " 3 " >List Owner: Idol

> Moderators: Heidi Schuppenhauer

> Wanita Sears

> </FONT></PRE>

> </BODY>

> </HTML>

>

[Guest guest]

Deanna-

>I very much respect your open minded honesty.

Thanks. I was hoping to love the book and find it tremendously useful, but

no such luck.

>It *almost* sounds from

>your review that the book is a sugarcoated appeal to the politically

>correct crowd.

Well, no, I don't think I could say that either. I mean, if there's

anything " politically correct " in nutrition, it's still low-fat orthodoxy,

and one thing _Eat Fat Lose Fat_ clearly, unequivocally says is that people

need to eat plenty of saturated animal fats, some monounsaturated vegetable

fats, and no polyunsaturated vegetable oils or PHOs.

But it sure does feel like a concession to agribusiness to at least

implicitly endorse all that flour and sugar.

>What you write reminds me that unbleached four was in one recipe in NT

>for pie. I felt this cave in was unnecessary when I read it. Nuts are

>a simple substitute in pies. Too bad the gate is now wide open on these

>foods. What would Weston think?

I don't know, Weston wasn't in any way interested in low-carb eating, and

he also served beef-and-wheat broths and gruels. He contributed a lot, but

science has also advanced past him in a couple limited areas. I don't

remember whether he made a big deal of proper preparation of grains, for

example, at least in actual practice.

-

[Guest guest]

At 12:18 AM 12/17/04 -0500, you wrote:

>This is just nuts-and-bolts bad science. Tremendous numbers of overweight

>people -- the EXACT, SPECIFIC audience this book is meant for -- CANNOT

>lose, even with coconut oil, if their diet includes sugar and flour.

Good point. I wasn't thinking about the *title*. I plead excessive

tiredness whilst posting.

MFJ

Putting it in our hands gives us so much hope. ~C. Masterjohn

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 12/17/04 8:22:10 PM Eastern Standard Time,

Idol@... writes:

> I'd love to do some animal studies to compare

> the effects of white sugar versus rapadura.

___

I'd love it if maple sugar were added as a third group. A lot of researchers

believe, and research indicates, that fructose is a uniquely harmful sugar in

many ways, so it would be interesting to compare white sugar, rapadura, maple

sugar, and, if it's out there, a maple sugar that is as refined as white

sugar. It would be interesting to compare the differences in nutrient density

to

the differences in sugar type.

Chris

____

" What can one say of a soul, of a heart, filled with compassion? It is a

heart which burns with love for every creature: for human beings, birds, and

animals, for serpents and for demons. The thought of them and the sight of them

make the tears of the saint flow. And this immense and intense compassion,

which flows from the heart of the saints, makes them unable to bear the sight of

the smallest, most insignificant wound in any creature. Thus they pray

ceaselessly, with tears, even for animals, for enemies of the truth, and for

those

who do them wrong. "

--Saint Isaac the Syrian

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 12/17/04 8:52:53 PM Eastern Standard Time,

Idol@... writes:

> My guess is that all else being equal, rapadura wouldn't be *that* much

> better than table sugar, but I definitely could be wrong, and I'd like to

> know.

____

I would suspect that whatever benefit it had in a controlled study of

isolated sweetener intake would be seriously diminished to the point of

negligibility

when it was taken as a part of a complete diet. If the difference is

entirely micronutritional, wouldn't the consumption of eggs, liver, even muscle

meat,

or other such nutrients dwarf the micronutrition contained in the rapadura?

Say you are a sugar freak and add 6 tsp to your coffee. I imagine there's

more B vitamins in a slab of liver, and I think, though I haven't looked it up,

that there would be more in an ommellette too.

I don't doubt the hamrfulness of the nutrient displacement factor, but it

seems more logical that the worst health effects come from the metabolic effects

of consuming large amounts of fructose.

But, we'll see...

Maybe if and when I get into grad school I'll try to throw something

together. It seems like a pretty easy experiment if you have the rats and

somewhere

to keep them.

