If you’ve posted a comment to this blog lately and haven’t had it put up, it’s because it got caught up in my spam filter. I got an email from someone today asking why a comment hadn’t been posted. I hadn’t seen the comment, so I did the thing I hate most to do, and opened the ‘caught spam file’ only to find about 600 spams with about a dozen comments stuck in with them.
I got rid of the spam and posted all the comments. So, if you’ve been wondering, they’re all up now. If not, I missed it in the volume of spam I went through and deleted it.  Resend it please if that happened.
I don’t know why the spam filter lets comments from one person through once and catches the same person the next time. I need to be more timely in going through the spam before it stacks up to these giant numbers. I promise, I’ll try to do it daily from now on so that comments that get stuck don’t get so delayed.
I’m also going to start posting more comments without my commentary. In fact, I already have. If someone posts a comment that is just that, his or her comment on whatever I posted on, I’m just going to post it without my comment, which usually amounts to something like, I agree or good ideal or some such. All that takes time, and it’s now gotten to the point where I spend about three or four times as much time dealing with comments as I do posting. That’s why there have been fewer long, thoughtful posts and more quickie cartoons and other things I can just slap up to freshen the blog.
And, I’m going to limit my political debating to a large extent. I’m a nutritional expert, not a policy wonk. What I have to say about nutrition comes from many years of study and patient care, and is, I believe, of value to readers. What I have to say about politics, social issues, etc. are my opinions developed from reading and study, but I’m not an expert and these posts don’t represent my expert knowledge, only my opinions. Your opinions may differ, and, in fact, probably do. If you want to lay out your position, go for it, and I’ll post it, but I don’t have time for a lengthy debate.
When I had just a few commenters, I could afford the time to engage in these debates, but no longer. I have way too many comments to deal with to spend that kind of time on back and forth debate with a few individuals. When that has happened, the person I’ve been debating with hasn’t changed his (or her) mind despite my brilliant arguments, and I haven’t changed mine, so what’s the point. Especially when there is a lot of interesting nutritional news breaking almost daily that is blog worthy. But I don’t have time to post on it because I’m debating over whether our home grown fundamentalists are more dangerous than Islamic fundamentalists.
Let’s see how it works as this whole process evolves. And BTW, I would be more than happy to hear anyone’s opinion on this subject. For all I know, all readers are all sitting on the edges of their seats waiting for the next political debate exchange, but somehow I don’t think so.


  1. I am glad you are going to limit your replies to comments in future. I appreciate your blog most when it deals with nutritional news and replies to serious on-topic queries would be welcome.

  2. Dr. Eades, you’ve been most generous in your “commenting on comments,” which a lot of bloggers simply don’t do. I am sure most of us will be fine with “no comments on comments unless warranted.”
    And I for one do not look for political information or debate on this blog. I go elsewhere for that. Your strength, as you pointed out, is nutritional science. I appreciate that you have opinions on subjects other than your area of expertise; that shows me you’re a whole, real person. But I’d be very happy to find a preponderance of lipid-theory-stompin’, myth-debunkin’, and science-scoffer-revealin’ articles: your strength. —Anne

