# "Traditional Foods" VS. Vegetarianism/Veganism



## Selesai (Oct 26, 2005)

I have read The China Study by T. Colin Campbell (advocating, for one's health, a vegan diet, and based on a 20 year study by Cornell University). I have read about the Weston A. Price Foundation (advocating, for one's health, a "traditional foods" diet high in animal products, albeit those that are organic, humanely raised, and raw (for dairy)). They are almost completely contradictory.
Someone explain to me why I should believe one over the other.


----------



## caedmyn (Jan 13, 2006)

In the 1930's, a dentist named Weston Price visited many isolated populations eating their traditional diets on several contintents. He found that all of these groups were very healthy as long as they did not eat processed foods (refined flour & sugar)--when they did, their health declined and they started showing signs of "modern" diseases. None of these groups were vegan or vegetarian--they all ate at least some meat or fish, and most of them ate quite a bit of animal products. He actually tried to find a vegetarian group to study and was unable to do so. This is documented in Price's book "Nutrition & Physical Degeneration".


----------



## Ruthla (Jun 2, 2004)

The idea behind "Traditional Foods" is that our ancestors ate what was healthy, without overthinking nutrition. It makes logical sense that, since they were healthy, emulating traditional diets could correct much of what is wrong with "the modern diet."

Dr Price found that traditional diets varied greatly from one another, but had some things in common. Some areas ate lots of grains and veggies and meat was used more as a condiment than a main dish. Some cultures ate lots of meat and/or fish and very little vegetable products. Some ate tons of dairy, some consumed no dairy at all. Sally Fallon (involved in the WAP foundation and the author of several cookbooks/nutrition books) has interpeted his dietary advice to mean lots of meat and milk in the diet, but that was definitlely not the case for all cultures Dr. Price studied.

I'm actually quite curious how somebody could review the 20-year China Project and come up with the idea that a vegan diet is ideal. My understanding is that the Chinese ate/eat many different kinds of meat, many of which seem quite distasteful to those accustomed to a Western diet.

I personally don't think that there's any one diet that's perfect for everybody. Even for the same person the optimal diet can change over time.

Eating a diet heavy in vegetarian foods, and even including some (or many) vegan meals, can certainly be in line with Traditional Foods priciples. Vegetarianism and TF can certainly be combined by using traditional food preperation techniques for grains and beans, including fermented veggies, using high quality eggs and raw dairy if you consume them.


----------



## avendesora (Sep 23, 2004)

There's a lot in common - get rid of chemical foods (HFCS, partially hydrogenated oils, fake sweeteners), get rid of white foods (white flour, white sugar), eat vegetables and fruits. I would argue, that if you've done even just that much, then you'll be healthy.

After that, the distinctions depend on what your body wants. Some people's bodies do well with whole grains, some people don't. Likewise with dairy, and modest amounts of meats. (I've seen quite a few NT'ers here say that they think that Sally Fallon emphasizes the meat more than necessary).

The other consideration is an ethical one, and one that only you can decide for yourself: Do you believe that eating animals is simply part of the circle of life, and that Mother Nature/God/Higher Power put animals on this earth to help feed us? Or do you believe that no animal should have to suffer for us to eat?

No one has done a study yet comparing the health of whole foods vegetarians and whole food meat eaters who use only grass-fed pastured organic animal products. So no one has yet done the science to answer your question properly.









Aven


----------



## Benji'sMom (Sep 14, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Ruthla* 
I'm actually quite curious how somebody could review the 20-year China Project and come up with the idea that a vegan diet is ideal. My understanding is that the Chinese ate/eat many different kinds of meat, many of which seem quite distasteful to those accustomed to a Western diet.


The less animal product they ate, the healthier they were, without exception (I think). I really don't know much about it, but I think that's the gist of it. Perhaps OP could elaborate.


----------



## Ruthla (Jun 2, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Benji'sMom* 
The less animal product they ate, the healthier they were, without exception (I think). I really don't know much about it, but I think that's the gist of it. Perhaps OP could elaborate.

OK, then that would be an argument to eat smaller quantities of meat, not necessarily to eliminate meat from the diet altogether.

Of course, you'd also have to look at other aspects of their diets: were the ones eating more meat also eating more refined grains, or getting less exercise, or some other lifestyle factor?


----------



## mamabohl (May 21, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Selesai* 
Someone explain to me why I should believe one over the other.

Just go with whichever one feels right to you. The arguments could go back and forth forever, but I think as long as you eat REAL foods (not proccesed) then you're gonna be a great deal healthier than most people today, so if you want to be v*gan then do that, if traditional foods sounds right to you do that. Or do a combo of both (less meat, more veggies but soaked and fermented foods too).


----------



## avendesora (Sep 23, 2004)

This article discusses mortality rates for vegetarians vs. healthy meat eaters. If the meat eater ate meat only a couple of times per month, then their mortality rates were the same as the vegetarians. Both those groups lived longer than the people who ate meat every week by two years, and lived longer than those who ate SAD by six years. Maybe moderation is the key.

Aven


----------



## caedmyn (Jan 13, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Benji'sMom* 
The less animal product they ate, the healthier they were, without exception (I think). I really don't know much about it, but I think that's the gist of it. Perhaps OP could elaborate.

Dr. Price's research demonstrates the exact opposite--the more animal products the populations ate, the healthier they were.


----------



## newcastlemama (Jun 7, 2005)

I was a whole foods vegan and made a decision to a traditonal foods omni. Traditonal foods really made sense to me in every way and I feel mentally and physically better now. (I had some health problems)

Quote:

Someone explain to me why I should believe one over the other.
I personally believe that God created all these different things for us to eat---plant and animal foods. I also believe that we have the physiology of an omnivore. My person experince though has been the proof that I need animal products to be well.

It is really a personal journey though, so I would encourage you to keep reading and see what works for your body.


----------



## newcastlemama (Jun 7, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mamabohl* 
Just go with whichever one feels right to you. The arguments could go back and forth forever, but I think as long as you eat REAL foods (not proccesed) then you're gonna be a great deal healthier than most people today, so if you want to be v*gan then do that, if traditional foods sounds right to you do that. Or do a combo of both (less meat, more veggies but soaked and fermented foods too).


This is great advice!


----------



## Selesai (Oct 26, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *caedmyn* 
Dr. Price's research demonstrates the exact opposite--the more animal products the populations ate, the healthier they were.

