When the Hyperlipid posts get to the point that most of the comments are posted by amateur nutrition-tweakers rather than the professional ones, you learn really fast whose statements are worth reading, and which should be skipped entirely. Blogblog's have always been in the former category. This morning's post of mine is inspired by this comment:
"There are plenty of reasons to eat plant foods without invoking antioxidants. Plants have stimulant, sedative, antimicrobial, antihelminthic, anti-nausea, diuretic, anti-spasmodic and a host of other properties."
I particularly like this statement. When I mention to some people that vegetables are not that important for vitamin/mineral acquisition, that actual intervention studies show that increasing fruitsandvegetables don't show benefit, and that plant antioxidants are a double-edged sword, they usually assume i'm anti-vegetable (as I AM anti-fruit).
I no longer believe that fruitsandvegetables should occupy the generally-prescribed large part of the nutrition plate (or pyramid, depending on the graphic you fancy). I don't believe they do ME much good, if any. I still eat a few of them, because I perceive some provide more by way of taste-pleasure or stimulant-benefit than they do damage. I believe eating "mostly plants" makes ME feel like shit -- but go for it yourself if you want to.
Whoever Blogblog is/was, I'd like to thank him for being the tireless BS-buster I've enjoyed reading in the Hyperlipid archive comments. So often it's he who refutes the utter nonsense that Peter didn't have time to deal with.