  3. Dr. Eades,
    I think you are taking the best approach.
    I only recently found your blog (back when I first read Protein Power, I don’t thing you were blogging yet), although I have been a “fan” for several years. (Started LC on Atkins, but found the PP book to be more what I was looking for with respect to the supporting nutritional science.)
    I highly respect you for your expertise in this area, and am glad to have found that you are blogging – since it means I will have more access to that expertise.
    However, reading even one post prior to this one I can understand what you are saying in regard to being side-tracked by topics outside of the scope of your expertise.
    Personally, being a person of faith, I take great exception to the “religion flow chart” in the previous post. I believe I could refute it objectively. But I’m not here to read about or discuss religion/faith; I want to read your insights and commentary on current nutritional science, especially as it applies to the low-carb approach.
    (This same principle applies to actors/singers who believe their talent gives them a credible platform for political advocacy.)
    That said, analogies do have their proper place, and I understand the analogy you were trying to make in the previous post (even if it wasn’t drawn out sufficiently for my liking – which I would explain, but that would require me to get into explaining/arguing my disagreement with the flowchart). (Ironically, I agree that the low-fat theory is analogous – equivalent, even – to blind faith.)
    This is my first comment on your blog, and I think it has been long-winded enough!
    (PS you need to upgrade your Wordpress installation. If you’re on a 2.0.x installation, you should be at version 2.0.10. But, for security reasons, unless your server isn’t running a current-enough version of PHP, you really should upgrade to 2.1.3.)
    Hi Chip–
    I didn’t intend to disparage  your religion (or anyone’s) in the post.  The flow chart is labeled faith at the top, not religion.  The guy who made the chart put religious symbols in it, which would lead one to believe it was about religion, but it clearly was labeled faith.  And most people do take religion on faith, in fact, you characterized yourself as “a person of faith.”  If there were rock-solid, objective data that there was a God and that he/she/wanted us to act in certain ways, then it wouldn’t be faith.
    I wrote the post to show how despite such evidence being readily available about dieting, many people still continue to believe in low-fat diets cure alls for everything.  Since the evidence is there, they maintain these beliefs on faith alone, which puts their ideology in the religion category, as far as I’m concerned.
    Most religions of the deity-worshiping variety, even if totally false (and no one really knows until death if the time spent following that religion brings eternal life or whatever the religion promises), if followed, probably make one a better person.  (I’m sure I’ll get argument about this.)  But following the low-fat religion can damage one’s health in the here and now.
    Thanks for the heads up about WordPress.  I don’t have a clue as to what version I’m using.  I have a conference with my web guy this Friday; I’ll bring it up then.  All this spam is killing me, especially when a bunch of comments get picked up with it.  The filter must be set too strong, because I virtually never get a spam that makes it through into the actual ‘comments awaiting moderation’ section, but I get a number of comments that get hauled off to spam jail.

  4. Hey Dr. E,
    I’m glad to see the political commentary go, and not because I disagree with you. I read your (and your wife’s) blog for nutrition information. There are many other places on the web where I can watch people argue politics (and few people ever change their minds after a debate…everyone walks away going “I showed him/her”). Looking forward to the even better version of your blog!
    Scott Kustes

  5. Well, I, for one, value all people’s opinions on non-subjective topics (NOT the importance of Brad and Jenn’s lovelife, nor on the superiority of country music, nor on how brilliant Andy Warhol and Charlie Chaplin were) like politics, and even more greatly value discussion of things like politics and science with the rare examples of really sentient-seeming people like yourself.
    In fact, I am much happier when someone disagrees, in intelligent detail, with me than anything else, because it seems like the best source of information FOR me. And debate’s fun, anyway.
    So while I completely sympathize with your time limitations, and support your decisions as stated above, if you ever happen to disagree with my comments and wish to tell me in whatever detail, I’ll be thrilled.
    Oh, and as an interesting side note, apparently the auto-fill of my website URL in my blog comments was misformatted, so one could not click my name and see my website…that’s fixed now.
    Hi Kaz–
    Geez, Brad’s and Jenn’s (or is it Angyline’s?) love lives were going to be the topic of my next post, and now you’ve spoiled it.
    I’m sure I will continue to argue points in the comments section; I just can’t do it to the same extent I have in the past. So lively discussion of non-nutritional subjects will still be had, I’m sure.
    I’m glad you fixed your blog URL; I tried a few times to get in and couldn’t.
    I enjoyed your most recent post. I hate the SI (the systeme international, i.e. the metric system) because I learned everything in the U.S. Customary units.  I agree with everything you wrote about it.  I hate it when cholesterol is listed as 5.1 mmol/L instead of 200 mg/dL.  I ask you, which is more precise?  The second, of course.  Whenever I gripe about it to anyone, they all say, what’s the big deal?  Just multiply mmol/L times 39 and you’ve got mg/dL, which implies to me that that is exactly what they’re doing.  Why not just stick with the mg/dL to begin with.  It wouldn’t be so bad if everything worked the same.  Another problem is that the 39 multiplier works only with HDL and LDL choleseterol.  If you want to calculate for triglycerides, you have to multiply by 89, making the SI units for triglyceride even less precise.  For blood sugar, you have to multiply by 18.  So, not only are you dealing with a less precise means of measuring, you have to learn a huge number of multipliers to convert back and forth.
    When I was in my training one of the hospitals in Little Rock used the SI and all the others used U.S Customary units.  When I would go to the SI hospital and ask, for example, what a particular patient’s temperature was, and be told it was 37.9 degrees, I would always ask, “What’s that in real temperature?”  (It’s 100.2 degrees).
    Despite my reluctance to learn the SI system for temperatures, it’s probably better that the Fahrenheit system, which sets the temp at which water freezes at 32 degrees and that at which it boils as 212 degrees.  The SI system has water freezing at 0 degrees and boiling at 100 degrees.  There is some sense in doing it that way, although single temperature increments are more precise in the Fahrenheit system.