See, this doesn't sit well with me. Price was a dentist, not a doctor or nutritionist. I don't know how scientific his studies were. And, I think there were many other factors which could have caused these populations to be healthy. Such as exercise. Less pollution, toxicity, etc.


----------



## Selesai (Oct 26, 2005)

newcastle and mamabohl-- interesting, and good advice. How long do you think you have to try a diet to see if it is working for you? It seems to me there is an adjustment period.

And I think moderation makes the most sense to me personally so far... as long as I make ethical choices.


----------



## kallyn (May 24, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Selesai* 
See, this doesn't sit well with me. Price was a dentist, not a doctor or nutritionist. I don't know how scientific his studies were. And, I think there were many other factors which could have caused these populations to be healthy. Such as exercise. Less pollution, toxicity, etc.

Of course there are always other factors to consider, but in the case of Dr. Price he would study one group of people at a time. These people were related to each other, living in the same place, and carrying out the same lifestyle...but the people eating the traditional foods were in great health whereas the people eating the "modern" foods were in very poor health (bad teeth, deformities, disease-prone, etc). For example, in one family the parents could have been raised on the traditional diet and the children on the modern diet, and the health of the parents vs the children would be dramatically different even when all other factors (lifestyle, pollution, etc) were the same.


----------



## Mommay (Jul 29, 2004)

I think that as long as you and dc are enjoying health in the short and long terms, that's all that matters. I personally find NT to make a lot of sense. In my circles of friends, I'm often the minority in being an omni eater, which is probably not the case in the wider population. But we are "crunchy" and that does often mean that there are more veg*ns than not. I am very comfortable with my choices. There was a time that I was an omni by default, and I considered veg*nism the ethical choice. But now I am completely comfortable with the omni stance.

Do you know what I find compelling? The pictures of "degenerate" faces on the Weston Price website. I feel completely guilty looking at them and then comparing them to faces I see today. But it is such a clear indication of how much nutrition can affect one's whole physical stature. The fact that Weston Price was a dentist was actually serendipitous. He showed that the dental structures and the face in general was the most vulnerable to nutritional deficiencies. My understanding is that this is so because the face does not necessarily have survival value. If one looks at traditional cultures, one finds straight teeth without tooth decay in the vast majority of its population, including the very old. I think in one swiss village, he found a tooth decay rate of 3%. How about in America today? We have the opposite situation. Crooked teeth is the norm and we're lucky if we don't have tooth decay.

Granted many claim that their diet is the most nutritionally sound. But I feel that thousands of years of tradition is much better testimony than decades-old diets. Weston Price also believed that nutritional deficiencies could show up generationally. I'm currently adopting paleolithic ways of eating because that is of course older and probably even more evolutionarily sound. Should we follow everything the traditional cultures did? Of course not. But the needs of our bodies are determined by millions of years of adaptation. Could it adapt to deviations from the diet of our ancestors? I suppose it's possible, but for many reasons, I find that it is a roll of the dice at that point.


----------



## caedmyn (Jan 13, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Selesai* 
See, this doesn't sit well with me. Price was a dentist, not a doctor or nutritionist. I don't know how scientific his studies were. And, I think there were many other factors which could have caused these populations to be healthy. Such as exercise. Less pollution, toxicity, etc.

Dr. Price is widely regarded as an absolute top-notch researcher by those who are familiar with his work, and he published many scientific studies while he was alive. I fail to see why someone's knowledge in a particular area is judged by whether they are academically "qualified" in that area. Someone who has done a great deal of research may well know far more than a so-called expert. Not to mention that most doctors know absolutely nothing about nutrition, and most nutritionists don't know all that much about what's really healthy, either (case in point--HFCS laden hospital food menus dictated by nutritionists).


----------



## kittywitty (Jul 5, 2005)

All research is biased. Diet varies so widely around the world-there is no right and wrong when you eat natural foods. Obviously, all the diets say that eating things like HFCS is bad, but that's a given. Other than that, go with what makes you feel good body and soul. I personally know lots of healthy vegetarians and vegans, and not a one (IRL) omni that is that healthy. It makes sense to me to eat as little animal products as possible health and spiritual-wise.

This is really a personal decision.


----------



## Benji'sMom (Sep 14, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *caedmyn* 
Dr. Price's research demonstrates the exact opposite--the more animal products the populations ate, the healthier they were.

Or did it just demonstrate that a natural diet is better than a modern diet? Because I'm reading a lot of posts here and elsewhere that point out that the "natural" eaters had better health than the "modern" eaters. Both sets of research prove natural is better than modern/processed, but does anyone really prove which is best out of non-processed veg and non-processed omni? (I honestly don't know the answer b/c even though I do know basically who Price and Campbell are, I don't know the details.)


----------



## Selesai (Oct 26, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *caedmyn* 
I fail to see why someone's knowledge in a particular area is judged by whether they are academically "qualified" in that area. Someone who has done a great deal of research may well know far more than a so-called expert. Not to mention that most doctors know absolutely nothing about nutrition, and most nutritionists don't know all that much about what's really healthy, either (case in point--HFCS laden hospital food menus dictated by nutritionists).

In some situations I agree with this.
I do agree re: the bad hospital food. I noticed this after I gave birth to my son.
I don't think it's true across the board though. My sister is a nutritionist, and she is very knowledgable.
I don't recall-- what is WAP's reason for why all of the major health organizations are wrong about our diet?
Thank you for answering... I am not trying to be rude, I am genuinely curious!


----------



## Selesai (Oct 26, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Benji'sMom* 
Or did it just demonstrate that a natural diet is better than a modern diet? Because I'm reading a lot of posts here and elsewhere that point out that the "natural" eaters had better health than the "modern" eaters. Both sets of research prove natural is better than modern/processed, but does anyone really prove which is best out of non-processed veg and non-processed omni? (I honestly don't know the answer b/c even though I do know basically who Price and Campbell are, I don't know the details.)

I knew the answer to this, but until I can track down my copy of the The China Study, I can't recall well enough to tell you what it said.
I think it is true, and this is likely what Price would say (someone correct me if I'm wrong) that generally studies of veg v. omni diets involve omnis who are eating a lot of processed dairy (homogenized, pasteurized) and factory raised meat. Thus those studies do not necessarily demonstrate that a natural veg is more healthful than a natural omni, or vice versa.


