If you are following a Paleo/Primal way of eating or trying Whole 30, here is my decadent Saturday breakfast.

I had some asparagus I had steamed. I had over half of a huge russet potato that I had baked. So I cut two rounds from the potato and browned them with a little butter, salt and pepper. Heated up the asparagus and plated it, put the potato rounds on top of the asparagus, made two over easy eggs and cut around the yolks and made them fit on the potato rounds with the extra white part tucked underneath. (too lazy to dirty another pan to poach the eggs) Topped it all with compliant Hollandaise. Ta Da....eggs Benedict.

Totally Paleo/Primal/Whole 30.

https://goo.gl/photos/PzAPoivycxa7oJDF7

On Saturday, February 11, 2017 at 9:21:48 AM UTC-10, ImStillMags wrote:
> If you are following a Paleo/Primal way of eating or trying Whole 30, here is my decadent Saturday breakfast.
>
> I had some asparagus I had steamed. I had over half of a huge russet potato that I had baked. So I cut two rounds from the potato and browned them with a little butter, salt and pepper. Heated up the asparagus and plated it, put the potato rounds on top of the asparagus, made two over easy eggs and cut around the yolks and made them fit on the potato rounds with the extra white part tucked underneath. (too lazy to dirty another pan to poach the eggs) Topped it all with compliant Hollandaise. Ta Da....eggs Benedict.
>
> Totally Paleo/Primal/Whole 30.
>
> https://goo.gl/photos/PzAPoivycxa7oJDF7

I'd eat that, I don't even have to know a thing about Whole 30.

On 2/11/2017 2:21 PM, ImStillMags wrote:
> If you are following a Paleo/Primal way of eating or trying Whole 30, here is my decadent Saturday breakfast.
>
> I had some asparagus I had steamed. I had over half of a huge russet potato that I had baked. So I cut two rounds from the potato and browned them with a little butter, salt and pepper. Heated up the asparagus and plated it, put the potato rounds on top of the asparagus, made two over easy eggs and cut around the yolks and made them fit on the potato rounds with the extra white part tucked underneath. (too lazy to dirty another pan to poach the eggs) Topped it all with compliant Hollandaise. Ta Da....eggs Benedict.
>
> Totally Paleo/Primal/Whole 30.
>
> https://goo.gl/photos/PzAPoivycxa7oJDF7
>

Looks good. Worth the little effort.

On Saturday, February 11, 2017 at 1:33:26 PM UTC-6, dsi1 wrote:
>
> I'd eat that, I don't even have to know a thing about Whole 30.
>
>
Me, too! And I don't have a clue what Whole 30 is either.

On 2017-02-11 3:27 PM, wrote:
> On Saturday, February 11, 2017 at 1:33:26 PM UTC-6, dsi1 wrote:
>>
>> I'd eat that, I don't even have to know a thing about Whole 30.
>>
>>
> Me, too! And I don't have a clue what Whole 30 is either.

Sorry can't help you the Whole 30, but I have a weakness for Eggs
Benedict. Sometimes I convince myself that the Eggs Florentine is a
healthier option, but I know deep down inside me that if there is that
delicious Hollandaise sauce on it there is not much difference.

On Saturday, February 11, 2017 at 12:28:04 PM UTC-8, wrote:
> On Saturday, February 11, 2017 at 1:33:26 PM UTC-6, dsi1 wrote:
> >
> > I'd eat that, I don't even have to know a thing about Whole 30.
> >
> >
> Me, too! And I don't have a clue what Whole 30 is either.

Whole 30 is a 30 day pretty strict Paleo type "cleanse". Many people use it to kick start a Paleo way of eating or just to re-tune their body. It is also used to help you find if you are sensitive to certain foods.

http://www.thekitchn.com/what-is-who...s-month-239308

On 2/11/2017 5:22 PM, ImStillMags wrote:
> On Saturday, February 11, 2017 at 12:28:04 PM UTC-8, wrote:
>> On Saturday, February 11, 2017 at 1:33:26 PM UTC-6, dsi1 wrote:
>>>
>>> I'd eat that, I don't even have to know a thing about Whole 30.
>>>
>>>
>> Me, too! And I don't have a clue what Whole 30 is either.
>
> Whole 30 is a 30 day pretty strict Paleo type "cleanse". Many people use it to kick start a Paleo way of eating or just to re-tune their body. It is also used to help you find if you are sensitive to certain foods.
>
> http://www.thekitchn.com/what-is-who...s-month-239308
>
Thankfully I'm not sensitive to any food. I eat what I want, when I
want. I'm not overweight and have no reason to go on diets or adopt odd
eating habits. Re-tune is just another buzz word for the latest fad.
IMHO, of course.