  6. Bravo Dr E. While I find your off topic comments interesting, I find your informed analysis of current dietary news compelling, unique and inspiring.
    Perhaps you could allow yourself to comment on just one or two replies per week, just to reassure your loyal fans that you are listening?
    Thank you for your work on this blog and for the opportunity to make comments.
    Hi Marilyn–
    I intend to keep on commenting on comments that require commenting.  (Hmmm, that sounds like a line from Gilbert & Sullivan.)  Many comments are simply that: comments.  And require no comment from me.  I’ve gotten into the habit of commenting on almost everything, so I feel bad if I don’t comment personally to everyone.  So, I would.  And even little short couple-of-sentences comment responses take up a lot of time when taken in the aggregate.
    So have no fear, I’ll comment on comments, probably a lot more than twice a week.

  7. Dr. Mike:
    My preference is that this blog remain focused on nutritional issues only. However, if you want to create sub-sections, such as Dr. Mike’s Political Debates or Dr. Mike’s Family Bonding Events or Dr. Mike’s Religious Sermons then you can do that. It’s your blog after all.

  8. Good for you Dr. Mike.
    Personally, I would take it as a sign that you’re doing something right. More comments than you can handle is a problem a lot of bloggers would like to have.
    Please note the following:
    On my leadership Blog, there are now links to three blogs:
    Craig Ballantyne (Men’s Health Transformation Trainer)
    Adam Campbell (Men’s Health’s Nutrition Insider, soon to be Best Selling Low Carb Diet author, and frequent citer of you).
    Two: A new post (going up this week) correcting the oversight in the relationship post where I overlooked a number of virtual friends, yourself included. Speaking sincerely, having a relationship with you through the blog is a great add-on to the great stuff I have gotten from you (for the small price of trade paperback copies of PP & PPLP). I’m glad you’re here, and I’m glad you can respond to comments, even if less robustly than previously.
    PS- Farm bill is really labyrinthine, so don’t worry about it too much. But the FDA’s attempt to regulate the complimentary/alternative medicine industry is both controversial, fascinating, and related to your experience, at least as an attendee at that trade show you talked about last month or two.
    Thanks, Max–
    I appreciate the compliments.  We’ve butted heads a few times in the past, but I think it has all be done in pretty friendly fashion.  I’m glad you’ve enjoyed it as much as I have.

  9. I agree with the others Dr. Eades. There were a few times where I almost took you off my favorites list because it looked like it was turning into a political blog. Nevertheless, I had faith, and it paid off.
    Not that I agreed nor disagreed with your comments. If you wanted to start another political blog, I’d be all for that.
    Oh, an I rarely read what reader’s comments are anyway, but if this means you’ll be posting more, that’s great news.
    Thanks for keeping us enlightened.

