> An appeal to history is not the same as an appeal to nature. Would it surprise you to know that as recently as 1850 in the USA 50% of all children died befor

> An appeal to history is not the same as an appeal to nature. Would it surprise you to know that as recently as 1850 in the USA 50% of all children died before the age of 5? Does that change your opinion of how well people were doing in 'history'? > Novel diets and foodstuffs don't have that benefit, and are often accepted into daily life on a weakly evidenced hunch that its "safe until proven otherwise" and an often unevidenced assumption that it must at least be better than whatever imperfect thing its replacing. Can you explain what you mean by this in relation to xylitol? It is not a 'fad' or 'novel' diet. > In the case of sugars and sugar substitutes, adhering to a traditional pattern simply means treating sweetness as a luxury and accent rather than a daily staple. Not a big ask for people who mean to care about their health (not everyone needs to). I assume that you eat wild game and refrain from non-local and out of season ingredients as well?