----------



## Selesai (Oct 26, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *dnw826* 
Other than that, go with what makes you feel good body and soul.

Looks like maybe I need to find this out.


----------



## guestmama9916 (Jun 24, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Selesai* 
See, this doesn't sit well with me. Price was a dentist, not a doctor or nutritionist. I don't know how scientific his studies were. And, I think there were many other factors which could have caused these populations to be healthy. Such as exercise. Less pollution, toxicity, etc.

Have you read Nutrition and Physical Degeneration? If not, do so. Then you can draw your conclusions about Dr. Price's research.

http://journeytoforever.org/farm_lib.../pricetoc.html

Kim


----------



## kallyn (May 24, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Benji'sMom* 
Or did it just demonstrate that a natural diet is better than a modern diet?

If you read Nutrition and Physical Degeneration, you will see that Dr. Price studied cultures that varied widely in their dietary habits, from almost carnivorous to almost vegetarian. In all cases, those eating the traditional diet within their specific culture were healthier than those eating the modern diet within their specific culture. BUT, he also found that the healthy folks in the more carnivorous groups were healthier than the healthy folks in the more vegetarian groups. This was evidenced by the presence of dental caries. The mostly vegetarian group had many more caries than most of the other groups.


----------



## newcastlemama (Jun 7, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Selesai* 
newcastle and mamabohl-- interesting, and good advice. How long do you think you have to try a diet to see if it is working for you? It seems to me there is an adjustment period.

And I think moderation makes the most sense to me personally so far... as long as I make ethical choices.

You can be a traditonal foods vegetarian. It does not have to be either/or. You can still soak nuts/seeds and grains to increase their nutritional content. You can make kombucha, milk/water kefir, and lacto-fermented drinks and foods. You can eat free-range eggs, organic produce, and raw dairy products.

About other factors besides nutrition-- I would think that all the groups that Price studied got a fair amount of physical activity and way less toxic exposure than we did today. Along with eating natural foods, we should still strive for higher activity and less pollution for health.

I agree with Kimbernet about reading Price's book. Nutrition and Physical Degeneration is one of the best "health" books I have ever read. I don't care that Price was a dentist. I would not care if he ever went to college because his work is still interesting. You don't need to have formal schooling to become highly educated about a subject and share your findings in a book. If you read it, then you can draw your own conclusions about nutrition from his original research.

Jen


----------



## mamabohl (May 21, 2005)

I believe you can read Nutrition and Physical Degeneration online for free...


----------



## ACsMom (Apr 21, 2006)

I just started a thread about the China Study without realizing you had already started talking about it here!







Anyway, I agree with you that common sense seems to dictate that a vegetarian diet is healthier than a meat-based diet for most people. I think Campbell himself says that his research doesn't show that a vegan diet is best, it shows that a whole foods, plant-based diet with a low percentage of animal protein intake seems to be protective against cancer. WAP's research may not necessarily be contradictory - he was using different criteria to measure overall health, and it seems he wasn't necessarily setting out to directly compare the effects of animal and plant foods on disease. There might be other reasons why the populations consuming more animal foods were healthier, according to his measure (presence or absence of dental caries).

Interesting discussion.


----------



## caedmyn (Jan 13, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Benji'sMom* 
Or did it just demonstrate that a natural diet is better than a modern diet? Because I'm reading a lot of posts here and elsewhere that point out that the "natural" eaters had better health than the "modern" eaters. Both sets of research prove natural is better than modern/processed, but does anyone really prove which is best out of non-processed veg and non-processed omni? (I honestly don't know the answer b/c even though I do know basically who Price and Campbell are, I don't know the details.)

Price's research did demonstrate that, but it also demonstrated that (as someone else pointed out on page 2 of this thread) groups that ate a lot of animal products were healthier than those who ate few animal products.


----------



## caedmyn (Jan 13, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Selesai* 
In some situations I agree with this.
I do agree re: the bad hospital food. I noticed this after I gave birth to my son.
I don't think it's true across the board though. My sister is a nutritionist, and she is very knowledgable.
I don't recall-- what is WAP's reason for why all of the major health organizations are wrong about our diet?
Thank you for answering... I am not trying to be rude, I am genuinely curious!

There's plenty of science that proves that the major health organizations are wrong...saturated fat is not bad for you (read "Eat Fat Lose Fat"), pasturized/homogenized milk is bad for you read "The Untold Story of Milk"), red meat is not bad for you as long as it is grass-finished or at least natural (lots of references for that, I think eatwild.com has some info)...etc etc etc.


----------



## JaneS (Jan 11, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Selesai* 
See, this doesn't sit well with me. Price was a dentist, not a doctor or nutritionist. I don't know how scientific his studies were. And, I think there were many other factors which could have caused these populations to be healthy. Such as exercise. Less pollution, toxicity, etc.

Price was the head of research for the ADA of his day... supervising a staff of 50 researchers. He published over 200 articles in the dental and medical literature. He was not some crackpot from the backwater.


----------



## pampered_mom (Mar 27, 2006)

Thanks, Jane for clarifying that. In my limited time doing NT I actually didn't know that. I know for me it was one of the things that made me so skeptical when I was veg.


----------



## JaneS (Jan 11, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Selesai* 
I don't recall-- what is WAP's reason for why all of the major health organizations are wrong about our diet?

I'm guessing money and modern big business? WAP himself did not set out to change dietary guidelines, the current Weston Price Foundation is charged with that. He was researching only as to what is the root of physical degeneration.

Very interesting background about the marketing of fats and oils in "The Oiling of America" and "The Great Con-ola": http://www.westonaprice.org/knowyourfats/index.html

More about the Food Pyramid from one of directors of the WAPF:
http://www.westonaprice.org/federalu...fed2003wi.html
http://www.westonaprice.org/federalu...al_pres_04.pdf


----------



## captain optimism (Jan 2, 2003)

I can't say anything about Dr. Price's qualifications to study dental health in the 1930s. I'm sure he was very well-qualified to do so.

I am dubious about the way the WAP website seems to fly in the face of everyone else's research. I see that there is a lot of disagreement about certain issues among nutritionists--especially about fats and oils. But there does seem to be some pretty persuasive research about the statistical probability of longevity and heart disease that supports the mainstream nutritionists' ideas about a low-fat diet.

