On Sun, 16 Jan 2000, Michael Audette wrote:

>   Being on a paleo diet for many years now, I find going back has amplified
> the bad effects of non-paleo foods. Although the Eadeses book contains much
> paleo nutrition, the full benefits of this paleo diet, cannot be realized if
> done one third or two thirds assed.

In the first place, no one really knows whether your assertion
above is true.  That is, there is no body of evidence that can
answer the question whether a "purist" approach has effects that
are measurably better than a less rigorous approach.  Your
personal experience is not a body of evidence, for the same
reason that the testimony of vegans about how "indigestible" meat
is after they have "detoxed" their bodies is not a body of
evidence.

Second, even if it is true that the full benefits can only be
realized on the purist approach, there may be many people who
make the informed decision that those benefits are not worth the
extra rigor, but who nevertheless choose to try for the
substantial benefits that may be available with the other levels.
If one hopes to interest a wide range of people in this
nutritional system, it's not a bad idea to give them options as
to how far into it they want to go.  Those who get some good
results at a low level of commitment may find themselves
motivated to upgrade that commitment.  This, I think, is a
positive feature of the Eades' book.

Finally, the book contains a wealth of pertinent scientific
information, perspicuously presented.

Todd Moody
[log in to unmask]