# anti-NT arguments?



## tboroson (Nov 19, 2002)

I've been evolving toward a diet much like NT for a while now (raw dairy, pastured meat, no soy), and finally acutally bought the book. I have to admit, I was really disappointed with some of Fallon's arguments - even at a quick, cursory read, it didn't seem like her research and theories were all solid. I liked some of what she had to say, but not everything. Some recipes, like the all-cream ice cream, struck me as extreme. I made that, just to see how it turned out, and didn't find it very pleasant - it was so fatty, it just kind of coated my tongue. The fact that she said she doesn't know how skinless almonds are seperated from their skins, but that they still sprout... well, it seems that it wouldn't be difficult for her to figure out how they skin them. And, her contention that yogurt was traditionally made raw is incorrect. Yes, many dairy products were consumed raw, but milk for yogurt was traditionally scalded.

So, anyway, for the sake of balance, I think I've seen folks here mention webpages refuting some of Fallon's research. Can anybody point me to some of them? Not that I'll take them lock, stock and barrel either, but I'm interested in trying to round out my research here









Thank you!


----------



## earthchick (Sep 30, 2004)

:

I'm interested too....


----------



## cathe (Nov 17, 2002)

I don't know about links but two books come to mind - John Robbins The Food Revolution and Mad Cowboy . . .


----------



## cjr (Dec 2, 2003)

It does not matter what you read someone is always saying otherwise. I am going with my gut and going with how I feel. I don't do the ALL fat thing. I think animal fats are good for you to a degree. Moderation, right. I am drinking fermented whole milk and raw cheeses, cultured butter cut with olive oil. I still skim the fat off my meat and stock and reserve alittle bison fat for some bison dishes because it's very lean and can be dry tasting. It would be interesting to hear what other's say. However, I feel terrific. I'm healthy and have loads of energy. That's what I am going to go with. If I felt weighed down and heavy then I would eat a little lighter, but I don't. Like I said I don't go crazy with the fats, but I don't hesitate as much either. How you feel is a better gauge then what he/she says. Just my humble opinion.


----------



## sagewinna (Nov 19, 2001)

There is some info on high protien diets here: http://www.drmcdougall.com/


----------



## sagewinna (Nov 19, 2001)

There is some info on high protien diets here: http://www.drmcdougall.com/

Not sure that NT diets are always high in protien, but they appear to be from what I've read.


----------



## tboroson (Nov 19, 2002)

Thank ya'll. I'll take a look for the books at the library. I saw the Dr. McDougall site, and didn't find it very navigable, I gave up trying to find the pertinent info there. But, I'll look a little further when I can navigate without a lap full of toddler









I'm not keen on food guru-ism, personally. I, too, eat what feels natural and makes me feel good - that's why I got away from vegetarianism, I felt like crap for 15 years. But, I figured since it sounded like NT was similar to what I was eating, it might be useful. I did like some of her information, but really it just documented what I already believed, that is I liked the stuff that told me what I already do and like.


----------



## TopazBlueMama (Nov 23, 2002)

I think that ice cream was meant to be all cream.







yum. Oh but don't use the pasteurized stuff, the raw is so much better, imo. It's not like it's meant to be eaten everyday or anything. :LOL

NT is not a high protein diet. It's a way of eating that tries to get the maximum absorption of nutrients out of the foods you eat, for maximum health.

Have you read Nutrition and Physical Degeneration by Weston A Price? I always think it is a good idea to read the original works that authors are basing their ideas on so you can see if you agree with the conclusions or not.

But I agree that one person is not going to have every right answer.


----------



## cathe (Nov 17, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *tboroson*
I'm not keen on food guru-ism, personally. I, too, eat what feels natural and makes me feel good - that's why I got away from vegetarianism, I felt like crap for 15 years. But, I figured since it sounded like NT was similar to what I was eating, it might be useful. I did like some of her information, but really it just documented what I already believed, that is I liked the stuff that told me what I already do and like.

You will find pro and con for every kind of diet but the real test is how you feel. Also - it depends how you do it - I was vegan for a lot of years and felt very sick and was anemic - but I was also eating virtually no protein and fat (that was when low fat was supposed to be healthy). Now I'm a veggie but I don't limit fat - avocado. olive oil, coconut oil and milk, etc. and feel fine. I like a lot of the NT philosophy like fermenting and soaking foods, eating no refined foods, etc.

I've studied about every type of eating and diet and just take the parts that work for me and leave behind the rest.


----------



## Hibou (Apr 7, 2003)

I just wanted to weigh in on this since I've been following this thread for a couple of days. I too had some qualms with the NT book, particularly the section on breastfeeding- she argues through the whole book for a more *natural* approach to eating, but then says if you have any doubt as to your ability to breastfeed, get yourself some supplementing supplies.







: I also thought that her arguement about mad cow disease not coming from cows eating other cows was pretty lame. Sure cows eat insects in the pasture, that may be normal, but it's a far cry from eating eachother, kwim?

I did, in general, really enjoy the book. I thought that her arguements for eating animal protein, fermented foods, soaked grains, etc were pretty well researched. I've always been interested in doing things in a more natural way, so in that sense the book really resonated with me. I found it to be refreshing. (I'm also a former vegetarian.) However, I don't recall reading anything about portioning those elements. (if it's in the book and I missed it, please direct me to the pages!) I think that this is where it might get confusing. Some people might read the book thinking that they need to eat tons of meat, and others might not take it that way. This is, like others have said, where you have to decide for yourself how to apportion your different foods. But this can be difficult in our all-or-none culture where we find vegan and atkins food in the same asile of the supermarket. We have removed ourselves far enough from a "natural" state of living that it's difficult to know and trust our bodies enough to tell us what we need...not to mention that everyone has different individual nutritional requirements.

Sorry I don't have any links for you; I think that it's possible to find arguements to support anything no matter how sound or crazy it may be. I agree that it can be dangerous to take any one book or philosophy as letter of the law, and it's good to round things out with a collection of ideas. I have been referring to how I am *trying* to eat as a traditional foods diet, rather than The NT diet...but that's a whole other can of worms.


----------



## naturalmother (Jan 22, 2005)

Quote:

Sure cows eat insects in the pasture, that may be normal, but it's a far cry from eating eachother, kwim?
I agree. I thought that was a little freakish too.

I guess my problem with the book is:

*the fact that cooked fats are totally permissible so long as they are not the "newfangled" ones. I tend to lean more towards the paleo type diet as being the ideal diet for man (purely my gut instinct), and I often wonder just how much cooked fat they consumed. They certainly didn't cook everything in olive oil and butter at temperatures our cooktop can achieve. It just makes me a little wary to have everything cooked in fat. I don't mind raw fat at all (raw dairy, raw meat, unheated coconut milk etc), but I am a little scared of cooked fats. Don't know why. Once again just my gut instinct.

*not consuming raw sprouts everyday because the animals dont eat them this way. I'm sorry Sally, I love your book, but this isn't going to cut it for me. Give me some substantial evidence please!

*the fava bean warning. People in the mediterranean have been consuming fava beans cooked for sooo long. I know my mother had this for breakfast everyday and she has the most beautiful bone structure I've ever laid eyes on (the wide, round, evenly proportioned face with a beautiful smile and perfect teeth). I think the fava bean segment was a little







.

I also agree with reading nutrition and physical degeneration by Weston A Price. I think once you read that you will *know* where you are headed and what a perfect diet means to you. It did for me.


