Question for the board: if you could convince a SAD friend to do only one thing, is it better to cut down on bread/wheat, or start eating better fats? I believe that Mark wrote that just switching to coconut oil is the single best thing to do, healthwise. But as we know, if you don't know what to look for, those health effects are largely invisible. I'm afraid that the combination of butter/CO/oil without reducing carbs is likely to make a SAD gain weight, which is VERY visible. And they would be more likely to blame the coconut oil, not the bread, swear off Primal, and go back to margerine.
Originally Posted by spuggygirl
It's hard to call something false advertising when there aren't solid standards to compare against. In the US there are good definitions for "artificial" or "imitation," so companies can't make false claims. But we have no standards as to what will lower cholesterol (assuming we even want to lower cholesterol) or what is heart-healthy. So SAD food companies are free to manipulate the language however they want.
The American Heart Association even has a "heart healthy" label which a company can pay the AHA to plaster on the product box. They talk about this in Fathead.
5'0" female, 44 years old. Started Primal October 31, 2011, at a skinny fat 111.5 lbs. Low weight: 99.5 lb on a fast. Gained back to 115(!) on SAD chocolate, potato chips, and stress. Currently keeping food tracker.
I (try to) follow by-the-book primal as advocated by Mark Sisson, except for whey powder and a bit of cream. I advocate a two-month strict adjustment for newbies. But everybody is different and should tweak Primal to their own needs.