On Oct 7, 12:23*pm, Dogman wrote:
On Sun, 7 Oct 2012 07:30:25 -0700 (PDT), "





wrote:
On Oct 6, 10:42*pm, Dogman wrote:
On Sat, 6 Oct 2012 16:48:39 -0700 (PDT), "

wrote:
On Oct 6, 1:08*pm, Dogman wrote:
In pursuit of sweetness:http://www.wheatbellyblog.com/2012/1...-of-sweetness/

"There are several good choices but navigating among them is often
confusing. Be aware that non-nutritive sweeteners, due to their
sweetness, have the potential to increase appetite. Use these
sweeteners sparingly, adding only enough to make your recipe slightly
and pleasantly sweet. Thankfully, the majority of people who are
wheat-free experience heightened sensitivity to sweetness and the need
for sweeteners of any sort diminishes over time..."
How much more "wheatbelly" crap are you going to post?

Truthfully? *As much as I want to post! *And as often as I want to
post!

And the best part about it is, you can't don't **** about it!

Except to point out to folks that these posts are coming
to you from

You do realize how childish that sounds to most people, right?

To ignore articles and information that I provide here, backed by
recognized authorities in the field, not to mention sound science,
solely because I hold contrarian views on other topics?


You mean like the scientific tour de force you just posted
about a gluten free diet causing diabetes remission? With
whoever wrote it attributing diabetes remission in one girl
to a gluten-free diet without ever mentioning that the diet
was also low glycemic? That kind of article? As I said,
that would be like putting someone on LC and then
writing an article about how eliminating potatoes from
the diet produced the results. See the problem?

And yes, I think it's valid for people to know what else
you consider sound science, so they can figure you
out for the ignoramus that you are.