Jill

On Sun, 12 Feb 2017 09:31:34 -0500, jmcquown >
wrote:

>On 2/11/2017 5:22 PM, ImStillMags wrote:
>> On Saturday, February 11, 2017 at 12:28:04 PM UTC-8, wrote:
>>> On Saturday, February 11, 2017 at 1:33:26 PM UTC-6, dsi1 wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I'd eat that, I don't even have to know a thing about Whole 30.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Me, too! And I don't have a clue what Whole 30 is either.
>>
>> Whole 30 is a 30 day pretty strict Paleo type "cleanse". Many people use it to kick start a Paleo way of eating or just to re-tune their body. It is also used to help you find if you are sensitive to certain foods.
>>
>> http://www.thekitchn.com/what-is-who...s-month-239308
>>
>Thankfully I'm not sensitive to any food. I eat what I want, when I
>want. I'm not overweight and have no reason to go on diets or adopt odd
>eating habits. Re-tune is just another buzz word for the latest fad.
>IMHO, of course.

I agree. Why would you adopt the diet of people who didn't make it to
40?

On Sunday, February 12, 2017 at 7:28:23 AM UTC-8, Bruce wrote:
> On Sun, 12 Feb 2017 09:31:34 -0500, jmcquown >
> wrote:
>
> >On 2/11/2017 5:22 PM, ImStillMags wrote:
> >> On Saturday, February 11, 2017 at 12:28:04 PM UTC-8, wrote:
> >>> On Saturday, February 11, 2017 at 1:33:26 PM UTC-6, dsi1 wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> I'd eat that, I don't even have to know a thing about Whole 30.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>> Me, too! And I don't have a clue what Whole 30 is either.
> >>
> >> Whole 30 is a 30 day pretty strict Paleo type "cleanse". Many people use it to kick start a Paleo way of eating or just to re-tune their body. It is also used to help you find if you are sensitive to certain foods.
> >>
> >> http://www.thekitchn.com/what-is-who...s-month-239308
> >>
> >Thankfully I'm not sensitive to any food. I eat what I want, when I
> >want. I'm not overweight and have no reason to go on diets or adopt odd
> >eating habits. Re-tune is just another buzz word for the latest fad.
> >IMHO, of course.
>
> I agree. Why would you adopt the diet of people who didn't make it to
> 40?

I think you have posted your distain of a Paleo type diet in the past. You continue to fail to realize that it is named that because people who follow that way of eating eschew chemical laden processed foods which are the hallmark of today's way of eating. All people ate a paleo/primal diet before the invention of processed foods which was not that long ago, actually.

I adopted this way of eating to cut out all those artificial and enhanced ingredients from my foods. Doing so has made me a healthier person.

Scoff if you will but you have failed to understand the philosophy.

On Sun, 12 Feb 2017 13:09:27 -0800 (PST), ImStillMags
> wrote:

>On Sunday, February 12, 2017 at 7:28:23 AM UTC-8, Bruce wrote:
>> On Sun, 12 Feb 2017 09:31:34 -0500, jmcquown >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On 2/11/2017 5:22 PM, ImStillMags wrote:
>> >> On Saturday, February 11, 2017 at 12:28:04 PM UTC-8, wrote:
>> >>> On Saturday, February 11, 2017 at 1:33:26 PM UTC-6, dsi1 wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>> I'd eat that, I don't even have to know a thing about Whole 30.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>> Me, too! And I don't have a clue what Whole 30 is either.
>> >>
>> >> Whole 30 is a 30 day pretty strict Paleo type "cleanse". Many people use it to kick start a Paleo way of eating or just to re-tune their body. It is also used to help you find if you are sensitive to certain foods.
>> >>
>> >> http://www.thekitchn.com/what-is-who...s-month-239308
>> >>
>> >Thankfully I'm not sensitive to any food. I eat what I want, when I
>> >want. I'm not overweight and have no reason to go on diets or adopt odd
>> >eating habits. Re-tune is just another buzz word for the latest fad.
>> >IMHO, of course.
>>
>> I agree. Why would you adopt the diet of people who didn't make it to
>> 40?
>
>I think you have posted your distain of a Paleo type diet in the past.