----------



## toraji (Apr 3, 2003)

As a foodie friend of mine used to always say, "NT is only one interpretation of Price's work."

Another interpretation is here (paleo-style): http://www.thegardenofeatingdiet.com

I own both books and find the research in the Garden of Eating book to be more reasonable.

My personal irritations with NT is the condescending tone and the heavy emphasis on dairy, as well as eating products that are native to areas far away from where you live (like coconut products, though I still consume them). It is heavily based on Dr. Price's work, but there is a good amount of Sally Fallon and her biases in there on top of that (like the breastfeeding info, she was unable to bf her kids).

That being said, it is an enormous body of work, and I do respect her for that. Not all the research is going to be sound, but that can be said for any other diet, vegan, veggie, Atkins, omni, or otherwise. New research always comes out that either "proves" or "disproves" earlier sources. We all have to take what makes sense, what makes our bodies feel properly nourished, and eat accordingly. Some people require more fats and animal, some require light plant-based diets. No one diet fits all.

I don't think you are going to find a lot of anti-NT information that isn't knee-jerk reactionary. John Robbins and Howard Lyman are arguing against all forms of animal consumption but their arguments are more valid against factory farms. So anything they say negatively about NT would be viewed through that lens. On the flip side, NT is pretty knee-jerk reactionary against popular modern/vegan diets, so take your pick. :LOL

Depending on where you are getting your information, then yogurt could have originally been made raw. Milk for some nomadic people would be stored in bags made of animal stomachs (containing natural rennet), and thus the milk would naturally sour without being scalded first.

I dug up an old thread called "Nourishing Traditions Debates"
http://www.mothering.com/discussions...ad.php?t=97314

HTH, and good luck in your healthy eating path!


----------



## callmemama (May 7, 2002)

I don't have an anti-NT website ;-), but I can offer some info with a veg*n slant! As others have said, you can find pros and cons for just about any diet.

There are a couple of fairly well-known heart studies from the 90's you can google. I first learned of them from the book Becoming Vegan by Brenda Davis, RD and Vesanto Melina, MS, RD.

One, the Dr. Dean Ornish study in 1990, showed significant improvement in cardiac patients fed a super-low-fat veg diet.

Two, the Lyon Heart Study in 1996, was stopped after two years, because the people being fed a modified-Mediterranean style diet (high in fat but low in saturated fats, trans fatty acids, and cholesterol) were doing so much better than the control group following the American Heart Association diet that it was considered unethical to continue the study!

Then you could read the book Defeating Diabetes by Brenda Davis, RD and Tom Barnard, MD for more info on how a vegan/near-vegan diet can reverse diabetes (depending on how far progressed the disease has become).

Dr. John McDougall advocates a low-fat, starch-based vegan diet for optimal health and to reverse a number of chronic diseases. I've read his books with interest, however I'm conflicted with his super-low-fat recommendations. The thing that fascinates me is that he began his quest as a doctor treating families in Hawaii. He found that the younger generations of the same families suffered from chronic diseases that the older generation didn't have. He started asking his patients questions and learned that the older generation still ate their native diet of rice and vegetables while the younger generations had adopted the standard American diet. This led him to review existing studies, and little by little he and his family began eliminating animal products from their diets. I won't rewrite his book - I just find it fascinating! Someone else posted his website above.

Summary? I feed my family a well-balanced, whole foods vegan diet and believe it is best for us. You do what's best for you!


----------



## kaydee (Aug 13, 2004)

Here is John Robbins' analysis (mostly critical) of Sally Fallon and Mary Enig's anti-soy stance: http://www.foodrevolution.org/what_about_soy.htm


----------



## Gale Force (Jun 15, 2003)

Another recommendation to read Weston Price's work. There is a lot in it that is not emphasized by Fallon (i.e., importance of freshly ground grain) and then she has some emphases that don't come out from my reading of WP. The research design that underlies WP's work is powerful.


----------



## captain optimism (Jan 2, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *naturalmother*
*the fava bean warning. People in the mediterranean have been consuming fava beans cooked for sooo long. I know my mother had this for breakfast everyday and she has the most beautiful bone structure I've ever laid eyes on (the wide, round, evenly proportioned face with a beautiful smile and perfect teeth). I think the fava bean segment was a little







.

I don't know what Fallon said about fava beans. There is a weird hereditary disorder called Favism that can make fava beans poisonous to some people. I don't think it's very common though.

(I like them, I've eaten them in Middle Eastern restaurants--the Egyptian style ful medames. I think of them as a traditional food!







)


----------



## captain optimism (Jan 2, 2003)

I wrote a lot of the anti-NT posts in the NT Debate thread we had some time last year, the one that Toraji found, above:

http://www.mothering.com/discussion...ead.php?t=97314

I realized, as I was rereading my posts there, that I distrust this diet for historical rather than nutritional reasons.

the more I read the posts of NT people here, the more I appreciate the role this group has had in resurrecting fermented foods and sourdough. I know macrobiotics has done some of this, too. I think one lesson that I've taken away from closely examining all these diet reform movements is that you can find interesting foods this way. I learned about a lot of dishes I had never eaten when I gave up meat at age 20, now I'm learning even more.


----------



## naturalmother (Jan 22, 2005)

"I don't know what Fallon said about fava beans."

sorry no caps - sleeping baby in arms. in the nt book she says to never consume fava beans - even cooked, as they have anti-nutrients which arn't removed during cooking. i've never known anyone to have problems with these beans provided they are soaked for two days then cooked for a few hours before eating. just like any other beans. plus even if they still do have antinutrients.. if you have a diet loaded with vitamin rich whole foods, i don't think consuming fava beans is going to do much harm to your overall health. the rule that you should never consume them just pisses me off really.

i love them too. they are all that will do for dinner sometimes. you eat them with fresh garlic, onion, parsley, lemon juice, sea salt and ev olive oil. if all that crammed into one meal in thier original raw state isnt healthy, i dont know what is.

btw, was just reading through that thread.. there are some interesting arguements in there.. espec the beta carotene study done on cats.

i'm going to order the garden of eating book toraji mentioned. i had a read through on the website and it does sound a little more reasonable and well rounded than nt. i must admit all the recipes that called for whey in nt unnerved me.


----------



## toraji (Apr 3, 2003)

Yeah, the whole Pottenger's cats study with cooked/raw foods was flawed I think because modern science has found that cats need taurine, which is not present in cooked meat. So of course the cats on cooked meat would fail, whereas the ones on raw meat with taurine intact would thrive.

But there have been some interesting studies lately about beta-carotene conversion levels in humans lately, which appear to vary widely:
http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/AR/archiv.../clues0301.htm

But then again, so many studies are flawed/biased, as we've seen on the thread about "Vegans Harming their Kids?"...so we just need to use common sense and our own experiences to guide our dietary choices.


----------



## MamaE (May 1, 2004)

Thanks for the tip on the Garden of Eating, Toraji. I'm going to order it too. After lurking A LOT here, I ordered NT, but have been disappointed with it to some degree. She makes a lot of sound nutritional arguments, I think, but I have a hard time with all her dairy pushing. Don't get me wrong, I love dairy, but I do think that cow's milk is for baby cows, and that cultured dairy is probably the only kind of dairy humans would benefit from. If anthing, goat's milk at least deserves more of a nod than she gives it.