Dr. Joel Fuhrman, one of several advocates of an extremely low-fat, low-calorie diet (like Dean Ornish, only even more stringent!) posted an interesting rebuttal to some WAP assertions, here:

http://www.diseaseproof.com/archives...ton-price.html

Here he argues that recent studies do not support the idea that indigenous peoples who eat a nearly all-animal-product diet are healthier.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Dr. Joel Fuhrman*
When Barry Groves and the Weston Price Foundation people listed above rest their laurels on the health of high meat eating tribes, we have to counter that with real research, not phony claims. The research on the life expectancy of these people is clear. The Inuit Greenlanders have the worst longevity statistics in North America. A careful literature search reveals multiple studies documenting an earlier death in these people as a result of their low consumption of fresh produce and their high consumption of meat.

Legitimate research on the health of these people at present and in the past, show that they die on the average about 10 years younger and have a higher rate of cancer than the general population of Canada. Again, we don't want to mimic the population of Canada and certainly not a population with even a shorter life expectancy.

(I looked this up in response to another thread in which someone asserted that you could avoid scurvy by eating a sufficient quantity of raw meat--and that appears to be true.)

See, Price did study the teeth of many traditional peoples, but he didn't document their overall longevity.


----------



## Mommay (Jul 29, 2004)

Captain Optimism, the NT diet may be "politically incorrect" given the establishment that claim to "know" about nutrition. However, when you look at the actual diets of actual cultures, I do think that they support the views advocated by the WAP foundation. And this is where NT claims its validity - in the health of the traditional people eating their traditional diet.

One modern-day example is France. They eat 60% more cheese and 4 times the amount of butter than Americans do, yet their rates of heart disease are lower than us. See "The French Paradox" in Wikipedia - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_paradox. I've always heard anecdotally that France was only second to Japan in terms of health and longevity. Why? They don't seem to eat similar diets until you look at NT. They both follow NT principles - i.e. fats high in A and D, avoids polyunsaturated fats for the most part, eats a varied diet, etc.

Science changes everyday. For example, companies that make formula have to continually upgrade their product because science discovers something else about bm that is good for you. My view is that we should eat a traditional diet because there's probably a hidden wisdom in it that science may one day discover or not. I trust folk wisdom more than the food pyramid or any other institutionalized view of food. NT relies on this folk wisdom.


----------



## captain optimism (Jan 2, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Mommay* 
Captain Optimism, the NT diet may be "politically incorrect" given the establishment that claim to "know" about nutrition. However, when you look at the actual diets of actual cultures, I do think that they support the views advocated by the WAP foundation. And this is where NT claims its validity - in the health of the traditional people eating their traditional diet.

One modern-day example is France. They eat 60% more cheese and 4 times the amount of butter than Americans do, yet their rates of heart disease are lower than us. See "The French Paradox" in Wikipedia - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_paradox. I've always heard anecdotally that France was only second to Japan in terms of health and longevity. Why? They don't seem to eat similar diets until you look at NT. They both follow NT principles - i.e. fats high in A and D, avoids polyunsaturated fats for the most part, eats a varied diet, etc.


I have two thoughts about this.

First, we have to have accurate data about what people really ate as part of their traditional diets. I have read a lot of food history (just because it's very interesting!) I am not sure we can say that any European or Asian diet that contains potatoes, corn, tomatoes or eggplant is "traditional." It's not only refined sugar that's a modern food. Yet David Landes argued (in an article I had to read in grad school!) that the introduction of the potato was the single greatest contributor to the growth of population in early modern Europe--and probably the single factor that caused the industrial revolution.

It's funny you mention the traditional diet of France, because I had to read this insanely long and detailed book by Immanuel Le Roy Ladurie (and to learn to pronounce his name with a phony French accent







) about the cycles of famine in pre-modern France. Their diet in the Middle Ages was dependent on grain. The population would grow to the point where the land couldn't sustain it, and then there would be famine and plague, etc. to reduce the population to the point where the land could sustain them. The introduction of potatoes, the ability to feed animals over the winter, innovations in agriculture--they all changed the French diet and enabled the population to grow.

So that's the first part--the whole idea of a traditional diet for a stable and traditional tribal people seems dubious to me. People's diets have changed hugely and there have been a lot of population migrations. (Maybe not among the Greenland Inuit or the Masai, but they don't have great longevity anyway.)

The second part is, i don't think diet is ever the sole reason for longevity or any other indicator of health. It's obviously the first place to look when you are thinking about things like infant and maternal mortality. But there are lots of other factors. A key one is exercise. One problem with trying to figure out whether disgusting gross modern foods full of additives cause diseases is that they are always exported into industrializing countries where people are becoming increasingly sedentary--and stressed out.

I don't know how we should evaluate nutritional claims. I see that people like Willett have based their recommendations on longitudinal studies like the famous Nurse's Study. There's also the Framingham Heart Study and the China study. I am just not sure how to decide who is drawing logical conclusions about longevity and quality of life from these studies.

Makes it hard to decide what to have for dinner.


----------



## newcastlemama (Jun 7, 2005)

Quote:

See, Price did study the teeth of many traditional peoples, but he didn't document their overall longevity.
When I was researching longevity I remember that centenuarians had good trigylceride numbers and blood sugar. (I think it was sensitive insulin repsonse) There was a lot of diversity in other things including diet, alcohol, and smoking.
I actually used to follow Dr.Fs (vegan) program but I got weak (amonst other things). In the book Eat to Live he has a graph showing that people in Loas have the highest consumption of produce and lowest amounts of heart disease and cancer. But people in Loas have an average life expectancy of 45so something else is killing them. I guess Dr.Fs whole point was that we can erradicate modern diseases plus have the modern advances of sanitation, medical care ect.
I still think eating a lot of veggies and fruits is very beneficial to health. My point is I just don't think that you should to be that extreme. I read a story on www.beyondveg.com that many people following the Hallelujia Diet www.hacres.com (raw produce based vegan) for an extended periods of time had high rates of mental problems. I don't think I want top live to 100 if I am going to be depressed and anxious for the next 75years! 2 years was enough of that!

