[Aoife]

Originally Posted by PowerManDL

Emphatically no. The bits that came from Dan were the nuts-and-bolts of the diet and training from "Bodyopus" and the original "Ultimate Diet", not the scientific backing. That's always been Lyle's domain, as he puts it he was the "detail guy" for Dan.

Ok. I'll buy that.

This is all in UD2's intro, as well.



No. The research is new stuff; much of it wasn't even done when Duchaine died (2000).

ok.

Considering it's identical almost to the sentence, and some cases the sentences are literally identical, this would be highly unlikely.

Hence why I see it as grasping at straws.

I understand this.

However, I have had to grade papers even in high school (teacher's aid, cuz I was such a suck up) and have actually seen assignments where given the same source texts and assignment to write, the students can produce eerily similar results without consulting each other (class assignments, teacher watching, no copying could have happened).

So, just because something is a very small possibility, doesn't mean it gets ruled out as a possibility until proven it can't be. You say, based on documents you have that I don't that such can't be the case (there's no non-crunchy bits in Dan's stuff) so I'll now close this as a possibility.

See, this is what I don't get. It's not like there's a third book out there that says all this stuff; it's compiled from the references Lyle amassed for this project and "The Ketogenic Diet" (which has several hundred references, and was written even earlier).

Right.
But I was saying that I didn't know this, and was therefore asking IF there was. Not saying THAT there was.

If there isn't, if all source documentation that could be use for these works were devoid of personality or explanation beyond the most scientific level, then I see where you're coming from.

Then WSFL comes out, and makes an identical breakdown; yes, we can nitpick over the fact that it's not literally identical, but that's playing semantics games.

Yes.
I bring up the semantic game because without knowing all the information, it can seem like overreacting. And that simply added to my doubt that everything that was presented was as it seemed.


So now it would just come down to what Alwyn/Mike have to say about it. Damning though it may be, there are arguments that would make me believe it's not the dicky thing it appears to be. Only a few, and well presented and sincere, but there would be some. Like, to turn a case from one of premeditated murder to self defense.
(it's just a metaphor, as in, murder you're at fault, self defense you had a reasonable reason for what you did.)

I concede that at the moment, it's a good case you have.