In addition to far too much financially-motivated dairy-pushing, she pushes Rapadura and bashes sucanat, even though the 2 are virtually the same. I love dessert, but despite her caveats that we should only eat sweets rarely, she has an awfully lot of recipes that call for some kind of sweetener - usually heavy on the Rapadura (hmm, where's her financing coming from - can anyone say Rapunzel??) I just think, although WAPF says they are non-profit, that there is definitely some profiting going on and therefore have a hard time swallowing NT as completely unbiased, altruistic, nutrition advice for the masses.

I can't wait to check out the Garden of Eating!

Edited to add: Despite my criticisms of NT, I do mostly love the cookbook and I love the idea of getting back to more traditional ways of eating. And, even though I believe cultured dairy is the only dairy I should be eating, I can't manage to give up cheese just yet. Not sure I could ever give up my yogurt and kefir, either way.


----------



## kaydee (Aug 13, 2004)

Does NT tend to be high in cholesterol and saturated fats? If it is, I suppose that could be viewed as a downside of that way of eating (although from what I understand, an underlying principle of NT and WAPF is that cholesterol and some saturated fats are not the health dangers that most nutritionists and scientists say they are).


----------



## MaryCeleste (Jun 11, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *sagewinna*
There is some info on high protien diets here: http://www.drmcdougall.com/

Not sure that NT diets are always high in protien, but they appear to be from what I've read.

Actually, compared to other diets, the NT/WAPF recommendations are

- low to moderate in protein (15% - 20% of total calories)
- low to moderate in carbohydrate (25% - 40% of total calories)
- very high in fat (40% - 60% of total calories)
- very high in total calories (3000 - 5000 for an average adult)

Sources:

http://www.westonaprice.org/basicnut...oarddiets.html
http://www.westonaprice.org/basicnut...rientland.html

Make of that what you will. 

(As someone who's been eating NT-style for a while now, the main argument I can think of against it is that it's darned expensive!!! Unless you have the space to keep some chickens and goats...)


----------



## cjr (Dec 2, 2003)

I agree with the PP that NT is not a high protien diet. It's a way of getting as many nutrients out of your food as possible and to me it's a very well rounded whole foods way of eating. The only differences between eating NT and eating the way I have been for years is the soaking and fermenting, and more fat. I don't go crazy with the fat. I don't shy away like I used to but I also don't suck on a stick of butter.







Eating NT can be very expensive, but if you're eating NT then you are not eating any processed foods so it really does balance itself out. My grochery bill isn't any higher then it was before Christmas, yet I am feeding my family good wholesome and homemade food. You don't have to break the bank eating organic/freerange meats/eggs either, just find a good source and buy the products that give you more then one meal.

I have been price checking and a lb of organic cultured butter is only $2.50 more then the non-organic cultured butter. Most of the produce is only a few cents more to buy organic, depending on where you buy it and what you are buying. The milk is the kicker, but it gets made into yoghurt and kefir and used for a number of things...and actually works out to be cheaper then buying the fermented dairy already made for me since I make it myself. The meat isn't too far off either (at least here it's not), however it's more flavorful and more filling so it goes further. Lots of stock to make wonderful homemade soups which is a money saver over the canned soups at the market.

I can see vegetarians having a problem with NT eating, but I don't think it has anything to do with NT over the fact that there's meat and dairy involved. It seems like a kind of cult way of eating, but really having other people to discuss NT preparation with has been a life saver. Sometimes I don't know whether something is supposed to turn out the way it has, or I need help prepping for a meal. I like that I'm pulling as many nutrients out of our food as possible, isn't that the point of eating healthy?


----------



## kaydee (Aug 13, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MaryCeleste*
Actually, compared to other diets, the NT/WAPF recommendations are...
- very high in total calories (3000 - 5000 for an average adult)

























I think I gained weight just reading that. I had had no idea that the NT recommendations were that high for daily caloric intake.

For those eating NT, do you actually eat that many calories each day?


----------



## cjr (Dec 2, 2003)

I don't believe I eat that many calories, but I don't count. Isn't the RDA calorie intake 2500? So, it really isn't that much more. I also imagine that the higher calorie intake is what a male would consume. I find it tough to eat 2000 calories. I bet I eat about 1500 in an average day.


----------



## sagewinna (Nov 19, 2001)

Thanks for the info. Like I said, I don't know much about the diet except what I've read here, which seemed to talk a lot about animal products and fats.

Has anyone who has been on it for a while had their cholesterol level checked? Jsut curious as to what the results would be on a diet like this, but I am interested in personal results, not what the diet is "supposed" to do for your cholesterol level.


----------



## cjr (Dec 2, 2003)

Quote:

Has anyone who has been on it for a while had their cholesterol level checked?
I have not had mine checked, however I believe high cholesterol has more to do with genetics than anything else (In my experiences). My dad could not lower his cholesterol by reducing his animal fat intake, he needed the medication and even then it only came down slightly. He's a big man and a low fat diet did nothing. He lost weight on Atkins a couple of years ago and his cholesterol came down, but his doctor put him on a "heart smart" diet and his wieght and cholesterol is back up again. My best friend who has been trying to get pregnant for 3 years had her cholesterol monitored and could not get it down with diet. Her doctor told her that she had the type of cholesterol one would get from eating pastries on a regular basis. However, she was alway a low fat eater and would never even consider a pastry or anything of the sort. She too needed the medication to help lower it.

These are just my own personal experiences, but worth mentioning I thought.


----------



## ChristaN (Feb 14, 2003)

From what I have seen, how much one can change their cholesterol & triglyceride levels from diet also varies from person to person. There was the guy on that Supersize Me documentary who ate Big Macs every day & had a cholesterol of like 140, but I do believe that is not the norm. Most of us would not have blood low cholesterol levels while eating like that. (I do realize that Fallon does not advocate for Big Macs.)

Then there is my dh, who is omni, yet he eats nowhere near as much animal fat as NT recommends. He had the cholesterol & triglyceride levels checked while eating his normal diet which is probably vegan for about 70% of the time (I have been vegan for 16 years & do a lot of the cooking) & incorporates some animal products. His triglycerides were 400+ & cholesterol was very high as well (I don't remember the exact #). I kind of forced him







: to eat an entirely vegan diet for a little over two weeks & sent him in to have it retested. His triglycerides had been cut in half & his cholesterol was down to almost "normal."

All that said, I have never tried an NT diet, have no intention of doing so & really can't comment from any personal experience nor any data that I have seen on how that diet affects one's health. It does sound like a lot of animal fat to me, too & I'd probably clobber my dh if he tried to eat 50-60% of his calories from fat (especially animal fat) b/c I truly believe that it would damage his health. But, he is not everyone. How long has this book been out & does anyone know if there are any longitudinal studies of the health status of people following this diet long-term?

I, personally, don't care for those commercials that tell you that diet & exercise basically don't work & you should just take statins. I know that is not what the pp is recommending, but I do believe that, if we find a diet which works well for our body, medications should not be necessary for so many people.

Quote:

He lost weight on Atkins a couple of years ago and his cholesterol came down, but his doctor put him on a "heart smart" diet and his wieght and cholesterol is back up again.
Cholesterol levels normally go down when one loses weight regardless of what one is eating & they frequently go up when one gains weight. That sounds like what was going on with your dad. The "heart smart" diets often are low-fat, and more vegetarian, but they include a lot of refined grains & other things that are not exactly good for one's body & could see how someone could gain weight on them since they are not always terribly satisfying.


----------



## captain optimism (Jan 2, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *cjr*
I don't believe I eat that many calories, but I don't count. Isn't the RDA calorie intake 2500? So, it really isn't that much more. I also imagine that the higher calorie intake is what a male would consume. I find it tough to eat 2000 calories. I bet I eat about 1500 in an average day.