Chris

____

" What can one say of a soul, of a heart, filled with compassion? It is a

heart which burns with love for every creature: for human beings, birds, and

animals, for serpents and for demons. The thought of them and the sight of them

make the tears of the saint flow. And this immense and intense compassion,

which flows from the heart of the saints, makes them unable to bear the sight of

the smallest, most insignificant wound in any creature. Thus they pray

ceaselessly, with tears, even for animals, for enemies of the truth, and for

those

who do them wrong. "

--Saint Isaac the Syrian

[Guest guest]

> Because of the weight-loss focus, they'll get a lot of press,

> especially if the diet takes off. Much more than via some obscure

> cookbook with intimidating concepts and recipes including making

> your own ketchup.

Just as an interesting sidebar, I remember when the very first Weight

Watchers book came out in the 1960's, they insisted you make your own

ketchup, and we did!

Ann

[Guest guest]

>>[Deanna] What you write reminds me that unbleached flour was in one recipe in

NT

>>for pie. I felt this cave in was unnecessary when I read it. Nuts are

>>a simple substitute in pies. Too bad the gate is now wide open on these

>>foods. What would Weston think?

>>

>>

>

>[]I don't know, Weston wasn't in any way interested in low-carb eating, and

>he also served beef-and-wheat broths and gruels. He contributed a lot, but

>science has also advanced past him in a couple limited areas. I don't

>remember whether he made a big deal of proper preparation of grains, for

>example, at least in actual practice.

>

Hi ,

I didn't iterate my thoughts clearly. I was thinking of Dr. Price

concerning the twin evils of white flour and sugar. He did write about

that extensively. That's my problem with WAPF members using these

substances liberally in recipes - it kind of goes against the work he

performed.

Deanna

[Guest guest]

Deanna-

>I didn't iterate my thoughts clearly. I was thinking of Dr. Price

>concerning the twin evils of white flour and sugar. He did write about

>that extensively. That's my problem with WAPF members using these

>substances liberally in recipes - it kind of goes against the work he

>performed.

Ah, point taken. Yeah, flour appears in various forms -- whole and white

-- in lots of recipes, and so does sugar, in non-white forms. But I think

calling rapadura " nutrient-dense " is just absurd. Sure, it's better than

white sugar. Probably even lots better. But just in a relative

sense. It's still sugar. I'd love to do some animal studies to compare

the effects of white sugar versus rapadura.

-

[Guest guest]

Chris-

>I'd love it if maple sugar were added as a third group. A lot of researchers

>believe, and research indicates, that fructose is a uniquely harmful sugar in

>many ways, so it would be interesting to compare white sugar, rapadura, maple

>sugar, and, if it's out there, a maple sugar that is as refined as white

>sugar. It would be interesting to compare the differences in nutrient

>density to

>the differences in sugar type.

Hey, if I ever get the money together to back a study like that, consider

it done. I'd want to compare as many nutritive and even non-nutritive

sweeteners as possible, actually. HFCS, powdered fructose, refined table

sugar, various kinds of molasses, rapadura, agave syrup, etc. etc. etc.

My guess is that all else being equal, rapadura wouldn't be *that* much

better than table sugar, but I definitely could be wrong, and I'd like to know.

-

[Guest guest]

>

>Say you are a sugar freak and add 6 tsp to your coffee. I imagine there's

>more B vitamins in a slab of liver, and I think, though I haven't looked

>it up,

>that there would be more in an ommellette too.

Yes, but the options for sweetening one's coffee do not include liver or an

omelette. Of the choices for sweetening, there are better ones and there

are worse ones. Of course, it may be a matter of degree, in that in the

grand scheme of things choosing rapadura over white sugar does not impact

the diet as much as choosing to whiten one's coffee with raw cream over

Coffeemate. Perhaps the benefit comes from the awareness of empty,

processed foodstuff in the diet and the consistent endeavours to avoid them

when possible.

>~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~

Canfield

-God grades on the cross, not on the curve. -Anonymous

3:36: " He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that

believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him. "

[Guest guest]

> Hey, if I ever get the money together to back a study like that,

consider

> it done. I'd want to compare as many nutritive and even non-nutritive

> sweeteners as possible, actually. HFCS, powdered fructose, refined

table

> sugar, various kinds of molasses, rapadura, agave syrup, etc. etc. etc.