  10. Dr. Eades, I love your blog, and if commenting less means you post more (and at more length), then it’s a great strategy.
    As for the politics — I happen to agree with yours more often than not, yet I think you’re smart to focus on where you’re unique. You add extraordinary value in that you’re the only top MD I know of who is regularly and openly discussing matters of diet and the medical, financial, and political ramifications of what is presented to us as worthy foods and medicines. To intelligently take on why a useless drug (statins) have become one of the biggest businesses in the world, you have to know everything from biochemistry to global politics. There are probably others who could address the issues you do, but they are well-compensated to bite their tongues.
    That you speak the truth to these matters, and are open to discuss these matters with laypeople is truly amazing.
    I think you will maximize your impact to the extent you focus your energies there.

  11. Good Dr,
    I read your blog for your medical expertise. Sources for political commentary are endless. Sources for sound nutrition and health advice are few and far between. Thank you for being one of those few sources and I look forward to seeing more of that advice at an accelerated rate moving forward.

  12. Thank you for refraining from political commentary. Personally, I avoid political sites because I find the discussions frustrating and fruitless. In fact, I was thinking of dropping your blog from my regular reads because I wasn’t getting the information I really wanted – your expert opinions about nutrition.
    Thank you for coming back to that focus.

  13. Dr. Mike:
    The sharing of your expertise on nutritional science and related medical issues with those of us who frequent your website and blog is generous on your part and valuable. Although I am new to your blog, I would even go so far as to say that it may even be a crucial countervailing force against the seeming tidal wave of misinformation or just plain false blathering about these subjects coming from sources who should know better, or even worse from some who have a financial axe to grind (e.g., a marketing purpose) in putting such stuff out there. I also blame the “media” for facilitating the dissemination of bad info, by either hiring unqualified people to write columns (I think many of us know who some of them are) or merely publishing stuff that hasn’t been properly examined or vetted for accuracy or for sourcing (or even for common sense), sometimes apparently just to fill empty column space.
    So Dr. Mike I’m just fine with your decision to limit off topic responses and focus on what is truly important in what you are doing. And it is important! Thank you.
    Best regards,

  14. What!? You’re not going to comment on every comment anymore? Who do you think you are? Getting kind of above yourself aren’t you? Thinking you’re too good for us, eh? You owe us the comments. We spend time making them, the least you could do is acknowledge them. Every single one of them.
    Think of the children!
    Note: the preceding was intended as satire, not to be confused with the actual views of the poster.
    For my part, I read your blog for material to defend myself from well meaning do-gooders who insist on teaching me the right way to eat. Anything beyond that is gravy; it tastes good, but isn’t ultimately necessary. 🙂
    Think of the children, indeed!
    Thanks for the feedback.

  15. One final note — in my opinion, it’s not as important to keep your blog “fresh” as it is to keep the signal-to-noise ratio high. As much as I enjoy some of the lighter posts (the Gilbert & Sullivan take on rap especially), to me this blog is simply about what we’d be told to eat if science (rather than money, ego, sentiment and convention) ruled the day.
    Hi John–
    That’s a good way to put it.  I’ll endeavor to keep the signal-to-noise ratio higher than it has been.  It’s just that if I spend ALL my time writing about and thinking about nutrition I will get extremely bored very quickly.  When I see something that really rings my chimes (such as the Gilbert & Sullivan parody) I like to share it with my readers, whom I view as my friends.  Same thing with politics.  If I read or hear something that puts me over the edge, I talk about it with the friends I hang out with and play golf with, so I figure the same applies to my cyber friends.
    People are always asking me: What’s the difference between you and Atkins?  They didn’t know Atkins personally, but if they did, they would be able to see many differences simply by reading my blog.  Atkins, for a number of reasons, could never write a blog like this one.  Whether that’s good or bad is a different matter, but a Robert Atkins blog would be much, much different than Mike Eades one, I can assure you.