It isn't really that much more?!?! But Mary Celeste said:

Quote:

Actually, compared to other diets, the NT/WAPF recommendations are

- low to moderate in protein (15% - 20% of total calories)
- low to moderate in carbohydrate (25% - 40% of total calories)
- very high in fat (40% - 60% of total calories)
- very high in total calories (3000 - 5000 for an average adult)
Now first of all, when you are trying to lose weight (which I am not at the moment, but I have been in the past) they tell you that to lose a pound per week you have to burn 250 calories per day (or eat 250 calories less than normal). So if you actually follow the NT recs and increase your caloric intake by the amount they seem to advocate, that's 500 to 2500 calories more per day--you could gain two to 10 pounds per week over your current weight! Okay, you'd probably throw up before you could choke down that many calories over your normal amount. I'm just thinking, that's a lot more calories than you think!

I do not find it at all difficult to eat 2000 calories a day, btw, no matter whether I am restricting fats, restricting carbs, restricting sugar... I just don't find being hungry and eating that much of a challenge, unless I'm ill. But what if I started the day with some whale blubber ice cream--perhaps I too will begin to find it difficult to choke down more than 1500 calories! Yeesh!


----------



## fayking (Jun 28, 2004)

Well the RDA for women in the UK is 2000 and for men 2500.
I cant imagine eating 3000 - 5000 a day, and i like to eat. Remember that historically we were much more active than we are now. Most western people do less physical work, walk less etc. If you don't move much, you ain't gonna burn up the calories.


----------



## MamaE (May 1, 2004)

But are all calories created equal? This is something I've been wondering lately, and then a few weeks ago, I ran across this:

http://www.drkaslow.com/html/catabolic_foods.html

Now, I don't know who this Dr. Kaslow is, but if you do a search, there are tons of things out there about the catabolic diet and catabolic foods, so I think it may be legit.

If it's true that there are foods which burn more calories than they supply, a person could eat a diet substantially higher in calories than the RDA and not gain weight, provided the diet was high in catabolic foods.

Since the NT diet is a whole foods diet, it should naturally be heavy on the fruits and veggies, many of which appear to be catabolic foods according to this list.

Anyone know more about this than I do? Would love to hear thoughts on this as it sort of blew me away when I read it!

EDITED: Never mind, I should really do my research before I







... I just found this site, debunks the carbolic foods theory. Wouldn't it be great though - negative calorie foods!! My life truly would be perfect then.









http://www.vanderbilt.edu/AnS/psycho.../catabolic.htm


----------



## sagewinna (Nov 19, 2001)

The cholesterol thing interests me because my mother had it. She is very slender and looks healthy, but tested high. She went on a low saturated and very little animal products, lower fat diet and in 6 months she went down 60 points!


----------



## cjr (Dec 2, 2003)

Quote:

But what if I started the day with some whale blubber ice cream--perhaps I too will begin to find it difficult to choke down more than 1500 calories! Yeesh!
A little uncalled for don't ya think!!!! No need to be rude. We are all entitled to an opinion and free to enter this discussion. When I said it wasn't too far off from the RDA recomended calorie intake I was meaning the lower end of the 3000-5000. 3000 calories is only 500 off and equivalent to about 2 apples. I also start my day off with a very healthy kefir smoothie, not blubber ice cream. I add alot of omega fats to my diet, but don't shy away from the animal fats. I eat a balanced whole foods diet with a lot of fruits and vegetables, 2-6oz servings of meat/day, and fermented dairy, homemade soups with lots of veggies in it. A whole foods diet is much more filling then a diet full of pre-packaged processed crap, of which I'm sure I could consume 2000 calories/day. I excersize regularily and have not gained an ounce since I started incorporating NT principles into my diet.

Eating NT has a lot more to do with eating fat. It's on proper food preparation to maximize the nutritional benefits. Have you read the book?


----------



## captain optimism (Jan 2, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *cjr*
A little uncalled for don't ya think!!!! No need to be rude. We are all entitled to an opinion and free to enter this discussion. When I said it wasn't too far off from the RDA recomended calorie intake I was meaning the lower end of the 3000-5000. 3000 calories is only 500 off and equivalent to about 2 apples. I also start my day off with a very healthy kefir smoothie, not blubber ice cream. I add alot of omega fats to my diet, but don't shy away from the animal fats. I eat a balanced whole foods diet with a lot of fruits and vegetables, 2-6oz servings of meat/day, and fermented dairy, homemade soups with lots of veggies in it. A whole foods diet is much more filling then a diet full of pre-packaged processed crap, of which I'm sure I could consume 2000 calories/day. I excersize regularily and have not gained an ounce since I started incorporating NT principles into my diet.

Eating NT has a lot more to do with eating fat. It's on proper food preparation to maximize the nutritional benefits. Have you read the book?

I'm sorry, I didn't realize when you said that you were only eating 1500-2000 cals/day that you were actually doing the NT thing. I wasn't trying to say that you were eating whale blubber for breakfast. Oy. I'm sorry. No. Not casting aspersions on your diet, just misinterpreting the whole thing. I guess if I had read the thread more carefully I would have understood that you are doing NT, an earlier post clarifies that, but I didn't catch it.

I don't have any beef (get it? beef? a little meat-eating joke there) with people following NT.


----------



## cjr (Dec 2, 2003)

OK, good. Ya scared me there for a minute. I hate that. I thought you were totally shooting me down. I try to post carefully and my heart totally sank when I read that. Thankyou for reposting.

I don't agree with a diet loaded with fat. I like the principle behind her idea of getting as much nutrition out of your food as possible. I soak my grains, most of the time...somtimes I don't like the outcome and then I don't. I like the idea of fermented foods and building good flora in your tummy. I like using bone broths because they really are very good for you. I have been making my kefir with whole milk, but I have beemn thinking about going 1% because I already include lots of good omega fats. I do feel that animal fats are important, but the benefits depend on where the animal fats are coming from. Grass grazed cattle, free range birds really make a difference on the composition of fat. That could be a big argument for the negative effects animal fats have had on the human diet. Conventional animals contain fats rich in omega-6, and too much omega-6 will have a bad effect on wieght and health. Animals grazed on grasses have a fat composition that is richer in omega-3 fats, it's in the lack of corn feed, and we all know the benefits of those. Not a lot of people know the difference between conventional and grass grazed, it's important and effects the body differently.


----------



## kaydee (Aug 13, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *cjr*
3000 calories is only 500 off and equivalent to about 2 apples.

What kind of apples are you eating that are 250 calories each?









My understanding is that the average apple is about 60 cals.


----------



## ladywolf (Aug 20, 2004)

Please note, the average apple is 60 calories. What is defined as an average apple is about the size that you can buy for kids at most grocery stores (about 2.5 to 3 inches in diameter). Most apples grown and sold anymore are actually two to three servings. It is how society has changed and the attitude that bigger is better.


----------



## cjr (Dec 2, 2003)

Mybe I should just leave this thread. I feel a little picked on here. I don't think it's right to have and Anti-NT thread anyway. If we had an anti-vegg*n thread there would be a whole lot of vegg*n's in an uproar. No matter what I say it's just going to be picked to death. I'm simply stating that 500 calories is really not that bad. Isn't a bf'ing mother supposed to increase her calorie intake by 500? Or maybe it's 300 (better put in two numbers just to as close to accuracy as I can). I think befor anyone posts anything against NT, they should read the book first.


