To quote from Rob Bartlett's post:

"So everybody on the Protein Power LifePlan is recommended to reduce
potentially harmful grains and legumes such as soybeans yet the Eades
sell soy-based protein powders without similar warnings.  I'd say that
this was a glaring inconsistency and undermines the Eades
credibility."

I disagree.  The Eades have made their position about eating legumes
(in
this case we're talking about soy) very clear.  They've also clearly
laid out three progressively more stringent variants of their plan,
because they are smart enough to know that not everyone has the level
of
understanding and commitment that's necessary to adhere to the Purist
approach even most of the time!

I'm not a chemist or a food manufacturing engineer, but my educated
guess is that it would be extremely difficult if not impossible to
create a "Protein" bar which is low in carbs without the use of soy
protein.  While I don't personally subscribe to or necessarily
recommend
using these products, I think that the existence of them points to a
low-carb-consumer need for this type of product.  I think it's a
"lesser
of two evils" scenario.  I feel certain there are many people who
would
find it very difficult to stick with a low carbo food plan if products
like these protein bars were not available to them.

Do the Eades make money off these products?  Absolutely.  Does the
existence of these products (all of them, not just the Eades') reflect
a
recognition that not all people who are willing to do this type of
plan
are willing to be "purists?" Absolutely.  Does the fact that the Eades
market these types of products undermine their credibility?
Absolutely
NOT.

The Eades make it clear in their book that the closer one stays to the
purist level, the healthier one will get.  The make no bones about the
fact that they themselves are "Dilettantes" (mid-level) a good share
of
the time (PP Lifeplan, pg. 343).  To say that either of these facts
(the
marketing of their bars, or their own Dilettante lifestyle) undermines
their credibility is to miss the big picture and to unnecessarily
criticize two of the most important and knowledgeable carriers of the
message, IMHO.

Chuck