  16. I believe that in general people have no expectation of an answer when posting comments on a blog or in a forum.
    So if the time you save means more time spent on blogging on interesting issues, all the better.
    Allowing comments are simply a service you are providing to your readers, something that allows them to share an insight or simply to vent a little on the topic at hand. A personal replay does not have to be part of this service 🙂
    As for your subject matter, I prefer, as most people here do, your comments on nutrition, because as was pointed out, there is a dearth of good info on the subject matter. However this is your blog and you should feel free to share whatever strikes your fancy.
    Hi Angelyne–
    My problem is that I set expectations by answering comments, which was a snap when their were just a few.  I wrote the post last night to un set the expectations, so we’ll see how it goes.
    As you can see by my response to this comment of yours, it’s hard for me to quit.

  17. If it was my choice, I’d say please stick with nutrition and health issues, after all, less is often more. But it is your blog, and your prerogative to post whatever you want, we are your guests!

  18. I have to wonder; how does syncing the temperature scale to the freezing and melting point of water matter, either way?
    There’s nothing objective about it, and of course base-10 math is irrelevent; you don’t have to convert centigrade into anything else. It’s not somehow based on meters, the way liters are. Really, it ends up having about as much to do with objective science as astrology does with astronomy. With no math to matter, and the freezing/boiling temps of water being no more pivotal to objective science than that of any other, centigrade’s foundation is more numerology than science. Hell, consider that the boiling point of water is purely subjective; only at sea level on Earth does it boil at 212 degrees…at every other point on the planet, and most in the rest of the universe, it boils at a different temp.
    Anyway, you should spend some of the time saved here, posting comments on my blog. I mean actually post them there, not here. Why? Ummm…for social justice! It’s a redistribution of comments! You have too many, so there should be a tax on your wealth. From each according to his ability!
    Of course if I was going around the internet leaving bad links to my blog, that may explain why. Back before blogs, I had a political website, and had about a thousand unique readers per day…I was wondering why my blog was only doing a tenth of that amount.
    I don’t think that syncing the temperature scale to the boiling point and the freezing point of water makes any particular sense, but I’m sure that it was one of the only phenomenon readily observable to those making the first calculations.
    I’ll be sure, since I’m such a fan of social justice, to post my comments about your blog there instead of here.  I’m all for comment redistribution.
    Having said that, though, I don’t mind the number of comments I’m getting; in fact, I love it.  What I don’t love is keeping up the practice I started when there were only occasional comments of responding to them.  That’s what I’ve been griping about, not the fact that I get a lot of comments.  If I got none, I would worry whether or not I had any readers. And who wants to write all this stuff if no one reads it?


  19. Dr. Eades,
    Thanks for the response.
    Briefly, in response to the flowcharts: just to clarify, I did not consider the use of the flowchart to be disparaging to my faith or to my religion. I understood the analogy you were drawing, and took its use at face value in that regard.
    That said, one could easily infer that the original intent of the flowchart was, indeed, to disparage religion (for example, the religious symbols, and the manner in which they were used). Also, though the flowchart itself was labeled faith, your analogy contrasted the scientific approach with that of religion, and the contrasting use of “science” and “faith” flowcharts implies that, in the case of the flowchart, “faith” and “religion” were interchangeable.
    Again, I recognized the analogy you were trying to draw, and agreed with the underlying point you were trying to make; thus, I took absolutely no offense from the use of the flowchart.
    I could see, though, how some might take offense.
    It is a fine line to walk, to be sure.
    I won’t continue on down the rabbit trail of the faith/religion issue here. I might post something on my blog (or not; we won’t have much free time soon, since we are expecting the birth of our first child literally any day). If I do, I will trackback to your other post, and if you are interested, we can carry on the discussion there.
    On the spam issue in Wordpress: if you’re using the Akismet plugin, the more you use it, the better it works. Unfortunately, the more “open” your blog is with comments and trackbacks, the more of a magnet you become for comment/trackback spam. Upgrading your Wordpress won’t really address the spam issue, but it will keep your blog current against various security threats.
    Thanks again for the effort you put into your blog!
    Hi Chip–
    I am using the Askimet plugin, which works plenty well to weed out spam, but takes a few comments here and there with it.  It would be better and easier to go through the spam file daily, but I let it get to several hundred before I finally work up the gumption to clean it out.  Then I always find a real comment or two.  Yesterday I found about a dozen.  Anyway, starting today, I’ve been going through and dumping on a regular basis (at least twice so far today).  We’ll see how long that lasts.

