I’m well versed in the history of the WofW but will certainly review the article. And I fully acknowledge my view is held by few LDS but here’s where I’m coming from:

Beyond just the common sense of WofW enforcement being a bogus barrier to Christ and way outside the scope of the mission of the church or the intent of Sect. 89, my high skepticism regarding the WofW as a requirement is largely a result of GAs and local leaders in my youth repeated telling or ignorantly repeating the bold faced lie that the 4 don’ts as a requirement started w/ BY when the perpetrators of that lie knew damn well it was HJG who made the four don’ts change, which had little to do with section 89 and should have been another D&C section or otherwise canonized as a separate “revelation”. For the record, it was before my post mission fall from grace at BYU that I learned the real history; so after that it’s like the old saying, fool me once…………. Fortunately that BY as enforcer of 4 don’ts nonsense isn’t repeated by GAs today (although still sometimes repeated by ignorant local yokels). But today we’re stuck with enforcement of a “revelation” that no one even bothered to canonize. I can only assume it’s because today’s leaders are smart enough not to restrict the path of a future church Pres who may wish to return to the original intent of section 89. Apostle SLR rejected HJG’s change at the time, so I stand in good company. Given the celestial kingdom is going to have far more former smokers and drinkers than observant LDS, I find the emphasis we put on this nonsense is beyond belief. Fortunately for me, I don’t carry the burden of GAs who have to face Jesus and explain why they kept someone from His church in this life for something so silly.

Oh, be careful about protein sources. Too much soy can handicap a boy where it counts.

With regards to Atkins, I think most agree a higher protein diet is good. The question is more about what kind of protein and how much.

“Skaught” I think you are referring to the study relating heart attacks to caffeine. I’ll quote from the New Scientist article I linked to:

People with a genetic makeup that causes them to metabolise caffeine more slowly have a 36% greater risk of heart attack if they drink two to three cups of coffee a day than people with the same gene who drink one cup or less a day, according to a new study. And if they drink more than four cups, this risk rises to 64%.

[...]

On the other hand, individuals who metabolised caffeine quickly and consumed two to three cups of coffee a day had a 22% reduction in the risk of heart attack compared with those with the same genetic makeup who consumed just one cup or less each day.

[...]

In the late 1990s researchers discovered that humans carry variants of the gene for an enzyme that breaks down caffeine in the body. People who carry two copies of the CYP1A2*1A gene may break down caffeine up to four times faster than those carrying the CYP1A2*1F gene, according to El-Sohemy.

He and his colleagues analysed the DNA of more than 2000 patients along with an equal number of healthy people matched for age, sex and area of residence.

Their retrospective study showed that two to three cups of coffee per day caused a 36% rise in risk of heart attack among people who carried the CYP1A2*1F gene – and drinking four or more cups a day caused a 64% increase in the same group. Increased levels of circulating caffeine may block adenosine’s action, causing blood vessels to constrict, subsequently triggering a heart attack, says El-Sohemy.

About 55% of those involved in the study carried the gene for slow caffeine metabolism.

People who were homozygous for CYP1A2*1A – meaning they carried two copies of gene for fast caffeine-metabolism – actually reduced their risk of heart attack by drinking coffee. Among these volunteers, two to three cups of coffee caused a 22% decrease in heart attack risk. Drinking more than four cups of coffee only nominally reduced their chances of a heart attack.

This is the first time that scientists have done a systematic analysis of how genes can influence the effect of coffee on heart attack risk. The study is part of a larger trend in which scientists have untangled how genes make some diets and habits more beneficial or addictive for some people than for others.

Few people know whether they carry the CYP1A2*1F gene or not. But El-Sohemy stresses that having just one cup a day does not appear to have any adverse health effects. “It’s too premature to change dietary requirements,” he says, adding that follow-up studies are necessary.

I say return to the original intent of the WofW, something to be preached as a good practice, not a requirement.

Jeremy, the vegetarianism of pre-Noahites is pretty interesting to me as well. I’m not quite sure what to make of that.

Dan, great comments. One thing I’ve noticed is that many vegetarians and vegans tend to eat pretty fatty food as well. (At least in my experience) Also Vegans who avoid butter often end up using lots of margarine which is filled with trans fats. While butter’s not exactly healthy it is much healthier than many alternatives.

During my mission, I was assigned to train a new missionary, a greenie as they called it, a nice guy from Idaho. One starry night, we were walking home after finishing a discussion about the Word of Wisdom to a family.
Elder Nice Guy started to talk: “you know Elder, we were taught at the MTC that whenever we talk about the Word of Wisdom, we shouldn’t be putting on a doctor’s coat.” He added: “First of all, it’s a commandment, not a doctor’s advice.”

I was stunned by what he said. Whenever I had taught the Word of Wisdom, it was always with grim references about caffeine, nicotine, stimulants and all that medical drivel. His remarks made me think about the Word of Wisdom in a really different light. And it changed the way I looked at the Word of Wisdom.

The Word of Wisdom, first and foremost, is a spiritual thing. We observe it not necessarily because of what we feel or think is wrong about the substances found in coffee or cigarettes, but because it is a commandment.

On a related note, while in the Garden, did they have a physical need to eat at all? According to Brigham Yound and Joseph Fielding Smith, they had Spirit coursing through their veins until the Fall, when blood was finally introduced into their system.

On yet another related note, JST Gen tells us that no meat was eaten until after the Flood. People before that time lived several centuries. Was it because they didn’t eat meat? Although I have my theories, I don’t claim to have this answer.

I do, however, agree with you that different body types digest and absorb the same foods differently. Vegetarianism may be right for some, but not for others. Thank goodness it’s not right for me, ’cause I sure do love a good prime rib every once in a while.