Quote:

One problem with trying to figure out whether disgusting gross modern foods full of additives cause diseases is that they are always exported into industrializing countries where people are becoming increasingly sedentary--and stressed out.
I think processed foods, sedentary lifestyle and stress must cause disease because it is not the way we were meant to live. I know for sure to eat whole foods, excerise, and relax. For me it is what is the amount of each food group that is balanced for great health.(And to some degree, how much excerise is effective but not overdoing it)

Quote:

One modern-day example is France. They eat 60% more cheese and 4 times the amount of butter than Americans do, yet their rates of heart disease are lower than us.
I also think the French lifestyle is so different from Americans.(I have been to France and m brother used to live there) People are walking everywhere. Noone seems to be in a hurry. Dinners can last for hours! They also have the "joy of living". I think they even work less than USA. This makes me think that excerise and stress play a big part in mortality. I would love to incorporate more "French ways" into my lifestyle.
Like I have said before, I feel like in USA we are so out of touch with nature and our bodies that we are always looking to scientific studies and extreme programs as the way to health. I know that I have been extreme and am I finally getting out of that.

Jen


----------



## Mommay (Jul 29, 2004)

That sounds interesting to me. I'd love to read about food history if I had the time. But I like reading this forum as well.









You bring up the point that the introduction of potatos and grains helped to increase population. That is not actually an argument in favor of its health benefits. Rather it shows that caloric uptake is equivalent to population increase. See http://www.earth360.com/diet_paleodiet_balzer.html for a more in-depth analysis. But though they did allow us to survive on a basic level, Dr. Balzer argues that we are nonetheless not adapted to eat these foods and that it is not just a coincidence that diseases non-existent in the paleolithic era crops up with agriculture-based societies. There was a thread about this in Traditional Foods forum. It gets VERY complex. One complexity is that NT advocates dairy though the paleolithic people did not eat it. But NT does advocate treating grains specially for proper digestability.

But one of the decisive differences between neolithic and paleolithic diets is the fact that the paleolithic people ate a varied diet - dozens of different plants and animal products a day at times. Whereas the neolithic people sometimes ate 90% of one type of food, usually a grain. The argument is that relying so exclusively on one type of food is not healthy. In terms of this argument, just as I rely on folk wisdom, I also think that millions of years of evolution adapted our bodies according to the paleolithic diet. No matter how much logic I may apply to what I eat, my body has needs that have a history that spans millions of years. It's true that in the modern day diet, we have choices. However, how genuine are those choices?

Basically, I am trying to do an NT/Paleolithic diet. I'm still on the fence about a lot of things though. I do eat rice. Someone in the Traditional Foods forum who is an archeologist said that paleolithic people did eat some wild grains. Rice is a grain that has been found in the wild. But I soak whatever grains, legumes, nuts, etc. I eat. I do some dairy, but not straight up milk. My diet is still a work in progress.

I'm also not saying that a veg*n diet can't be healthy. Heck if I don't even know what I want to eat, I'm sure not gonna tell someone else what they can or can't. I may argue from the paleolithic point of view, but there is so much I'm in the dark about that I can't really say anything for sure.


----------



## Mommay (Jul 29, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *newcastlemama* 

I think processed foods, sedentary lifestyle and stress must cause disease because it is not the way we were meant to live. I know for sure to eat whole foods, excerise, and relax. For me it is what is the amount of each food group that is balanced for great health.(And to some degree, how much excerise is effective but not overdoing it) I also think the French lifestyle is so different from Americans.(I have been to France and m brother used to live there) People are walking everywhere. Noone seems to be in a hurry. Dinners can last for hours! They also have the "joy of living". I think they even work less than USA. This makes me think that excerise and stress play a big part in mortality. I would love to incorporate more "French ways" into my lifestyle.
Like I have said before, I feel like in USA we are so out of touch with nature and our bodies that we are always looking to scientific studies and extreme programs as the way to health. I know that I have been extreme and am I finally getting out of that.

Jen

I did like the pace of Paris as well as other countries in Europe. I think you're absolutely right that we treat our meals like they were precisely "fast food". We aren't mindful of what we eat. I think that NT is actually a prescription for that. I remember growing up, my mom used to soak our rice before cooking it. But then as we adapted to the American lifestyle, she suddenly had an epiphany - why bother soaking rice? It tastes the same. So we stopped soaking rice. Little did I realize that there is wisdom behind that that has much more to do with it than the taste. I've had several experiences like that since. I try to follow certain practices even if they don't always make sense to me at the moment. And then when ds and I (I'm a single mom) sit down to eat, we take joy in it. I think that's one reason why he's a great eater.


----------



## melissa17s (Aug 3, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *captain optimism* 
I have two thoughts about this.

First, we have to have accurate data about what people really ate as part of their traditional diets. I have read a lot of food history (just because it's very interesting!) I am not sure we can say that any European or Asian diet that contains potatoes, corn, tomatoes or eggplant is "traditional." It's not only refined sugar that's a modern food. Yet David Landes argued (in an article I had to read in grad school!) that the introduction of the potato was the single greatest contributor to the growth of population in early modern Europe--and probably the single factor that caused the industrial revolution.

It's funny you mention the traditional diet of France, because I had to read this insanely long and detailed book by Immanuel Le Roy Ladurie (and to learn to pronounce his name with a phony French accent







) about the cycles of famine in pre-modern France. Their diet in the Middle Ages was dependent on grain. The population would grow to the point where the land couldn't sustain it, and then there would be famine and plague, etc. to reduce the population to the point where the land could sustain them. The introduction of potatoes, the ability to feed animals over the winter, innovations in agriculture--they all changed the French diet and enabled the population to grow.


I had to read this book for a ceramics class, and I was fascinated how foods changed after the discovery of the Americas. It talks about the revolutionary potato, among other plants. It has been a long time since I read it, but I may go check it out from the library.


----------



## captain optimism (Jan 2, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *newcastlemama* 
I actually used to follow Dr.Fs (vegan) program but I got weak (amonst other things). In the book Eat to Live he has a graph showing that people in Loas have the highest consumption of produce and lowest amounts of heart disease and cancer. But people in Loas have an average life expectancy of 45so something else is killing them. I guess Dr.Fs whole point was that we can erradicate modern diseases plus have the modern advances of sanitation, medical care ect.
I still think eating a lot of veggies and fruits is very beneficial to health. My point is I just don't think that you should to be that extreme.