  20. You should have ironically commented each comment with a single line response. 🙂
    What should I have said? 

  21. ref your blog and being overloaded etc etc
    As Yasus and El Budd-ha were heard to say in their respective languages and with a contemp translation of course
    ‘Phuq-em if they canny take a joke’
    But who is it that canny take the joke?  Me or them?

  22. I can say I completely agree with your choice and what many others here have said. I used to love reading your blog and your wife’s blog because I wanted to read what was new in your nutritional findings, suggestions, etc. However, once it started to turn political and getting into discussions about religion, I honestly found myself coming here less and less. Sure, I disagree with you on some things, but that really wasn’t the reason. It was solely because I like to come here for nutrition.
    Now, this isn’t to say you can’t have a blog of your own to express your thoughts and opinions on everything; that’s really the main reason people have blogs. But for the most part, those are personal blogs that people read because they know them personally and want to read what’s new, what’s on their mind, etc.
    Your blog, however, I feel is a more specialized blog. Some bloggers are popular for politics, some for religion, some for nutrition, exercise, etc. I appreciate that you have other things to write about, but I think the draw for many of the people here is that you specialize in nutrition and health and that’s what we want to read about.
    You’re always going to have a lot of comments here, especially when you comment on subjects like religion and politics, because some people want to express their agreement or disagreement with your views. But that’s all it is…I really feel like a better use of your time here would be to educate us on things like nutritional studies, new discoveries, etc, so that you really are teaching us new things to help us with our everyday lives. I prefer that to hot-button issues that a lot of times will only serve to alienate readers (including me).
    I’ll promise to post on a lot of nutritional subjects if you’ll indulge me in a few other posts here and there.  If I stick strictly with nutrition, it will become a drag for me quickly.  So, maybe enduring my quirky posts is the price you have to pay to get the nuggets of nutritional wisdom. 

  23. Well, I love all the nuggests as well Dr Mike, so please do just as you feel you want to do. On another note, low carbing, antioxidants, fish-oils and some calorie restriction (including intermittent fasting) has allowed me to come off insulin altogether. After struggling with this beast (type 2) for nigh on 10 years (standard establishment advice), it took only 18 months when following nutrition advice from people like yourself to achieve this. Your blog and others like yours give people the tools to find there way back to good health that is otherwisde an impossibility, especially with the particularly nasty chronic disease that is diabetes.
    That was a long-winded way of saying that your nutritional blog is simply invaluable, and I wanted you to be aware of that.
    Hi Glenice–
    Thanks for the kind words.  I’m glad you’ve done so well.  Stories like yours keep me motivated.

  24. Mike,
    You’re off to a good start on cutting the comments down *giggle*
    Last thing: PPLP has, as a I mentioned, a piece about exercising your mind. I find the off topic stuff (politics, rants on Islam, musical tastes and societal collapse) to be pretty much prescription from the book. It may be strict LC off topic, but again, an Atkins blog would be very different and an Atkins nutritional approach doesn’t feature the mental aspect that PPLP does. Something worth thinking, though not worthy of comment, imho.
    You’re brilliant, Max!
    I had forgotten about the brain chapter in the PPLP (much in the same way Ornish forgets about the meditation, exercise and behavior mod parts of his ‘nutritional’ regimen for treating heart disease). All these other topics are nutrition for the brain, so maybe they’ll live on albeit in lesser quantities.
    And it’s not the comments I want to cut down on, in fact, the more, the merrier, it’s the feeling compelled to answer each one, even those requiring long philosophical debate. 