----------



## ChristaN (Feb 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *cjr*
Mybe I should just leave this thread. I feel a little picked on here. I don't think it's right to have and Anti-NT thread anyway. If we had an anti-vegg*n thread there would be a whole lot of vegg*n's in an uproar. No matter what I say it's just going to be picked to death. I'm simply stating that 500 calories is really not that bad. Isn't a bf'ing mother supposed to increase her calorie intake by 500? Or maybe it's 300 (better put in two numbers just to as close to accuracy as I can). I think befor anyone posts anything against NT, they should read the book first.

I took the OP at her word that she is simply exploring whether a NT diet is right for her & whether the arguements behind it are valid or not. I do agree that we need to tread lightly here, though, b/c I, for one, certainly have been offended by some of the threads in the past that have taken an anti-veg*n stance & I can see how someone who eat a diet following NT principals could be offended by this thread.

Re reading the book, I am the first to admit that I have not read the entire book for two reasons: my library doesn't carry it & I don't want to spend the money on something that I find irrelevant to my life. I have browsed it at the HFS & found quite a few statements that I found to be rather negative toward vegetarians & vegans. I don't really want to go buy a book that is going to slam me & my lifestyle, much like those who do eat animal products probably aren't going to go out & buy _Becoming Vegan_ or _Dominion_. How many of us want to spend money & time on a book that tells us that our lifestyle is unethical, unhealthy, etc. when it is working for us. My diet works for me and my children.

My only comments here are in an effort to better understand the other side of the coin, which I try to be open to except when the other view is that I am going to sicken & die. That tends to close me off to other viewpoints pretty darn quickly & I can see how it would do the same for others.


----------



## captain optimism (Jan 2, 2003)

Actually, cjr, I did find it valuable that you said you find it difficult to get to 2000 calories on the NT diet. I thought when I first read what you said that you were eating some non-NT diet and that this was just you, not a big eater. But it sounds like one of the reasons that people feel good when they eat this way is that they find the added fats and the gelatin in the meat stock, etc. filling and satisfying. Some people have the same feeling about eating a diet that is high in fiber, or protein.

I find I am most satisfied and feel full when I eat a diet high in food.










Okay, anyway, back to editing this depressing book.


----------



## TopazBlueMama (Nov 23, 2002)

I think one thing that is being overlooked is that the WAPF does not believe that the healthy saturated fats cause high cholesterol problems.

"The cause of heart disease is not animal fats and cholesterol but rather a number of factors inherent in modern diets, including excess consumption of vegetables oils and hydrogenated fats; excess consumption of refined carbohydrates in the form of sugar and white flour; mineral deficiencies, particularly low levels of protective magnesium and iodine; deficiencies of vitamins, particularly of vitamin C, needed for the integrity of the blood vessel walls, and of antioxidants like selenium and vitamin E, which protect us from free radicals; and, finally, the disappearance of antimicrobial fats from the food supply, namely, animal fats and tropical oils"
http://www.westonaprice.org/knowyourfats/skinny.html

Quote:

New research continues to show that the saturated fats are not a problem, that the trans fatty acids found in partially hydrogenated vegetable fats and oils really are a problem, and that the lack of appropriate balance in the diet of the polyunsaturated
http://www.westonaprice.org/knowyour...ats_phony.html


----------



## HerthElde (Sep 18, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ladywolf*
Most apples grown and sold anymore are actually two to three servings. It is how society has changed and the attitude that bigger is better.

Is that so? It's my understanding that larger apples (of the same variety) simply contain more water, and the amount of sugar stays the same (this is why the smaller ones often taste better). However, I've never actually looked into it, this is just something I was taught in plant taxonomy.

As far as the book goes - it never ceases to amaze me how two (or more) people can read something and come up with completely different interpretations.
p. 58 - "Traditional diets, when analyzed, reveal approximate proportions of 40 percent carbohydrate foods, 20 percent protein foods and 40 percent fats, with the exception of arctic regions and certain cattle-herding groups that do not use much in the way of plant foods and whose diets can be as high as 80 percent fat. (Fats have twice as many calories per unit of weight as protein and carbohydrates. As protein and carbohydrate foods are more than 80 percent water, the amount of fat by weight in a diet that yields 40 percent of total calories is actually quite small. Thus, a lightly marbled steak with a mere 1/4 inch of fat around the edge will contain about 50 percent of calories as fat.) These proportions should serve as guidelines only and not as rigid dogma that causes us to make a fetish of our eating habits. Systems that stress macronutrient _quantities_ often overlook the importance of food _quality_. A snack bar composed of protein powder, refined sugars and cheap oils should not [be] considered an appropriate food, whatever claims are made for its macronutrient balance."

p. 71 - "Aim for a diet that is 50 percent raw or enzyme-enhanced. Raw foods include vegetables, fruits, meats, fats and milk products."

As far as actual calories, I don't recall seeing anything within NT. Dh and I have both lost weight since starting to follow NT principles. We eat when we are hungry, we stop when we are full. People gain weight because they remain hungry due to missing minerals and vitamins.

I don't agree with everything in NT. I believe raw alcoholic drinks have a place in spirituality, for example. I also think her infant nutrition is sorely lacking and biased. But for the most part, this book has been an excellent resource, and has introduced me to a whole new world in my own kitchen.


----------



## Gale Force (Jun 15, 2003)

*Calories*
I eat a whole lot of food. I am sure I exceed the 3,000 calories a day. Back in the day when I counted calories, my maintenance calories were about 2,000. So I typically eat 1,000 or more calories a day than my maintenance calories.







At that rate, I would be bigger than the mountain lodge I am sitting in now. Since a year ago, I have gained weight. I had lost a lot on a super-strict candida diet. I've probably gained 30 lbs in the last year. That's a lot of weight gain, but I'm still under where I was and I have been fat all of my life, so for me it's pretty amazing that I am not gaining a whole lot more.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ChristaN*
How long has this book been out & does anyone know if there are any longitudinal studies of the health status of people following this diet long-term?

I think that's a good question, but it is all based on Weston Price's book which has longitudinal elements in its design. I've also never met a person IRL or online who has had bad health consequences from this diet. Bring them here to report if any of you know such folks. I would be interested to talk to them.


----------



## captain optimism (Jan 2, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Gale Force*
*Calories*
I eat a whole lot of food. I am sure I exceed the 3,000 calories a day. Back in the day when I counted calories, my maintenance calories were about 2,000. So I typically eat 1,000 or more calories a day than my maintenance calories.

Are you eating this way influenced by NT? Before I make assumptions again, I don't know who on this thread is doing NT and who isn't.

You say that Price's study had longitudinal elements. I didn't understand that, do you have the book to describe them? I thought he made only a few visits.


----------



## Gale Force (Jun 15, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *captain optimism*
Are you eating this way influenced by NT? Before I make assumptions again, I don't know who on this thread is doing NT and who isn't.

You say that Price's study had longitudinal elements. I didn't understand that, do you have the book to describe them? I thought he made only a few visits.

Sorry Captain, yes, influenced by Price's work. Basically I eat whatever I want whenever I'm hungry. While nursing more heavily I was eating like a working man. It's pretty shocking compared to my past eating (and I was fat, how fair is that?)