Yes, I can't see how anyone could eat that diet over a long period unless they were very sedentary. It's very low in calories and fat, so that anyone who actually burns calories regularly would have a hard time feeling healthy on it. There is some irony in doing the exact same rhetorical trick--showing that some group of people has a great health indicator because they follow your extreme diet, while neglecting to mention that those folks also die in their 40s!

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Mommay* 
That sounds interesting to me. I'd love to read about food history if I had the time.

Obviously, I did a lot of that reading before I became a mom! But it's neat stuff. For example, there's a book on the history of refined sugar production called Sweetness and Power, by Stanley Mintz. I learned so much about changes in how people eat and the connection between commodities and colonialism--really interesting.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Mommay* 
You bring up the point that the introduction of potatos and grains helped to increase population. That is not actually an argument in favor of its health benefits. Rather it shows that caloric uptake is equivalent to population increase. See http://www.earth360.com/diet_paleodiet_balzer.html for a more in-depth analysis. But though they did allow us to survive on a basic level, Dr. Balzer argues that we are nonetheless not adapted to eat these foods and that it is not just a coincidence that diseases non-existent in the paleolithic era crops up with agriculture-based societies. There was a thread about this in Traditional Foods forum. It gets VERY complex. One complexity is that NT advocates dairy though the paleolithic people did not eat it. But NT does advocate treating grains specially for proper digestability.

I understand that grains and/or potatoes may or may not be healthful foods. (it seems like the role of carbohydrates has become as much of a point of contention among nutritional experts as fats--with the good carbs and the bad carbs, etc. etc.) My point was more that we don't have a good picture of a "traditional" diet. We have modern people's romantic nostalgia for the rural past, or even earlier, the paleolithic past--but we can't actually verify that this past ever existed.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Mommay* 
But one of the decisive differences between neolithic and paleolithic diets is the fact that the paleolithic people ate a varied diet - dozens of different plants and animal products a day at times. Whereas the neolithic people sometimes ate 90% of one type of food, usually a grain. The argument is that relying so exclusively on one type of food is not healthy. In terms of this argument, just as I rely on folk wisdom, I also think that millions of years of evolution adapted our bodies according to the paleolithic diet.

I don't think it's clear how many vegetables people who relied on grains and legumes actually ate. Especially if they foraged for them. it's fun to try to figure it out though.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Mommay* 
I remember growing up, my mom used to soak our rice before cooking it. But then as we adapted to the American lifestyle, she suddenly had an epiphany - why bother soaking rice? It tastes the same. So we stopped soaking rice. Little did I realize that there is wisdom behind that that has much more to do with it than the taste. I've had several experiences like that since. I try to follow certain practices even if they don't always make sense to me at the moment. And then when ds and I (I'm a single mom) sit down to eat, we take joy in it. I think that's one reason why he's a great eater.

I think that feeling of joy and rightness is the mystery ingredient.

Where is your family from? I've seen a lot of recipes from rice-eating cultures that call for soaking the rice before cooking. I'm never sure if that is to liberate nutrients, or just to save cooking time (and therefore fuel.) But a lot of the special rice dishes of the world--Iraqi rice with the nice crust on the bottom, Japanese rice, etc.--call for soaking.

Me, i'm going to stay an ovo-vegetarian for awhile, listing toward veganism. i can't decide which fats are healthful. i can't decide which carbs are healthful. I'm going to plan to eat a lot of nice green vegetables in the years ahead!


----------



## kittywitty (Jul 5, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Mommay* 
Captain Optimism, the NT diet may be "politically incorrect" given the establishment that claim to "know" about nutrition. However, when you look at the actual diets of actual cultures, I do think that they support the views advocated by the WAP foundation. And this is where NT claims its validity - in the health of the traditional people eating their traditional diet.

One modern-day example is France. They eat 60% more cheese and 4 times the amount of butter than Americans do, yet their rates of heart disease are lower than us. See "The French Paradox" in Wikipedia - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_paradox. I've always heard anecdotally that France was only second to Japan in terms of health and longevity. Why? They don't seem to eat similar diets until you look at NT. They both follow NT principles - i.e. fats high in A and D, avoids polyunsaturated fats for the most part, eats a varied diet, etc.

Science changes everyday. For example, companies that make formula have to continually upgrade their product because science discovers something else about bm that is good for you. My view is that we should eat a traditional diet because there's probably a hidden wisdom in it that science may one day discover or not. I trust folk wisdom more than the food pyramid or any other institutionalized view of food. NT relies on this folk wisdom.

It's not all diet, though. It is a lifestyle thing, as well. Such as moderate alcohol consumption, stress levels, relaxation methods, fresh/local/organic foods, community and family support....Looking at just the diet is only considering half the equation.

ETA: Oops! I didn't read ahead! Great post, newcastlemama. It is funny how everyone always argues about the specifics down to the last element of a diet but completely overlook some of the most important factors in lifestyle's role.


----------



## Mommay (Jul 29, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *dnw826* 
It's not all diet, though. It is a lifestyle thing, as well. Such as moderate alcohol consumption, stress levels, relaxation methods, fresh/local/organic foods, community and family support....Looking at just the diet is only considering half the equation.

You're right. I'm probably simplifying things. But diet is part of the equation. If by your account, it amounts to half the equation, then I think it still supports the idea that saturated fats are good for you, unlike what the politically correct establishment says. NT maintains that what is unhealthful is vegetable oils. We didn't have vegetable oils until we could process them artificially through modern technology. It has something to do with the omega 6, omega 3 ratios, but I forget the exact formulation.

The Malai people, as has been mentioned, also eat high amounts of dairy fat. They too are healthy. I do think that physical exercise and stress-free lifestyles have something to do with it. But again, diet is a part of the equation. Compare their diet to the american one. We avoid butter and fat like the plague yet heart disease is the number one killer in America. The French might have different lifestyles, but as far as I know, they have t.v.'s and eat LOTS of chocolate. I think diet, though not the whole part, is still a part of the equation.


----------



## Mommay (Jul 29, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *captain optimism* 
I think that feeling of joy and rightness is the mystery ingredient.

Where is your family from? I've seen a lot of recipes from rice-eating cultures that call for soaking the rice before cooking. I'm never sure if that is to liberate nutrients, or just to save cooking time (and therefore fuel.) But a lot of the special rice dishes of the world--Iraqi rice with the nice crust on the bottom, Japanese rice, etc.--call for soaking.

