Jane - it's not uncommon for someone to make unsupportable statements, then treat them as fact and build an entire case around them. It happens on every active forum every day of every week. I'd like to take 4 paragraphs you wrote and use them to illustrate the difference in how we think. Your offerings are in bold and I'll comment intermittently. I have seen more underlit plants than I care to mention. Those plants lanquish and eventually decline. Plants growing in light that limits their potential ("underlit plants") needn't necessarily be in decline. Decline is a condition during which a plant is using more energy than it's able to produce - nothing more than that. It's entirely possible, and it happens very often, that a plant we might consider unsightly due to it having received less light than it needs to keep it looking good (from our POV), is able to sustain life and growth under light conditions insufficient to keep it looking as attractive as we would like - indefinitely, as long as it's life span isn't limited by the fact the plant is an annual or biennial, or by other potentially limiting cultural factors. Many people mistake the label, 'low-light plant' or 'shade,' without realizing how much light is lost by having a plant too far from a window. If a plant stops growing, it is not producing roots which uptake water. Without growth doesn't matter what a plant is in. I promote light first and foremost. First, "A[ny] plant that is not growing is dying" ~ Alex Shigo, PhD; this, because growth is a byproduct of the plant's ability to make more food than it needs to keep its systems orderly. A plant that is too far from a window to keep it looking healthy can still be growing and producing roots. Even if the top of the plant seems to have stalled, the roots can still be growing because root growth always precedes top growth. Also, it does matter "what a plant is in" if it's not growing because in most cases a lack of growth is directly linked to inhibited root function, which is very often related to limitations inherent in poor media. I have no argument with your recommendations to people who choose to use a grit mix. I think its good. But the majority of people who have multiple house plants are not going through the effort to put it together. A very quick scan of any of several fora will clearly illustrate otherwise. They will just continue to stick their plants in Miracle Grow. This is also untrue. While you focus on labels like the gritty mix and the 5:1:1 mix, I focus on helping others implement a concept, the effectiveness of which you can't question because you regularly note it's superior to methods you use. Growers implement the concepts I espouse with great regularity - primarily because it makes so much sense to do so. I suggest a alternative using bark or perlite to keep the mix from clumping and enhancing the drainage. Drainage isn't enhanced to a notable degree until the threshold that's been described in many conversations is reached. It occurs when there aren't enough fine particles to fill potential air spaces between larger particles (the BBs and sand analogy). And how is a 1:1:1 ratio of bark: peat or potting soil: perlite better at preventing "clumping", something I've never had to deal with. These same people are not going to get involved in perched water. This is very important: They ARE involved with perched water. If your medium supports it, you're involved with it in a direct relationship based on how much of it there is. I'm sure to your eyes and ears this is horrifying. Not at all - I'm a realist. But it is what I deal with on a daily basis with both orchids and house plants. Its my reality and I have found my alternative is simple enough for them to follow. It is also less expensive for them. It takes exactly the same amount of thought and effort to locate and mix the ingredients for the 5:1:1 mix as it does for the 1:1:1 mix you suggest because the ingredients are exactly the same - they're equally simple mixes. The 5:1:1 mix is actually LESS expensive because it utilizes a larger fraction of low-priced pine bark and a smaller fraction of higher-priced potting soil ..... and it's lighter. My plants do not seem to have a problem with perched water. As I noted previously, they DO have a problem with perched water, in that it is sapping potential. You might be perfectly happy with the state of your plant's vitality, but you can be sure that anything that limits the roots oxygen supply limits root function limits the plant and robs potential. We all know the 5:1:1 mix supports some perched water and that the 5:1:1 mix already includes some compromise to extend watering intervals. Therefore, it would be unreasonable to ask growers to believe that a medium with a much higher volume of fine particulates doesn't hold perched water and that the perched water it does hold has no impact on the root system's ability to function w/o limitation. As I said, the roots fill the base of the pot and will grow out the drain holes. I would think that would not happen in a mix holding too much water. Why would you think that? When the soil dries sufficiently, more or less normal root growth resumes, and some roots will grow outside of the pot. When roots die from hypoxic conditions, it's always the finest roots that die first - the ones that do all (ok - 90%+) of the work. The most significant loss is in the constant death and regeneration of the finer, nearly microscopic roots. To replace the roots killed by soggy soils (so the plant can return to 'normal' function) is an expensive outlay in terms of energy - energy that would otherwise have been directed toward more blooms, fruit, longer branches, more leaves, or a simple increase in biomass. IOW - lost potential. The roots would rot and would not grow into the base of the pot. Roots DO rot and die, it just happens that it's the fine roots that easily get overlooked that take the hit. That is not what happens. It actually IS what happens, but this is another case of someone floating an explanation that doesn't fit the observation in order to refute something we know to be true. Perched water IS limiting and the more you have the greater the limitation(s). I hope everyone is enjoying their Saturday - raining off & on again here in mid-MI. Al

Jan, Although I already had this site bookmarked, it was great of you to post it. I found it a couple of years ago, and alas forgot to mark it.......boy was it a bugger to find again! It has wonderful info, and can easily help you burn a day or two of winter checking out sites that you would otherwise never have found! Thanks for posting for those who haven't been there! Julie

I've been lurking here for awhile but just had to jump in here. Been doing my own version of Weight Watchers (old exhange plan) since Jan 6th and have lost 19.5 lbs. to date. I'm afraid the road to weight loss will get tougher any day now since I haven't hit a plateau yet. My point to posting on this thread is that I've noticed so many here have all these things they stay away from and I detect some feeling of deprivation there. I eat out several times a week including at the occasional greasey spoon. I eat everything. I can make a salad at home so other than one that comes with a meal I never have one eating out. I do make choices though. If I want fries I'll get a turkey or clubhouse sandwich (no mayo). If I get a cheeseburger it's fruit or veggies instead of fries. Everything is ordered on the side....I'll add my own butter,gravy or dressing so I control and know what's on my plate. I eat chicken or fish (even fried) when I want it and beef or pork when I don't. When I get a sub I order the usual 6" and eat it all including cheese but leave off mayo,oils and fatty dressings. Mustard and barbque sauce are my friends LOL. I see peeps in restaurants afraid to order 2 fried eggs (about 220 calories) but who will "diet" on a 400 calorie bagel. They will throw away an 80 calorie dinner roll and eat a 250 calorie scoop of cottage cheese instead. So I guess my answer is everything and I just want to encourage all who struggle along with me to get and keep these added pounds off to try to think of food as fuel we have a right to enjoy and to question some of the diet lore out there.

Last time I was in Miami I ate at a Cuban place on Lincoln road. You know those tostones, the double-fried plantains? This place had made a little bowl out of the tostones and filled it with a tomato-based shrimp sauce. Imagine the best shrimp creole you've ever had, in a bowl made of the most sinful carbohydrate you've ever had...OMG it was wonderful. I described this dish to a Puerto Rican friend who said, 'Hey, that's not cuban, it's mofongo. A Puerto Rican dish.' Whoever invented it, it was fantastic. And I always will try Caldo Gallego if it's on a menu...