Not so much disdain, but in the 70s it was the sherry diet, in the 90s
Atkinson and now Paleo. When, in fact, it's probably all about
moderation and variation.

>You continue to fail to realize that it is named that because people
>who follow that way of eating eschew chemical laden processed foods
>which are the hallmark of today's way of eating.

That I fully understand. The food industry produces some horrible
stuff.

>All people ate a paleo/primal diet before the invention of processed foods which was
>not that long ago, actually.
>
>I adopted this way of eating to cut out all those artificial and enhanced ingredients from my foods.

But Paleo also excludes "dairy products, grains, sugar, legumes,
processed oils, salt, and alcohol or coffee" says Wikipedia. And
that's where I think the kook factor comes in.

>Doing so has made me a healthier person.

I can believe that, because you excluded the processed stuff, the
science projects of the food industry.

>Scoff if you will but you have failed to understand the philosophy.

I think most diets are largely temporary hypes until the next one
comes along- not talking about people with medical conditions or food
sensitivities, of course. But I think avoiding processed foods is
always a good idea.

On Sunday, February 12, 2017 at 1:33:35 PM UTC-8, Bruce wrote:
> On Sun, 12 Feb 2017 13:09:27 -0800 (PST), ImStillMags
> > wrote:
>
> >On Sunday, February 12, 2017 at 7:28:23 AM UTC-8, Bruce wrote:
> >> On Sun, 12 Feb 2017 09:31:34 -0500, jmcquown >
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On 2/11/2017 5:22 PM, ImStillMags wrote:
> >> >> On Saturday, February 11, 2017 at 12:28:04 PM UTC-8, wrote:
> >> >>> On Saturday, February 11, 2017 at 1:33:26 PM UTC-6, dsi1 wrote:
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> I'd eat that, I don't even have to know a thing about Whole 30.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>
> >> >>> Me, too! And I don't have a clue what Whole 30 is either.
> >> >>
> >> >> Whole 30 is a 30 day pretty strict Paleo type "cleanse". Many people use it to kick start a Paleo way of eating or just to re-tune their body.. It is also used to help you find if you are sensitive to certain foods.
> >> >>
> >> >> http://www.thekitchn.com/what-is-who...s-month-239308
> >> >>
> >> >Thankfully I'm not sensitive to any food. I eat what I want, when I
> >> >want. I'm not overweight and have no reason to go on diets or adopt odd
> >> >eating habits. Re-tune is just another buzz word for the latest fad.
> >> >IMHO, of course.
> >>
> >> I agree. Why would you adopt the diet of people who didn't make it to
> >> 40?
> >
> >I think you have posted your distain of a Paleo type diet in the past.
>
> Not so much disdain, but in the 70s it was the sherry diet, in the 90s
> Atkinson and now Paleo. When, in fact, it's probably all about
> moderation and variation.
>
> >You continue to fail to realize that it is named that because people
> >who follow that way of eating eschew chemical laden processed foods
> >which are the hallmark of today's way of eating.
>
> That I fully understand. The food industry produces some horrible
> stuff.
>
> >All people ate a paleo/primal diet before the invention of processed foods which was
> >not that long ago, actually.
> >
> >I adopted this way of eating to cut out all those artificial and enhanced ingredients from my foods.
>
> But Paleo also excludes "dairy products, grains, sugar, legumes,
> processed oils, salt, and alcohol or coffee" says Wikipedia. And
> that's where I think the kook factor comes in.
>
> >Doing so has made me a healthier person.
>
> I can believe that, because you excluded the processed stuff, the
> science projects of the food industry.
>
> >Scoff if you will but you have failed to understand the philosophy.
>
> I think most diets are largely temporary hypes until the next one
> comes along- not talking about people with medical conditions or food
> sensitivities, of course. But I think avoiding processed foods is
> always a good idea.