On Price's work, I'm not ssure I can do it justice in the 2 or so more minutes I have online. I've been flying in and out of here lately. His design was not longitudinal in the way you and Christa are describing -- following one group of folks and recording statistics over time. Not a times series analysis at all. But his comparative case study really does integrate a time element. Folks from the same tribe, same family, five move to city and have access to refined nasties, five stay in village on traditional diets. Time passes. Enter Price for analysis. Folks in same family, all still in village, 4 kids born before first store in village appears (with sugar and white flour), two born after. Time passes. Enter Price.

He's got some really cool comparisons.


----------



## kaydee (Aug 13, 2004)

Sorry you feel picked on cjr. I agree with Christa--it seems like a thread posted in good faith by someone who wants to explore the potential downside of a nutritional approach in which she is interested. And I think the responders have been pointing out issues she might want to study/consider further.

Regarding the 500 extra calories--I do happen to think that 500 calories per day above the recommended caloric intake is a lot (since it only takes, I believe, 3500 extra calories to gain a pound). Esp. since that 500 calories represents the low end of what a PP said was the typical NT daily caloric intake. Burning off those 500 calories would take more than an hour of cardiovascular activity. For people struggling with their weight, this seems a reasonable consideration.


----------



## kaydee (Aug 13, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *tweetybirds2*
I think one thing that is being overlooked is that the WAPF does not believe that the healthy saturated fats cause high cholesterol problems.









Well, I did say this in a PP:

Quote:

Does NT tend to be high in cholesterol and saturated fats? If it is, I suppose that could be viewed as a downside of that way of eating (although from what I understand, an underlying principle of NT and WAPF is that cholesterol and some saturated fats are not the health dangers that most nutritionists and scientists say they are).
It seems to me that the WAPF stance on fats goes against current conventional wisdom of the dietetic field. That doesn't mean WAPF is wrong--but it does mean that their stance is debatable.


----------



## Gale Force (Jun 15, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *kaydee*
Regarding the 500 extra calories--I do happen to think that 500 calories per day above the recommended caloric intake is a lot (since it only takes, I believe, 3500 extra calories to gain a pound). Esp. since that 500 calories represents the low end of what a PP said was the typical NT daily caloric intake. Burning off those 500 calories would take more than an hour of cardiovascular activity. For people struggling with their weight, this seems a reasonable consideration.

As a long, long time fat person, I would have agreed with you two years ago. But calories simply aren't the only story here. I don't really get it myself. Clearly, counting calories is one way to lose weight, but so is restricting sugar. I should clarify that I do follow a Price-like diet, but more towards the Mercola side with very little grains. The only sugar in my diet is from fresh fruit and the bit of lactose that slips through my yogurt and kefir ( both brewed extra long to reduce the lactose). Really, I've never felt better.

I have found myself, oddly, not caring that I have gained weight. It's hard to find motivation to change when you feel so damn good. I want to spend my time on my work and kitchen remodel rather than on a diet. They do take a bit of time and planning. So I have compromised by beginning a good exercise program but not worrying about my eating quantity. I know I'll feel even better and lose a few pounds too. Exercise has always made me feel strong and in control, so hey, I'm back on it.

And in terms of restricting quantity -- I really hesitate on that. The reason for the lifestyle change was nutritional deficiencies. If I'm hungry, I eat.


----------



## Mirzam (Sep 9, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Gale Force*

On Price's work, I'm not ssure I can do it justice in the 2 or so more minutes I have online. I've been flying in and out of here lately. His design was not longitudinal in the way you and Christa are describing -- following one group of folks and recording statistics over time. Not a times series analysis at all. But his comparative case study really does integrate a time element. Folks from the same tribe, same family, five move to city and have access to refined nasties, five stay in village on traditional diets. Time passes. Enter Price for analysis. Folks in same family, all still in village, 4 kids born before first store in village appears (with sugar and white flour), two born after. Time passes. Enter Price.

He's got some really cool comparisons.

Price's was a dentist so his main interest lay in the the teeth; the incidence of dental caries and the development of the the face/dental arches. He was able to demonstrate without exception that the native groups he studied on their native diets had little to no dental caries, well formed dental arches and faces and excellent health both physical and mental. He was able to see the progression of degeneration through the generations, and infact within the same generation, when they changed from their native diet to a "western" diet. Where available, he also examined the skulls of their long-dead ancestors which he found to have no dental caries, well-formed dental arches and remarkably thick/strong skull bones.

None of the native peoples he studied ate a completely vegetarian diet, all consumed animal products much of it raw to a varying degree.

I highly recommed going to the source and reading Price's book, it makes for facinating reading.


----------



## toraji (Apr 3, 2003)

Here is a great in-depth review of Price's book from Steve Solomon, the Pacific NW gardening/sustainable living guru.
http://www.soilandhealth.org/02/0203...ppnf/PPNF.HTML


----------



## kaydee (Aug 13, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Gale Force*
As a long, long time fat person, I would have agreed with you two years ago. But calories simply aren't the only story here. I don't really get it myself. Clearly, counting calories is one way to lose weight, but so is restricting sugar. I should clarify that I do follow a Price-like diet, but more towards the Mercola side with very little grains. The only sugar in my diet is from fresh fruit and the bit of lactose that slips through my yogurt and kefir ( both brewed extra long to reduce the lactose). Really, I've never felt better.

I have found myself, oddly, not caring that I have gained weight. It's hard to find motivation to change when you feel so damn good. I want to spend my time on my work and kitchen remodel rather than on a diet.

ITA that just counting calories is not the path to good health! Nutrients count, and how the food we eat actually **nourishes** us, etc. I think eating healthy foods when you are hungry is a great way of eating!

I'm a little confused by parts of your post, though. The first part seemed to me like you were saying that WAPF (or Mercola) eating can help with weight loss (in that they incorporate principles--such as cutting out sugar--that can help weight loss). But then you say that you have gained weight (I assume you mean that this occured while on the WAPF/Mercola approaches). So I am a little lost about what you are saying vis-a-vis these plans and caloric intake and weight loss/gain/maintenance.

(BTW, I always love to hear when people feel good and are happy with their bodies, so this questioning is in no way meant to be critical! I'm just trying to clear up my confusion....







)


----------



## TopazBlueMama (Nov 23, 2002)

Sorry, kaydee, I'm never able to expound on my posts, I have to keep them brief! But I'm not able to get all my thoughts out.
Anyway, I think more of what my point was that since the WAPF does not even believe that (healthy forms of) saturated fats is the real cause of high cholesterol, it is not even an issue. But, yeah, your totally right that when compared to mainstream nutritional recommendations that is totally debatable.

I still cringe when I hear people talk about using shortening, margarine and other oils like it's no big deal. So many people still aren't educated on that issue.

Personally, my own theory is that all the health problems probably come from the combo of fats and refined sugars and flour together. I've found that my belly fat will come off quite easily when I am more liberal with my intake of the healthy fats (including saturated) and curb the intake of sugars. It's when those refined foods get in that the problems come around.

I like the quotes that HerthElde gave. I never thought that NT even gave calorie recommedations.


----------



## Gale Force (Jun 15, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *kaydee*
I'm a little confused by parts of your post, though. The first part seemed to me like you were saying that WAPF (or Mercola) eating can help with weight loss (in that they incorporate principles--such as cutting out sugar--that can help weight loss). But then you say that you have gained weight (I assume you mean that this occured while on the WAPF/Mercola approaches). So I am a little lost about what you are saying vis-a-vis these plans and caloric intake and weight loss/gain/maintenance.