Me, i'm going to stay an ovo-vegetarian for awhile, listing toward veganism. i can't decide which fats are healthful. i can't decide which carbs are healthful. I'm going to plan to eat a lot of nice green vegetables in the years ahead!

I'm korean. There's probably a few reasons for soaking like the ones you mention.

I'm going to eat lots of greens as well, preferably raw (well, kale because it's low in oxalic acid). So did the paleolithic people! There is evidence for what they ate in the archeological records. But whether we choose to follow that is a personal choice.

Eggs are one of my favorite foods. In my mind, ovo's are including some important NT nutrients in their diets.


----------



## pampered_mom (Mar 27, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Mommay* 
But again, diet is a part of the equation. Compare their diet to the american one. We avoid butter and fat like the plague yet heart disease is the number one killer in America. The French might have different lifestyles, but as far as I know, they have t.v.'s and eat LOTS of chocolate. I think diet, though not the whole part, is still a part of the equation.

Exactly - what about the fact that we were told until rather recently to sub partially hydrogenated vegetable oils for saturated fat. As a result folks were consuming high amounts of trans fats. Now, as research catches up to these recommendations we find out that trans fats are among the worst options available.

*captain optimism* - you may want to check out the book "Know Your Fats" by Mary Enig. She is associated with the WAPF, but is also a renowned fat researcher.


----------



## Gale Force (Jun 15, 2003)

I've read Price's book and I've started reading _The China Study_. As an unapologetic omnivore, I didn't think I'd like _The China Study_, but I am finding it to be a very interesting read. First, his writing and story make it worth while to read regardless of the argument. Second, I am struck by the similarity in argument structure between his book and some of the books and articles from WAPF-like people. Both make a strong nutrient-disease linkage and focus on a whole foods rather than supplement approach.

_The China Study_ recommends a plant-based diet and lists seafood as something to eat in moderation. So it isn't necessarily vegan. Many WAPF members tend toward the belief that the more animal in the diet the better, as caedmyn I think expressed in this thread. But I don't remember Price's work suggesting that more is better, just that some amount of animal is necessary. (For anyone who is familar with the book, was there a case study or something that suggested more is better?) And so we are left with one book that promotes plant-eating with maybe a bit of seafood thrown in and one that says some animal is necessary. Both are whole foods oriented and, so, at the end of the day, they may not be all that different.

What neither book offer is an answer to the question: how much animal is optimal? Price has some interesting vitamin A and D research that makes me want to keep eating my beef liver, but it doesn't really tell me how much animal should be in my diet as a whole. Campbell has given me the idea that I need to nude sunbathe everyday to help my vitamin D status.

Both pieces of research suffer in general from a base of comparison problem. That is, it is clear that a whole foods diet is better than the default diet in the studies. The animal studies that Campbell describes control better for these issues but feeding casein to rats gets away from the whole foods framework. So we know that a whole foods diet is better -- anyone who sees Price's pictures would be convinced pretty readily. But just because a high vegetable diet has a lower risk of disease than the high-animal protein American diet does not ultimately tell us a lot about what I would really like to know -- how would a whole foods plant diet compare to a whole foods omni diet where the animals providing their flesh and milk lived on a natural diet. Campbell provides many different milk studies and, frankly, I wouldn't drink the milk either. So I find myself agreeing with him a lot.

That's all for now. I was about to announce that I'm off to sunbathe, but it's cloudy and 4 pm. Tomorrow will offer another opportunity.


----------



## JaneS (Jan 11, 2003)

One thing that is missing in the discussion here is the nutrients.

Weston Price discovered that, on average, native diets he studied, whether the seafood eaters of the Polynesian islands or the dairy based diets of the Swiss, all contained 4x the RDA of minerals and water soluble vits and 10x the fat soluble vitamins. Try to eat that being veg*n and its very very difficult.

And factor in the proper preparation techniques that native diets teach us, such as soaking grains, and eating fat soluble vits with mineral rich foods to actually allow the body to utilize the nutrients and you've got a very large hurdle for the veg*n diet folks to overcome in my formerly veg*n opinon.

It's not a high meat diet that WAP or WAPF advocates. Sally Fallon says in NT that muscle meats are really not needed in great quantity. (Although her cookbook does contain a lot of them so perhaps therein lies the confusion.) If anything, NT advocates high fat to get the super high amounts of fat soluble vits. Bone broths, cod liver oil, pastured eggs and grass fed dairy are discussed as much more important to our Western style diet than meat.


----------



## Gale Force (Jun 15, 2003)

That's a good point Jane. That finding may be his most important. What would be interesting is a comparison of a traditional diet like he studied and a diet like Joel Fuhrman advocates, with mountains of vegetables to get a lot of nutrients. A further interesting study would be to see if people on the Fuhrman diet eat as much produce as he appears to recommend. Of course this still wouldn't adress the issues of B12, vit A, and Vit D. (And DHA really)

And on the fat issue -- same thing as the meat issue. How much saturated fat is good? I don't know. My guess is that I am eating plenty. Cordain in _The Paleo Diet_ recommends against too much saturated fat.


----------



## captain optimism (Jan 2, 2003)

Since the original post was about the contrast between the Weston A. Price Foundation and Colin T. Campbell's The China Study, i thought you might like to read Campbell's rebuttal to WAPF critics. i found it by googling:

http://www.vegsource.com/articles2/c...a_response.htm

I'm not impressed with Campbell's ad hominem attacks on his critics, but his perspective on Price's research is interesting:

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Campbell*

Price's main book was published in the late 1930s-at least this is the book that is most commonly cited by WAPF. I bought the book, carefully read it and learned that the WAPF staff and associates substantially exaggerate, in my opinion, the importance of Price's observations and the importance of his book. Price was a dental surgeon who visited more than a dozen indigenous populations around the world and became quite impressed with the overall good health of these geographically isolated people when compared with their kin who had become exposed to commerce from other lands. He seemed to regard these native peoples as the nearest link to our own past. With background in dentistry, Price assessed their health mainly by dental caries incidence and facial structures, supplementing his observations with many photographs. Although he made certain inferences about health in general, he published no reliable empirical data to support this view.