Well what I do is not STRICT Paleo. I like Mark Sisson's Primal take on things. I still have a glass of red wine. I eat some full fat fermented dairy like sour cream, hard cheese, I stay away from grains as much as possible because I just feel better if I do. And processed oils really aren't that great for your health. Mostly I use ghee, butter, coconut oil, olive oil and avocado oil. I will do some legumes on a limited basis and I drink coffee. I avoid sugar.......except when I eat some 70% or higher dark chocolate.

I don't consider myself to be on a "diet". It's a choice of eating what makes me feel better.

On Sun, 12 Feb 2017 14:15:32 -0800 (PST), ImStillMags
> wrote:

>On Sunday, February 12, 2017 at 1:33:35 PM UTC-8, Bruce wrote:
>> On Sun, 12 Feb 2017 13:09:27 -0800 (PST), ImStillMags
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >I think you have posted your distain of a Paleo type diet in the past.
>>
>> Not so much disdain, but in the 70s it was the sherry diet, in the 90s
>> Atkinson and now Paleo. When, in fact, it's probably all about
>> moderation and variation.
>>
>> >You continue to fail to realize that it is named that because people
>> >who follow that way of eating eschew chemical laden processed foods
>> >which are the hallmark of today's way of eating.
>>
>> That I fully understand. The food industry produces some horrible
>> stuff.
>>
>> >All people ate a paleo/primal diet before the invention of processed foods which was
>> >not that long ago, actually.
>> >
>> >I adopted this way of eating to cut out all those artificial and enhanced ingredients from my foods.
>>
>> But Paleo also excludes "dairy products, grains, sugar, legumes,
>> processed oils, salt, and alcohol or coffee" says Wikipedia. And
>> that's where I think the kook factor comes in.
>>
>> >Doing so has made me a healthier person.
>>
>> I can believe that, because you excluded the processed stuff, the
>> science projects of the food industry.
>>
>> >Scoff if you will but you have failed to understand the philosophy.
>>
>> I think most diets are largely temporary hypes until the next one
>> comes along- not talking about people with medical conditions or food
>> sensitivities, of course. But I think avoiding processed foods is
>> always a good idea.
>
>Well what I do is not STRICT Paleo. I like Mark Sisson's Primal take on things.
>I still have a glass of red
>wine. I eat some full fat fermented dairy like sour cream, hard
>cheese, I stay away from grains as much as possible because I just
>feel better if I do.

But grains, in moderation, aren't bad for you, unless you're gluten
intolerant. So I don't think that should be a general rule for
everybody.

>And processed oils really aren't that great for
>your health. Mostly I use ghee, butter, coconut oil, olive oil and
>avocado oil.

I now also keep reading that those fats are the healthiest. It's weird
because for years they said olive oil didn't have a high enough smoke
point for frying. But now it beats sunflower (and peanut?) oil
healthwise. I hope they don't change the story again in 10 years.

> I will do some legumes on a limited basis and I drink
>>coffee. I avoid sugar.......except when I eat some 70% or higher
>>dark chocolate.

I hate that the food industry adds sugar to just about everything,
also to non-sweet products.

>I don't consider myself to be on a "diet". It's a choice of eating what
>makes me feel better.

That's what counts.

On Sunday, February 12, 2017 at 6:48:43 PM UTC-5, Bruce wrote:

> I now also keep reading that those fats are the healthiest. It's weird
> because for years they said olive oil didn't have a high enough smoke
> point for frying. But now it beats sunflower (and peanut?) oil
> healthwise. I hope they don't change the story again in 10 years.

That's the nature of science. More data comes in, and previous
conclusions are revised. Otherwise phlogiston would be the current
thinking in chemistry.

Plus, there's the effect of the popular press. Some scientist
publishes a dry paper that concludes "X may have a good effect
on health" and the press grabs it and says "X will make you
live forever!!!!!"