Thanks for the question - that's a good one. The serious weight loss came from an anti-candida diet I was on. I was *extremely* strict for 9 months - no grains, no fruit, no beans, etc. It was like a prolonged Atkins induction. Anyhoo, I have gained weight back since I've let some of those things back in my diet. But I am eating far more than I ever have in my life - and I have been much fatter than I am now.

edited to add: Before you all start wondering what in the heck I eat, I thought I'd add that, particularly on the candida diet, our household of three adults and a baby was consuming the so many pounds of vegetables a day that I estimate it would have cost us about $15/day at a farmer's market if we were buying it rather than growing it.

and another edit: I am just not thinking about the multiple factors in my weight gain. I hit the hooch for 2-3 months in the fall after a m/c and boy, that made a difference.


----------



## mountain mom (Nov 6, 2003)

Wow what a great thread.

For the record I follow some of Fallon's theology, some of Katz's theology and some of Melina and Davis's theology.

I have followed a strict vegan diet, strict raw food diet, fruitarian, vegetarian and now I follow a combo of all these plus some of the NT theologies.

Fermentation, sprouting, soaking and rendering nutrients more available is a common denominator in all of these concepts.

NT involves more of a fat intense approach which I find is giving me back my health, restoring my thyroid function and helping me loose the weight that I gained consuming mostly carbohydrates for sustenance.

I eat way more veg now than ever before and my grocery bill is the lowest it has ever been.

Thoughts and ponderings to add to the mix


----------



## cathe (Nov 17, 2002)

I'm vegan too but have incorporated some of NT's philosphies like soaking grains, adding more fermented and cultured foods (which I also learned when I studied macrobiotics) etc.


----------



## cjr (Dec 2, 2003)

These are all things I was trying to get across. There's more to NT philosophy then fat and calories. It's the type of fats and the type of calories because they are not all created equal. It's also getting as much nutrition out of your food as possible. When your body is getting the nutrients out of your food you don't need to eat as much. Your body is more satisfied. Which is why you can sit down and eat a whole loaf of white bread and still be hungry. Maybe I'm just not good with the written word?

No one can tell you how to eat. All you can do is look at what is best for you. I feel that the most important part of NT eating is fermenting, soaking and eating an abundance of "good" fats (coconut oil, hemp oil, flax oil, olive oil, and even real cultured butter).


----------



## Chanley (Nov 19, 2001)

We have lots of food allergies so w/o a choice we follow a mostly Garden of Eating style. In fact we had the tomatillo chili for dinner and I am about to pull 2 squash pudding pies out of the oven now. I LOVE this cookbook and LOVE the info in the book. It seems to correlate with what I find to be true.

Cholesterol is necessary for health. High cholesterol can mean that the body is trying to heal something. Homocystien is the real culprit behind heart problems. REmember that cholesterol is JUST A THEORY! Dr.'s do not know for sure what causes heart disease.


----------



## kaydee (Aug 13, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Gale Force*
Thanks for the question - that's a good one. The serious weight loss came from an anti-candida diet I was on. I was *extremely* strict for 9 months - no grains, no fruit, no beans, etc. It was like a prolonged Atkins induction. Anyhoo, I have gained weight back since I've let some of those things back in my diet. But I am eating far more than I ever have in my life - and I have been much fatter than I am now....

OK, I understand more now. Thanks for clarifying!


----------



## ChristaN (Feb 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Chanley*
REmember that cholesterol is JUST A THEORY! Dr.'s do not now for sure what causes heart disease.

I apologize in advance if this comes across as cranky, but the statement, "it's just a theory" drives me up a wall! Theory and hypothesis are very different animals. A theory is defined as: "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena," etc. It is not just somebody's wild guess. Gravity is "just a theory." The Theory of Relativity (E=MC squared) is "just a theory."

Yes, homocystine as well as many other things play a role in heart disease, but high cholesterol and triglycerides are not just benign things. And, yes, cholesterol is necessary for health. That is why our bodies produce cholesterol -- generally plenty to keep us healthy.


----------



## newmainer (Dec 30, 2003)

There is a book called Fats and Oils by Udos Erasmus that my dh has read and is re-reading and speaks to a lot of the issues about fats as well as how the body uses sugars and starches. I believe it corroborates with the idea that sat. fats/animal causes are not the cause of high cholesterol. Its important to rememeber that "today's thinking" in diet is *so* impacted by the food industry and corporations who fund studies and lobby the FDA etc.. to promote their cause.

I just took a (brief) nutrition course with someone who does nutrition work as well as chiropractic and applied kinesiology. She referenced Weston Price in her class and goes to many, many seminars and workshops so I felt comfortable trusting the info she was giving. I had previously been pretty into NT though it was pretty hard to do the soaking part for me, but i was doing the raw dairy and meat etc... Anyway, what I learned is that dairy had can cause inflammatory reactions in the body- organs, tissues etc.. and is one of the #1 allergens (not a surprise) and while she did say that raw, fermented dairy is ok in limited amounts, she more or less was pretty anti-dairy. she recommended checking out www.notmilk.com . She focused a lot on sugars and refined flours. I think that NT, while sprouted and fresh milled flours are the best, it is still pretty heavy on the grains. This was not something she endorsed because so many of the nutrients in flours are eliminated through the milling process and the high heat of baking. Sprouted, flourless bread was all she endorsed for that (though said if you were going to grind your own flour as you needed it, that was much better, but most of the flour in the store is rancid).

her basic diet recommendation was: 2 meals a day with protein: ie meat. (there were vegetarians in the class, and while she respected their decision she did say that it is very, very difficult to get the right food combo to achieve the protein needs of the body with proper amino acids/enzymes, etc... She was a veg previously for 15 years). the rest of the meal should be raw/lightely steamed veggies. Whole grains (rice, barley, quinoa, etc.. ok) were fine, beans ok if you did them yourself. She really emphasized that cooking kills/diminshes the nutrients so the further removed the food is from its natural state, the less nutrients you're getting.

anyway, I say all this cause i was surprised at how far off what she recommended was from what I learned in NT, especially the dairy stuff. Since i have cut back my dairy to almost nothing, as well as refined flours i have noticed a huge difference. The diet she recommends is pretty boring in a lot of ways, and I can't do that strict, but I find it makes cooking dinner easy- a protein and steamed veg. I make grain/bean salads for lunch with fresh, raw veggies and we usually have eggs or oatmeal for breakfast. I struggle with the baking, so i do want to get a grain mill. and the sugar and fruit.. well, refined sugars are easy. its the maple syrup, honey, etc... that i have a hard time leaving behind. ah well... its all a diet in progress.

anyway, that's my novel. sorry if its not all that relevant, but definitely check out Erasmus' book if you are interested in the fats/oils.


----------



## newmainer (Dec 30, 2003)

oh, and then there is food combining which i am learning is pretty significant and that is not addressed (from what I remember) in NT.


----------



## Gale Force (Jun 15, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ChristaN*
I apologize in advance if this comes across as cranky, but the statement, "it's just a theory" drives me up a wall! Theory and hypothesis are very different animals. A theory is defined as: "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena," etc. It is not just somebody's wild guess. Gravity is "just a theory." The Theory of Relativity (E=MC squared) is "just a theory."

I am not sure where your definition comes from, but it is inadequate. Some theories have more empirical evidence than others, but they are all stll theories. And I certainly wouldn't say gravity is "just a theory." It's a law.

In terms of the argument here, you do need to consider that the cholesterol link is "just a theory" and then examine the empirical evidence that supports or disputes the theory. Some evidence may require the theory to be refined, other evidence may dispute it altogether. I don't know the literature, so I am not conversant in it.