  25. i don’t know the correct term for it but its just a turn of phrase i’ve always taken to mean hold it lightly i.e you are not obliged to answer all..it’s apparently a ‘free’ world..well some of it and of course how one defines free
    I can assure you that most bureaucrats define ‘free’ a lot differently than do I.

  26. Don’t have to post this one, or comment, would prefer you didn’t actually 🙂 Some months back you posted on folate and the differences between pga and folate. You hinted that there was a vitamin manufacturer that sold genuine methyl folate, albeit expensive. Would you mind emailing me that name?
    I posted on your blog 8-10 months ago while I was pg with my second child (thanks LC!). She’s 6m old and I’m currently 9w pregnant with #3 and hope it sticks. I am currently 40. My OB was surprised as all heck to see me back again so soon and even asked me if I’d seen the local fertility doc. (will they even see you 4m postpartum from a csection?) No fertility docs, just low carbing. I wondered then and still wonder how much of the decline in fertility in the 40ish age group in the current generation is due to insulin resistance. We’ll see if I have a ‘good report’ as my grandmother used to say on Monday. Had a 7w3d baby with a heartbeat last week though so hopefully all is still OK.
    As far as kick ass methylation substances go, look at choline. My personal favorite. Check out pubmed publications by ‘Zeisel SH’ on fetal brain development with and w/o choline supplementation. Methylates genes responsible for apoptosis in stem cell lines. Wonder what it would do to beta cell stem cells?…
    Take care!
    Hi Beth–
    I don’t mind responding to comments like yours. It’s the long, political ones that give me trouble, not because I don’t enjoy the debate, but because they require so much time.

    The methylfolate supplement you’re looking for is called Metafolin.  The brand we take is sold by Source Naturals, which I bought because it was the one available at my local natural food grocers.  It’s not particularly expensive.  The price tag is gone on the bottle I have, but I recall being kind of surprised at how inexpensive it was compared to what I was expecting.
    I, too, love choline (along with betaine) as a good methylating agent.  Thanks for the paper citation.

  27. Dr. Mike,
    As an occasional poster and long-time fan I welcome the renewed focus on nutrition. Years ago I had tried Atkins but I was never more successful in my quest for health that when I found PP.
    I have laughed myself silly over some of your postings and have often agreed with you political and social commentary but I really love your specialty: nutrition and exposing the folly of the current American diet.
    It must be a burden to be talented in so many areas–and you are!
    Best to you,
    Barb W
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Hi Barb–
    It is a huge burden.  Just ask my wife. 🙂

  28. Dr. Eades,
    You might consider establishing categories for your posts, i.e. Health&Nutrition, Politics, and/or others. Those reading your blog can then choose which category to read. For some blogs that I access I can set my link to open in a specific category. Just a thought.
    Personally, I’ve enjoyed all your posts, but have wondered how long you were going to last….responding to all comments!
    Kind Regards,
    P.S. No response expected!! 🙂
    Well, then, I guess you won’t get one. 🙂

  29. I haven’t been reading your blog for very long but I’ve very much enjoyed the nutrition aspect and have used the search funcion liberally.
    While I’m not interested in reading political stuff in general, if it is related to govt health and/or drug agencies and/or policies then it is is of interest.
    P.S. I recently bought the PPLP book but haven’t had a chance to read it.
    Hi Anita–
    Welcome to the fold.  Hope you enjoy PPLP.

  30. What’s the matter with these people? It says right up top that you’re going to blog on anything that strikes your fancy. I think the ratio of nutrition posts to “fancy” posts is spot on. God forbid that I should miss out on the delight of watching a little old lady use her trick steering wheel to send unsuspecting drivers into a spin.
    Maybe I’ll just add more nutritional posts so that it will seem like there are fewer ‘fancy’ ones.

