>I may instead use the following yardstick to help myself
>navigate my way through the haze:

>  (1) I will Check the author's background. It is possible that
>  certain radical diets may create problems that may not
>  manifest for a decade. Therefore, find out if they have
>  walked their own walk *sufficiently* *long*.

>  (2) I will Check their scientific and academic credentials. I'm
>  sure there is some reason we have kept science around so
>  far.

>  (3) Determine if the sample size is sufficient. Everybody
>  may react differently to the identical diet. If the authors
>  cannot provide extensive case studies (a'la' Pritikin),
>  I'll make a not of what they have to say, but I'll remain
>  a hard nosed skeptic.

>  (4) I won't whine about ethics, animal rights, and ecology.
>  These will continue to remain important to me, but the
>  health and dietary aspect is sufficiently confusing and
>  important that I'm willing to put my other whinings on
>  hold for the time being.

I can think of one dude who fits your criteria very nicely ---
talk-walking for decades without wavering substantially in his theories,
well-versed in science (though not actually part of the Establishment),
clinical practice with scores of thousands of people and extensive case
histories.  His name (drum roll, please)

			Herbert Shelton

Bob Avery ([log in to unmask])