What about stevia? Would you include that?

a

[Guest guest]

>What about stevia? Would you include that?

>

>a

>

Good question. I know Elaine Gottschall frowns on stevia, saying that

it is a steroid or something...

Here's what is opined:

http://www.breakingtheviciouscycle.info/knowledge_base/kb/stevia.htm

Seth writes:

There are all kinds of steroids. The ones we take for IBD (ie prednisone

which mimicks cortisol) reduce inflammation and scale down the immune

system. But there are steroids that do the opposite. I think the point

is that plant steroids could have any number of effect in humans and

vice versa.

Elaine writes 26/7/04

My present opinion is that its similarity in molecular structure to a

steroid and limited research (on my part into it) results in my not

favoring it as a sweetener.

Any worries here, you biological science types?

~ Deanna

[Guest guest]

Chris-

>I would suspect that whatever benefit it had in a controlled study of

>isolated sweetener intake would be seriously diminished to the point of

>negligibility

>when it was taken as a part of a complete diet. If the difference is

>entirely micronutritional, wouldn't the consumption of eggs, liver, even

>muscle meat,

>or other such nutrients dwarf the micronutrition contained in the rapadura?

I think you're exactly right. My suspicion is that the differences are

marginal.

>Say you are a sugar freak and add 6 tsp to your coffee. I imagine there's

>more B vitamins in a slab of liver, and I think, though I haven't looked

>it up,

>that there would be more in an ommellette too.

Liver is, to my knowledge, the very best source of B vitamins, and I think

eggs (at least from pastured chickens, anyway) are second.

>I don't doubt the hamrfulness of the nutrient displacement factor, but it

>seems more logical that the worst health effects come from the metabolic

>effects

>of consuming large amounts of fructose.

Well, where you and I differ (and one thing I'd like to test

experimentally) is that I think the harm of sugar doesn't just come from

its displacement of other foods. So if we did a really large-scale

expansion on a Pottenger's-Cats type of experiment, my expectation is that

the no-sugar animals (whether cats or rats or mice or pigs or all of them

or some other species or mixture of species; obviously I'd like to get data

as relevant to humans as possible) would enjoy significantly better health

than the sugar-eating animals even with all else held equal. I think we'd

find the same thing for properly-prepared grains, too. But I don't know

for sure in a scientifically-proven sense, which is why I'd like to mount

the study.

>Maybe if and when I get into grad school I'll try to throw something

>together. It seems like a pretty easy experiment if you have the rats and

>somewhere

>to keep them.

A small experiment wouldn't be too hard, just comparing a couple

sweeteners, but a really large-scale comprehensive one, with proper

record-keeping and diligent attention to real nutrition? That would cost

at least a couple hundred grand and possibly a lot more if my understanding

of the costs of studies is even remotely current and accurate.

-

[Guest guest]

-

>Yes, but the options for sweetening one's coffee do not include liver or an

>omelette. Of the choices for sweetening, there are better ones and there

>are worse ones. Of course, it may be a matter of degree, in that in the

>grand scheme of things choosing rapadura over white sugar does not impact

>the diet as much as choosing to whiten one's coffee with raw cream over

>Coffeemate.

Good point, but it's also worth pointing out that people aren't supposed to

consume any kind of coffee at all according to WAPF doctrine. <g>

-

[Guest guest]

a-

>What about stevia? Would you include that?

Absolutely. I'd very much like there to be more work done on stevia. It's

basically just getting a free pass in the alternate medical press because

it's " natural " . Well, lots of natural things turn out to be no good, and

the same legitimate complaint made about a lot of new artificial sweeteners

-- that there haven't been nearly enough studies done on them to conclude

that they're safe -- can be made about stevia.

For that matter, I'd like to get more and better data on saccharine, my

no-calorie sweetener of choice.

-

[Guest guest]

Deanna-

>Any worries here, you biological science types?

Some people claim that Elaine has actually said stevia is harmful, but your

quote is accurate -- she just says it could be biologically active, there's

insufficient data, and thus she's not willing to endorse it until and

unless more study is done.

Stevia's probably not a bad risk compared to sucralose and aspartame and

ace-k, but I am mystified by the faith people in the traditional foods and

alternative medicine communities place in it.

-