  31. I think what gets people so riled up about your “strikes my fancy” posts is that they are editorials.
    You apply so much scrutiny to nutritional studies and literature that your opinions and conclusions can almost be considered facts.
    However, your ‘fancy’ posts are merely editorials and I believe what upsets or (in the gaming world) ‘aggros’ these people is that when they come here looking for facts and truths and they see your editorials they assume that you are listing them as ‘facts’ as well.
    Of course homegrown fundamentalists being as dangerous as Kurdish fundamentalists openly crushing young women’s heads in the streets, although I’d think it’s hard to argue for, is still a matter of opinion.
    A way around this might be to post “Editorial” in your ‘fancy’ posts titles so that people don’t get so riled up about them. They get upset because you say Alec Baldwin is vile, but in another post, you say that gov’t. employees are swine. One is true but the other is opinion. 😀
    Nonetheless, people expect the same scrutiny and unbias in ALL your posts because that’s what you uphold to in your nutrition posts. So, they see a post that is opinion-based statement and feel compelled to prove that as such with as much vehemence as you attack the biased drug studies.
    With that being said, consider how many people visit your blog and then consider how many people comment. Remember that the ones that are screaming out against your opinion posts are the same type of people that put bumper stickers on their cars.
    There are probably just as many, if not more, people that agree with you but don’t comment because they are waiting to hear your response. The non-vocal majority should probably speak up and participate.
    Your interests in government and politics is what allows your broad view of medicine, big pharma, etc. The readers here get access to knowledge and a critical review that’s easy to understand by a licensed physician which they would be hard-pressed to find somewhere else. In addition, almost all of their comments and questions are answered in a timely manner. All that’s asked in return is that they don’t begrudge you when you post an opinion piece. It seems so petty and ungrateful when you think about it. Maybe Alec Baldwin should leave them a comment.
    Lastly, for those claims that your blog is becoming a ‘political’ blog, it only seems like it as they keep reading the commentaries. If you look at the actual posts, at least every other post is a nutritional post.
    So, my advice to you would be just to add the word, ‘Editorial’ above your ‘fancy’ posts.
    My advice to the ‘griefers’ (another gamer term) is to just skip those posts as a new nutritional post will be up soon.
    But hey, that’s just my opinion.
    Hi Scott–
    Thanks for the advice.

  32. Hi Dr. Eades,
    I read your blog occasionally, and after being out of town for awhile, am only just now catching up a bit.
    Personally – I *love* politics, and am interested in hearing about all kinds of perspectives, yet, I was thinking that if you were going to write more political comments, then what about narrowing the focus into where ‘food/health/medicine’ intersects? Politics is in everything, and I’d be very interested to hear your take on the recent pet food recall, and the subsequent discovery of possibly melamine-contaminated pork, fish and chicken. That, in conjuction with PIGS (political interest groups) such as the ADA or the AMA or what have you (a.k.a. lobbyists), and the way you’re so good at debunking a lot of the food and health related dogma that seems to be so prevalent – well, this would make your blog even more interesting. I mean, you’re already doing a lot of that kind of thing, and I think it’s a great idea to talk more about the poltics of food and food production. That, and the medicines and so on. It all ties together.
    There’s just so much to talk about – and lately, it seems that imported foods are something we should be thinking about in terms of our health and well-being. I always wondered why it was called the “FDA” – not sure I like ‘food’ and ‘drugs’ lumped in together like that.
    And what of corn subsidies? Is the USDA a lobbying group or is it something else?
    Lotsa stuff – and it’s all very interesting to me.
    Anyway, enough about that – just wanted to chime in with the idea that ‘politics is in everything’, including food, medicine, health and well-being – which is your forte.
    Hi Sara–
    Thanks for the comment.  I do indeed have an opinion on all the above.  I may get into them in the future, but for now my advice is not to take anything that comes from China.
    Maybe your suggestions will allow me to indulge in my political gripes by channeling them in the direction of the food, drug and supplement business.  Now if John Edwards would just go away…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *