“redundancy” redundancy ;-)

The other time when I posted, I named it prior to I wrote it, and then managed to overlook to say something.  Oh well, whensoever I post while busy, I repeatedly make mistakes of that nature!

The redundancy I was referring to is the sort of has been going on in the LC feeding world I frequent.  There is highly little under the sun which is newly come, unfortunately.  😉  I’m the portion of a few private groups on facebook, and a lot of the instructed studies and articles are either repetitions or confirmations of everything we softly-carbers are already convinced-of. 

Resolved:  that butter is unsullied for you;  that sugar is unhappy for you;  that the effect of starch you can handle is extremely vacillating, depending on many things;  that the clan who make our policy are dangerously influenced ~ means of processors of junk-food….

I conclude I should be glad that cheerful studies/articles that support my concede observations are out there — the most profitably-written of them I pass simultaneously to my friends who are partial in diet-influencing-health but who dress in’t have my free time or anger for the subject.  I should also be unsurprised by the corruption of researchers (it’s plenteous harder to food clinicians) who insist that metabolic and neurological toxins are okay “in deliberateness,” but it still infuriates me.

In the expiration, that’s why so many bloggers unready way down in producing fact-filled posts, or like me, vary the discussion to observations of anomalies of actual presentation.  I really miss the of ~ occurrence expositions that Wooo used to treat us to, concerning everything from social science to pharmacology, to her entertaining rants.  I seriously miss J Stanton, too, but he pointed this situation out a long time ago, here.

It’s kinda like a reading of “evolve or die,” isn’t it?  😉

It’s some appetite suppressant, along with being a sluggish binder.

Recent Comments

    Archives