Cindy Hamilton

On Sunday, February 12, 2017 at 3:48:43 PM UTC-8, Bruce wrote:
> On Sun, 12 Feb 2017 14:15:32 -0800 (PST), ImStillMags
> > wrote:
>
> >On Sunday, February 12, 2017 at 1:33:35 PM UTC-8, Bruce wrote:
> >> On Sun, 12 Feb 2017 13:09:27 -0800 (PST), ImStillMags
> >> > wrote:
> >>
> >> >I think you have posted your distain of a Paleo type diet in the past..
> >>
> >> Not so much disdain, but in the 70s it was the sherry diet, in the 90s
> >> Atkinson and now Paleo. When, in fact, it's probably all about
> >> moderation and variation.
> >>
> >> >You continue to fail to realize that it is named that because people
> >> >who follow that way of eating eschew chemical laden processed foods
> >> >which are the hallmark of today's way of eating.
> >>
> >> That I fully understand. The food industry produces some horrible
> >> stuff.
> >>
> >> >All people ate a paleo/primal diet before the invention of processed foods which was
> >> >not that long ago, actually.
> >> >
> >> >I adopted this way of eating to cut out all those artificial and enhanced ingredients from my foods.
> >>
> >> But Paleo also excludes "dairy products, grains, sugar, legumes,
> >> processed oils, salt, and alcohol or coffee" says Wikipedia. And
> >> that's where I think the kook factor comes in.
> >>
> >> >Doing so has made me a healthier person.
> >>
> >> I can believe that, because you excluded the processed stuff, the
> >> science projects of the food industry.
> >>
> >> >Scoff if you will but you have failed to understand the philosophy.
> >>
> >> I think most diets are largely temporary hypes until the next one
> >> comes along- not talking about people with medical conditions or food
> >> sensitivities, of course. But I think avoiding processed foods is
> >> always a good idea.
> >
> >Well what I do is not STRICT Paleo. I like Mark Sisson's Primal take on things.
> >I still have a glass of red
> >wine. I eat some full fat fermented dairy like sour cream, hard
> >cheese, I stay away from grains as much as possible because I just
> >feel better if I do.
>
> But grains, in moderation, aren't bad for you, unless you're gluten
> intolerant. So I don't think that should be a general rule for
> everybody.
>
> >And processed oils really aren't that great for
> >your health. Mostly I use ghee, butter, coconut oil, olive oil and
> >avocado oil.
>
> I now also keep reading that those fats are the healthiest. It's weird
> because for years they said olive oil didn't have a high enough smoke
> point for frying. But now it beats sunflower (and peanut?) oil
> healthwise. I hope they don't change the story again in 10 years.
>
> > I will do some legumes on a limited basis and I drink
> >>coffee. I avoid sugar.......except when I eat some 70% or higher
> >>dark chocolate.
>
> I hate that the food industry adds sugar to just about everything,
> also to non-sweet products.
>
> >I don't consider myself to be on a "diet". It's a choice of eating what
> >makes me feel better.
>
> That's what counts.

I don't advocate anyone do anything that I'm doing. I advocate for everyone doing what is best for their individual health. Of course you have to be willing to do your homework and research and investigate and actually do elimination trials to see how foods affect your body...your body, not everyone else's. People just want what tastes good or what they perceive to be healthy because they are advertised into believing in it.

Think for yourself. Find out the truth that is correct for your own physiology. To me that's the best way to be a healthy individual.

On Mon, 13 Feb 2017 03:11:51 -0800 (PST), Cindy Hamilton
> wrote:

>On Sunday, February 12, 2017 at 6:48:43 PM UTC-5, Bruce wrote:
>
>> I now also keep reading that those fats are the healthiest. It's weird
>> because for years they said olive oil didn't have a high enough smoke
>> point for frying. But now it beats sunflower (and peanut?) oil
>> healthwise. I hope they don't change the story again in 10 years.
>
>That's the nature of science. More data comes in, and previous
>conclusions are revised. Otherwise phlogiston would be the current
>thinking in chemistry.
>
>Plus, there's the effect of the popular press. Some scientist
>publishes a dry paper that concludes "X may have a good effect
>on health" and the press grabs it and says "X will make you
>live forever!!!!!"

In 1969 (or whenever it was), people put a man on the moon, but in
2017 they're still not sure which fat is healthiest. Strange
priorities, innit?

