Ann, I know that a lot of people complain that Gary Taubes book and his article on sugar are far too clinical and hard to digest. I find just the opposite - especially his inclusion of several international studies and cases through the last 50+ years. I have two copies of Taubes' book, one of which I lend out regularly. As far as the sugar article, I'm assuming you mean the one in the NY Times? While I think using the words "toxic" or "poison" to describe it is pretty loaded - it makes for sensationalistic reading, I think it has merit. We've taken sugar and perverted it every way possible, and dumped it into everything possible - so it's no wonder that we're discovering all sorts of related diseases and conditions where there is a direct correlation to it's overuse. I think it's a discussion that needs to happen, but the scientists who have looked into Lustig's claims about sugar being as bad as crack, have a point - there's insufficient evidence to make a complete conviction. And when we have big dairy lobbying the FDA to add aspertame to our milk supply (to make is sweeter so kids will drink it, WTF?), we are seemingly a long long way from having this discussion. It's pretty provocative to slap the skull and crossbones on a bag of C&H sugar and call it poison, but that doesn't address what the real problem is - it is NOT the singular use of sugar but rather the OVERUSE of sugar that is the problem. Hell, the scientist in, I believe it was Switzerland, I think his name was Tappy, but I could be wrong (especially if it's NOT the NYT article) fed his test subjects the equivalent of something like 10 cans of pop a day. That's extreme by anyone's standards! So it's no wonder that the subjects showed a significant spike in triglycerides and their livers were fatty and they developed insulin resistance. While I'm not defending sugar, at the end of the day, all the evidence is still inconclusive. Lots of sugar is bad. We all know that, or we should know that. Americans, and most of the world, consume too much sugar. But it's cheap. It's plentiful. However damning it as a whole and trying to slap something like a controlled substance label on it, isn't the answer. Maybe putting warning labels on things like pop and other sugary substances - the same kind of labels we see on cigarettes, isn't an entirely bad idea. And again, the impoverished in our nation are going to grab a .99 load of white bread at the store, that's often loaded with HFCS (sugar. It's all just sugar), before they grab a loaf of whole grain bread that is all natural, (even if it's not organic) and contains no HFCS or other sweetners, that costs $3.99. These same people don't understand (lack of education I suppose - or lack of being able to get the kind of food education) that even on limited means, they could be eating different kinds of beans, quinoa, and other inexpensive beans, legumes, and less expensive although still healthy, veggies and fruits. It's not ideal by anyone's standards, but it's better than a diet consisting primarily of highly refined and processed starches and sugars. The point I was making about the people who can't afford to eat exclusively clean and organic, grass fed, free range, those who live in "food deserts" etc - was that until we address it as a country, unfortunately for them, processed, refined starches, sugars and grains are going to be more affordable. For our family, this is not an issue. Despite not being able to consume a lot of animal protein in my own diet, we eat as clean and as organic as we can, whole foods make up the majority of our diet. For me though, there are simply an awful lot of starchy veggies that are included as those are what happen to be most easily digestible. Throw in Gaby's refusal to eat almost any meat at all and it just makes things even more interesting. I'm not sure if that's just a phase or what - but if it is, it's been going on for almost six years. With her increasing awareness of where meat comes from - regardless of how humanely it's raised, she questions eating it at all. Going off the Prednisone won't change the fact the my lower intestines can't handle a largely meat-filled diet. Unfortunately, years of laxative abuse, necrotic tissue removal, gastric bypass surgery and then another surgery to reverse the bypass and remove even more damaged tissue from my lower intestines precludes me from enjoying a diet primarily consisting of meat. That doesn't mean I'm headed in the reverse direction either - doing something like Dr. McDougal's diet - which is almost all starches and veggies and fruit. I think extremes in either direction can be potentially dangerous. My sugar consumption is probably 1/6th of what it used to be, and being that we consume as little processed and refined food as possible, I don't think I'm doing as bad as I was, or could be.