----------



## mountain mom (Nov 6, 2003)

I second the Udo book recommendation. It is a great read!


----------



## ChristaN (Feb 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Gale Force*
I am not sure where your definition comes from, but it is inadequate.

The definition that I listed came from an online dictionary. If you consider it inadequate, give me some others that do not show theories to be well substantiated and tested. I truly believe that you, and others, are confusing hypotheses with theories. A link with definitions of terms commonly used in science can be found here: http://www.uga.edu/srel/kidsdoscienc...efinitions.pdf

Hypothesis, as they define it, is: "a testable explanation for observations and questions about the physical universe." A hypothesis is someone's belief about something and it may lack proof. It may not have been tested yet or there may be a lot of contradictory evidence out there. It is not the same as a theory.

Theory, again as defined above, is: "a causal explanation for generalized patterns in nature that is supported by much scientific evidence based on data collected using scientific methods."

Many other definitions for theory can be found online and offline in dictionaries. They all suggest significant evidence supporting the theory.

Quote:

Some theories have more empirical evidence than others, but they are all stll theories. And I certainly wouldn't say gravity is "just a theory." It's a law.
Yes, actually it is a theory; that is why it is called the "dynamic theory of gravity." It was developed by Tesla & it generally accepted as truth, but it is still a theory. See here: http://www.netowne.com/technology/important/

I am not saying that there is absolute certainty about whether high blood cholesterol levels "cause" heart disease or whether they are a symptom of something else askew in the body. That is the thing about science -- there is really never any _absolute_ certainty about anything -- even gravity. It is all theory, hypothesis, etc. But, to say that something is a complete guess or completely lacking proof b/c it is "just a theory" is totally ignorant of how science works.


----------



## HerthElde (Sep 18, 2003)

-A theory is an explanation of the general principles of certain phenomena with considerable facts to support it

-A theory remains valid only if every new piece of information supports it

-*If a single piece of available information does not support a theory, then the theory (as proposed) is disproved*


----------



## Gale Force (Jun 15, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ChristaN*
That is the thing about science -- there is really never any _absolute_ certainty about anything -- even gravity. It is all theory, hypothesis, etc. But, to say that something is a complete guess or completely lacking proof b/c it is "just a theory" is totally ignorant of how science works.

No one here is saying that the cholesterol theory is completely lacking proof.

If you want to have a discussion about the nature of scientific inquiry, I am happy to take it to PM. My background is in social science, however, so I don't know the substantive information here, just norms of social science inquiry. Or alternatively, you could post about theories and hypotheses in another thread or forum and direct me there. I can't see how it would be constructive, but I would participate to the degree that time allows.


----------



## TopazBlueMama (Nov 23, 2002)

hmm, I might not speak for everyone, but I'm not arguing that high cholesterol can cause problems like heart disease. My doubts are that healthy forms of saturated fats are the actual cause of high cholesterol.


----------



## cjr (Dec 2, 2003)

Quote:

My doubts are that healthy forms of saturated fats are the actual cause of high cholesterol.
Playing dumb. Are you saying that you don't believe that healthy fats are the cause of high cholesterol? If so then I agree. We need fat, it's a matter of finding a fat that will not cause you health problems. It seems like everyday another fat that was considered healthy is discovered not to be healthy. KWIM? It's hard. Everyone wants to eat healthy and prevent disease, but there's so much info out there and a lot of it is contradicting info. Who's right, who's wrong? There is no doubt that a body needs fat. Personally I think a body needs some animal fats in addition to the omega-3 type fats. It's a balancing act really.

You could use yourself as a test subject. Go get your cholesterol levels tested, then add a "healthy" fat and see what happens. Do you gain wieght, does your cholesterol rise, how do you feel overall? If that fats good, then try another and see what happens. Remember that not all products are created equal and if you add animal fats they should be from animals grass grazed with no supplimental "corn" feed. Other oils should be a good quality oil. That's really all you can do. If your cholesterol starts to increase then stop eating that fat and you will know for sure if the fats will cause a change in cholesterol for _you_. Keep in mind that it may not cause the same reaction in another person.


----------



## kaydee (Aug 13, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *HerthElde*
-*If a single piece of available information does not support a theory, then the theory (as proposed) is disproved*

I wonder if this is really as clear cut as it seems. Will any old "piece of information" do? For example, "Intelligent Design" proponents have "evidence" (information) that they claim undercuts the theory of evolution. But their "evidence" is debatable (and debated!)--as much evidence is. So it seems to me that the simple presentation of "information" in and of itself doesn't "disprove" a theory if that information is questionable or subject to varying interpretation.


----------



## ChristaN (Feb 14, 2003)

This isn't really relevant to the NT diet discussion, so I apologize about that, but I am posting it here since this thread is the one that has caused me to reevaluate my participation here.

I had thought that we had gotten to a spot on this forum where everyone was getting along a bit better & although this discussion certainly hasn't been nasty, I find that it is irritating to me none the less. I realize that I just shouldn't have gotten involved, but oh well now! However, in thinking about it, I really don't enjoy spending time in this forum b/c it just doesn't support my belief system & I spend enough time defending myself IRL. I don't want to seek out spaces in cyberspace where the benefits are less than the outputs for my personal peace.

So, I am just mentioning this here so that people will understand that I am not ignoring you if you post a question to me in response to anything that I have said. I have just decided that it is not in my best interests to post here anymore. I am giving some thought as to whether I will continue to post on other parts of MDC, or just delete my user profile. I don't know on that at the moment, but I will not be posting on the nutrition forum anymore.


----------



## cjr (Dec 2, 2003)

Quote:

I had thought that we had gotten to a spot on this forum where everyone was getting along a bit better & although this discussion certainly hasn't been nasty, I find that it is irritating to me none the less. I realize that I just shouldn't have gotten involved, but oh well now! However, in thinking about it, I really don't enjoy spending time in this forum b/c it just doesn't support my belief system & I spend enough time defending myself IRL. I don't want to seek out spaces in cyberspace where the benefits are less than the outputs for my personal peace.
I totally feel the same way. This thread went from a simple request for a little info on the NT diet to nit picking and bantering. There are a lot of irrelevant, unnessesary comments. There is no "one correct" way of eating, but that idea gets lost on this forum sometimes. The fact that terms and words are being debated is rediculous.

Everymorning I tell myself "I am not going to open this thread", but for some reason I can't help it and I get all wound up with the rediculous bantering and picking on each other.

I hope you don't leave the nutrition forum. I would hate that the closed minded individuals you are irritated with, have run you out of town. There are a lot of understanding and helpful mamas here, who respect everyone's dietary choices while at the same time offer other perspectives.

I had an interesting conversation with another mama on this forum. She agreed that sometimes some of the posters can be down right rude, and we bet that these same posters would never be so rude if they were speaking to your face. It's easy to hide behind the computer and speak disrespecfully, it takes a great deal of skill to post in a kind and understanding manner.


----------



## ChristaN (Feb 14, 2003)

Okay, one more response







- I need to unsub if I don't want the new responses emailed to me! It is not just the other mamas. I find _me_ being snitty & irritable here & I don't like that in myself. I just don't want to spend my time being someone that I don't want to be.


----------



## cathe (Nov 17, 2002)

I'll step in here now and see if we can redirect this thread to the topic of the opening post. If anyone wants to post with information about NT or anti-NT great but let's end the discussion of the exact definition of a theory, etc.

ChristN - I value your contributions to GE. I hope you'll stick around . . . (You too CJR)


----------

