Re: Will MattLB disclose his/her "natural" and "wholesome" diet to us?

"Seems to be moving from rantrum to tantrum..."

You are entitled to feel any way you wish. I made clear scientific
points - ones that can be confirmed or refuted by experimentation,
which I am willing to pay for if I am wrong. As to whatever MattLB
now claims he was referring to, I've said on probably dozens of
occasions that one group of animals should eat 25-30% canola/fish oil
while the other would get coconut oil instead. I don't see how that
can be considered "artificial," because Americans are consuming around
25% of their calories as fat (if not more). Millions are now
consuming PUFA-rich diets, whereas in the past many peoples consumed
SFA-rich diets. Once again, MattLB fails to explain his position, but
instead "goes on the attack," for what reason it's impossible to
tell. For those who are unaware, "mike v" is another of those I call
"critics without a clue" crew from long ago. Notice the games they
play, never explaining what their position is, claiming that because
some "expert" said something that it must be true, being unwilling to
subject their own posts to the "rules" they impost on others, etc.
For example, notice that neither of these two is willing to explain
what a "natural" diet is, which is the major point of this thread. I
didn't make this claim about "artificial" diets, MattLB did, and now
he won't define what he means by "artificial" nor what a "natural"
diet would be defined as, and yet they expect those with an open mind
to take them seriously. Sad.

.