On Monday, February 13, 2017 at 2:16:13 PM UTC-5, Bruce wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Feb 2017 03:11:51 -0800 (PST), Cindy Hamilton
> > wrote:
>
> >On Sunday, February 12, 2017 at 6:48:43 PM UTC-5, Bruce wrote:
> >
> >> I now also keep reading that those fats are the healthiest. It's weird
> >> because for years they said olive oil didn't have a high enough smoke
> >> point for frying. But now it beats sunflower (and peanut?) oil
> >> healthwise. I hope they don't change the story again in 10 years.
> >
> >That's the nature of science. More data comes in, and previous
> >conclusions are revised. Otherwise phlogiston would be the current
> >thinking in chemistry.
> >
> >Plus, there's the effect of the popular press. Some scientist
> >publishes a dry paper that concludes "X may have a good effect
> >on health" and the press grabs it and says "X will make you
> >live forever!!!!!"
>
> In 1969 (or whenever it was), people put a man on the moon, but in
> 2017 they're still not sure which fat is healthiest. Strange
> priorities, innit?

Certainly determining the healthiest fat will affect more
people than putting a man on the moon. Still, that was
about making the Russkies look bad, so it really falls
into the realm of "political" rather than "scientific".

Cindy Hamilton

Cindy Hamilton wrote:
> On Monday, February 13, 2017 at 2:16:13 PM UTC-5, Bruce wrote:
>> On Mon, 13 Feb 2017 03:11:51 -0800 (PST), Cindy Hamilton
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >On Sunday, February 12, 2017 at 6:48:43 PM UTC-5, Bruce wrote:
>> >
>> >> I now also keep reading that those fats are the healthiest. It's weird
>> >> because for years they said olive oil didn't have a high enough smoke
>> >> point for frying. But now it beats sunflower (and peanut?) oil
>> >> healthwise. I hope they don't change the story again in 10 years.
>> >
>> >That's the nature of science. More data comes in, and previous
>> >conclusions are revised. Otherwise phlogiston would be the current
>> >thinking in chemistry.
>> >
>> >Plus, there's the effect of the popular press. Some scientist
>> >publishes a dry paper that concludes "X may have a good effect
>> >on health" and the press grabs it and says "X will make you
>> >live forever!!!!!"
>>
>> In 1969 (or whenever it was), people put a man on the moon, but in
>> 2017 they're still not sure which fat is healthiest. Strange
>> priorities, innit?
>
> Certainly determining the healthiest fat will affect more
> people than putting a man on the moon. Still, that was
> about making the Russkies look bad, so it really falls
> into the realm of "political" rather than "scientific".
>
> Cindy Hamilton

Launching projectiles at heavenly bodies is engineering. Generalizing
about diet based on a subset of unreliable data for 7 billion people
with trillions of cells each is science.

On Monday, February 13, 2017 at 4:40:04 PM UTC-5, tert in seattle wrote:
> Cindy Hamilton wrote:
> > On Monday, February 13, 2017 at 2:16:13 PM UTC-5, Bruce wrote:
> >> On Mon, 13 Feb 2017 03:11:51 -0800 (PST), Cindy Hamilton
> >> > wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Sunday, February 12, 2017 at 6:48:43 PM UTC-5, Bruce wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> I now also keep reading that those fats are the healthiest. It's weird
> >> >> because for years they said olive oil didn't have a high enough smoke
> >> >> point for frying. But now it beats sunflower (and peanut?) oil
> >> >> healthwise. I hope they don't change the story again in 10 years.
> >> >
> >> >That's the nature of science. More data comes in, and previous
> >> >conclusions are revised. Otherwise phlogiston would be the current
> >> >thinking in chemistry.
> >> >
> >> >Plus, there's the effect of the popular press. Some scientist
> >> >publishes a dry paper that concludes "X may have a good effect
> >> >on health" and the press grabs it and says "X will make you
> >> >live forever!!!!!"
> >>
> >> In 1969 (or whenever it was), people put a man on the moon, but in
> >> 2017 they're still not sure which fat is healthiest. Strange
> >> priorities, innit?
> >
> > Certainly determining the healthiest fat will affect more
> > people than putting a man on the moon. Still, that was
> > about making the Russkies look bad, so it really falls
> > into the realm of "political" rather than "scientific".
> >
> > Cindy Hamilton
>
> Launching projectiles at heavenly bodies is engineering. Generalizing
> about diet based on a subset of unreliable data for 7 billion people
> with trillions of cells each is science.

Deciding to go to the moon and allocating government money for it
is politics.

Cindy Hamilton