I'm glad it works for you. Sugar is sugar, is reasonably true within a
certain viewpoint (e.g. if you accept the premise that all carbs are
bad, which is a premise that will not suit everyone.) More protein than
your body needs is also a subjective thing. I would offer that there are
only two nutrients that it is impossible (For a healthy person with
normal kidney function) to get too much of: one is protein and the other
is water.

Many diets operate on the belief that excess protein will be converted
into sugar, and then into fat. According to the literature this does not
appear to happen in reality. That actually makes sense when you consider
that the body is fairly efficient, and to convert protein into fat would
take too much energy to be worthwhile. In fact, converting protein into
glycogen is itself a very inefficient process, and generally only
happens when there is an immediate energy need to be satisfied.

This actually brings me right to the point that I was trying to make.
You see, the literature that shows that converting protein into fat
doesn't really take place in the body is newer than a lot of the
research that is used by the diet folks. Most of them just assumed that
since there was a theoretical mechanism available (i.e. protein does
undergo gluconeogenesis, and glycogen does undergo lypolysis, therefore
protein could become fat via a multistep process) it actually happened.
It doesn't. There's those assumptions I was talking about. Now which of
the published diet gurus is going to print a retraction? ...That's what
I thought.

Theola Walden Baker wrote:

>>The problem I have with the Rosedale Diet is the same problem with most
>>
>>
>diets, or diets in general. >It is an oversimplification of reality. If it
>works, it works for some people, some of the time.
>
>Agreed in principle.  But in particular, the Rosedale diet is working great
>for me.  I'm doing it paleo-style "A" list.   As Rosedale claims sugar is
>sugar, no matter what the source.  I'm sure I was eating more protein than
>my body needed.
>
>Theola
>
>
>.
>
>
>