Well, I botched that one...
I was having a debate on another website with someone who just told me she was following Weight Watchers to lose a lot of weight and was complaining that it wasn't working.
Ah, so enter my comment about the "primal" lifestyle. She was intrigued at first. Was getting the high fat, low carb deal, understanding the connection of insulin to fat storage, following me on my reason about lots of slow movement and lifting heavily on ocassion, she was digging the "whole and real foods" concept, everything was going well. She even wondered about cutting grains and why it was such a useful thing. I was making good ground. But she wanted hard evidence. So I lead her to Mark's recent blog about why cutting grains is not only, not bad, but probably even a good thing for us.
Then came the response, "This is bullshit, I'm blocking you."
So, I almost had a new primal convert. ALMOST!
How could I have approached this maybe in a less preachy manner that could have ended in her making the positive switch? Or am I crazy for even thinking that was possible, and that she was going to react that way right from the start. I mean... She was interested in everything I was saying at first but then, bam! Dramatic 180 switch. What did I do wrong?
Is there a way to explain the nutritional reasons for cutting grains from the diet without eliciting a visceral, gut-reaction that essentially shuts out any evidence to the contrary of the current CW wisdom on them?