Ann, I have all of the books you've linked to, with Wheat Belly being the absolute least favorite of mine because it's been PROVEN that Dr. Davis intentionally lied about the stats he was using to try and show correlations that didn't exist. He manipulated the data to try and make his point. It doesn't mean that some of this other points in the book aren't valid, or don't have merit, it just means that the man is basically dishonest. http://noglutennoproblem.blogspot.com/2012/03/wheat-belly-busted.html As far as Paleo as a whole? My problem (outside of the fact that my lower intestines can not process a lot of meat) is that the entire "Paleo" label is far too broad. Are we talking about north American paleo, European paleo, south pacific, asian...etc? They all had different diets based on what was available, and the environmental factors were as different from area to area as they are now. Also, regardless of where you get your food, it's nearly impossible to replicate any of the foods they ate simply because of today's environmental factors vs. factors back then. It doesn't matter if your food comes from the most organic and natural of farms, the same with the meat source. the soil conditions and rain water are two of the hugest factors between now and then. Also, the diet of the animals that were primary sources of protein thousands of years ago was impacted by environmental conditions as well - which, thanks to global warming, are not the same as they were thousands of years ago. The fact of the matter is, while people see vast changes in themselves and their lives, I think it's a huge misnomer to call this a paleo diet. I think it was an effective marketing tool that made Atkins, the original low-carb diet, look like it was actually loaded with carbs. If it works for you, fine, but I think people are deluding themselves by actually thinking this way of eating is close to what our ancient paleolithic ancestors ate. I mainly tried it because of everything going on with my immune system, in hopes that it would offer me some relief. Whether it's because of the massive doses of Prednisone I'm on, or the fact that my lower digestive system can't process lots of even lean protein, it made me pretty sick. My bariatric doctors agree that this is something that would most likely cause more problems for me in the long run, than help prevent. That said, I think sugar is a huge factor in why we are getting sicker and factor, as is the predominance of highly processed foods. Cutting out "whites" of my diet is what seems to help me the most, but I have to be careful to balance it with minimal animal based proteins and add lots of fruit and veggies, something which I admittedly am very poor at doing. Most of the time I usually just forget to eat. Combine that with what the Prednisone does to me and my weight is at a standstill. 20lbs net loss in 8 months is piss poor. I've seen the changes in both Marlene and Lauren, and I'm thrilled that this is working for both of them and that they both understand it's not a diet, but a lifestyle. Again, I think if you genuinely feel great and the changes in your body are positive, then go for it! Anything that helps you lead a healthy, happy, productive life, is a good thing. Another huge issue with Paleo is that it is the LEAST sustainable by the majority of the population that is barely able to afford SOME whole foods in their diet. Far too many people in America ( let alone other areas of the world) live in veritable food deserts where access to clean produce and meat is just not possible. Unfortunately more and more physicians, physicians who have nothing to gain by lose or gain by stating this, are calling this just another fad diet. http://thechart.blogs.cnn.com/2011/09/09/is-the-paleo-diet-healthy/ As for me? I'm going to move forward with my doctor's suggestions and see what happens.

Kori, Another friend pointed out, in an email that the monogram would be considered correct for some fonts. I'm actually OK with it. They are really nice bags and are a great size for kids. Plus they match the outfits perfectly. I can't complain too much because they were selling them during one of their flash clearance sales on Facebook and they were seriously marked-down. I got all three bags for only $45 - and that included shipping. It wasn't so much that it was a "bad" day per se . . . just kinda seemed like I did indeed have a ying for every yank. *lol* Hope you're doing great, sweetie! You sound really good! A. :-)

Oh and, custom cupcakes have too much frosting. ;-)

I readily admit that if it was linkbait, I took it, hook, line and sinker. BUT it was after being irritated by all the posts, the posts that were filled with rage, and righteous indignation, were written by the very same women who are the ones going around plastering images of themselves at these conferences, looking less than professional. The irony was overwhelming and irresistible.

When the minority of voices - those from the women who go to these conferences and get real value from sessions, panels, networking and contact, outweigh the voices of the women who go for the parties and such, until that happens, the perception is going to remain the same. And Lisa, when was the last time you saw a bunch of men sitting around in McDonald's bags, taking cheesy selfies of themselves, or drunkenly dancing around a unicorn shaped cake, then plastering those images all over the web, then having the audacity to ask, "Gee, why don't you take my blogging, seriously? I HAVE to go to these conferences! They're for work!" If that's the case, if you want to be taken seriously, then keep the party pics private and maybe, just maybe you (general you, not you yourself because I KNOW you!) might get taken seriously and people might believe you're going off to a conference to work rather than play.

Trailrider, We don't see so many bunnies where I live now. However back in Maine? All over the place! And the first house we moved to here in NY, the one on Lake Saratoga . . . we had so many of them, along with beautiful little red foxes too. However I have heard we have a huge bald eagle couple nesting nearby, so maybe I'll take my camera out and try to get a few shots. Oh and when I lived in the UK, this time of year not only were there blooming daffodils EVERYWHERE, but bunnies. Thousands of bunnies. The only thing I liked about going around all those roundabouts over there was the fact that most of them were dotted with bunnies and daffodils. If I could focus on them, I could keep from getting car sick! :-)

Krystal, Your comment about the circumcision gone wrong made me laugh out loud and be really grateful I'm not a guy! Ironically those were pink sugar crystals but with the milk chocolate (I just can't seem to get white chocolate to melt. Even those candy melts, specific for projects like this? I FAIL every single time! I can't get them to melt either.) it made them look darker. Someone via email told me that the Piroulines almost looked like cigars. *lol* That didn't occur to me until she said it. :-)