----------



## Selesai (Oct 26, 2005)

First of all, I don't think the comparison to the French diet is a particularly helpful one. I am currently reading a book which discusses the French diet. While it is true that the French eat more cheese and butter than Americans, they also do not consider beef or pork to be "healthy fats," though duck is ok. I think this is an important point as, based on my current understanding, that is quite a different approach than NT. Aside from the fact that, as far as I am aware, the French do not soak their grains or otherwise prepare them in a particular way. Additionally, they do eat refined flour as, for instance, in baguettes.

Secondly, I agree with what pp have said. I think health is about much more than diet. Not to discount the importance of diet, but when comparing such vastly different societies/civilizations, the multitude of differences makes a real analysis of what is caused by diet and what isn't a very difficult, if impossible one.

And, why all the glorification of past civilization's diet? First, we are assuming we know of which we speak. Furthermore, I am of the belief that our ability to develop and better produce foods means our diet will not always remain the same. It is unrealistic for us to live as if we are hunter/gatherers or primitive agriculturalists. We are not. I don't think this means we should chemically concoct our foods as we currently do. But I do believe we will be able to live without animals as food, at some point, so that is where I am coming from. I also am not sure we are yet at the point where a vegan diet can be a completely healthy one.
I just don't know.


----------



## Mommay (Jul 29, 2004)

Selesai, as far as I know, the fat in an animal's milk is the same saturated fat in the animal itself whether the perception of this fact is there or not.

I think their consumption of refined flour shows that they are healthy despite the fact that they are eating crap like americans. What's the difference? Perhaps it is exactly that they're consuming more saturated fats.

Why the emphasis on the past? If you're not swayed by what's already been said, maybe it doesn't matter to you. I think I understand your disconnect. I'm not sure I truly cared either until recently. But now that it's clicked, it only makes sense to me to try to follow a diet that's been proven over the course of millions of years.

On the Traditional Foods forum, a Ph.D. in archeology posted a bunch of info that suggests we do know A LOT about how our paleolithic ancestors ate. I'm no purist, but if the info. is there, I'd like to incorporate it into my life as much as possible.


----------



## MamaKalena (Jun 17, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *caedmyn* 
I fail to see why someone's knowledge in a particular area is judged by whether they are academically "qualified" in that area. Someone who has done a great deal of research may well know far more than a so-called expert. Not to mention that most doctors know absolutely nothing about nutrition, and most nutritionists don't know all that much about what's really healthy, either (case in point--HFCS laden hospital food menus dictated by nutritionists).

Very good point! I had never thought of it that way before and completely agree with you. Hospital food certainly is not the healthiest!

This is such an interesting thread. I am a vegetarian but eat eggs and dairy. The reasons for my diet choices have evolved over the years but I am happy and feel healthy. My husband and DS are omnis and I, as the primary chef in the house, am fully supportive of that. I agree with PPs that the most important thing is to stay away from processed foods and eat a varied diet made up of organic and chem-free foods.


----------



## kittywitty (Jul 5, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *pamered_mom* 
Exactly - what about the fact that we were told until rather recently to sub partially hydrogenated vegetable oils for saturated fat. As a result folks were consuming high amounts of trans fats. Now, as research catches up to these recommendations we find out that trans fats are among the worst options available.

*captain optimism* - you may want to check out the book "Know Your Fats" by Mary Enig. She is associated with the WAPF, but is also a renowned fat researcher.

Saturated fats aren't just found in animal products, though. Of course fats are good for you. It's just a matter of moderation and choice of fats.

JaneS, I did not find it hard getting my nutrients while being vegan. I am now an ovo-vegetarian, and admit I eat seafood if it is fresh and I am at the ocean.

Selesai, I agree with you! Great post!

But, Mommay, you are talking about "a diet that's been proven over the course of millions of years". Which particular time are you talking about? Because if you read up on the history of humans, you will see that it changes all the time and place to place.

Good reads:
"If members of this elusive taxon were like current chimpanzees and bonobos, plant foods such as fruits, leaves, gums, and stalks probably comprised at least 95% of their dietary intake with insects, eggs, and small animals making up the remainder (Milton, 1993; Tutin & Fernandez, 1993). The general nutritional parameters of an eating pattern along these lines can be estimated with modest confidence, although certainly not with mathematical exactitude. Protein would have contributed a greater proportion of total energy than it does for most contemporary humans, but with much more from vegetable sources than from animal. (Popovich, 1997) Simple carbohydrate intake would have been strikingly below that now common..."

"Total fat intake, especially of serum-cholesterol-raising saturated and trans fatty acids, must have been greatly below current American and European levels; cholesterol intake would have been minimal. Within the polyunsaturated fatty acid [PUFA] category, partition between the omega 6 and omega 3 (w-6 and w-3) families would have been reasonably equal or skewed slightly towards the w-3s."

"... humans consumed only one fourth the sodium average Westerners now do (Eaton, 1997). About 90% of current sodium intake results from food processing, preparation and flavoring: only 10% is intrinsic to the foods themselves. Many groups of hunter-gatherers, pastoralists and rudimentary horticulturalists who lack commercially available salt have been studied in this century: these ancestral human surrogates experience neither rising blood pressure with age nor clinical hypertension."

THere is so much on this site. I highly recommending all of it.

http://www.cast.uark.edu/local/icaes...aton/eaton.htm

" The foraging to farming transition has only been investigated in a handful of cases, and virtually all are from North America. Like the analysis of osteoarthritis, the temporal trends are conflicting in comparison of regions."

"What was the impact of the transition from foraging to farming on human health and well being? The answer is overall decline in health owing to shift to a poor quality diet and associated lifestyle changes brought on by increasing sedentism and population crowding. "

http://www.cast.uark.edu/local/icaes...en/larsen.html

"What all of these rather depressing statistics indicate is that though we may know how to put men and women on the moon, we certainly do not appear to know what to put on our own dinner table. There are many suggestions as to how some of these dietary problems might be remedied and hardly a week goes by when some nutrient or diet is not touted as the critical one for better human health. "

http://www.cast.uark.edu/local/icaes...n/kmilton.html

"Although there are not extensive data on childhood mortality in present day foragers, the data that do exist indicate that infant and early childhood mortality rates are quite high (see Figure 1). Among the Ache and the !Kung, from 12 to 20% of infants die in the first year of life, and an additional 12 to 18% of children die between the ages of 1 and 5 years."
http://www.cast.uark.edu/local/icaes...n/stinson.html


----------



## Gale Force (Jun 15, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *dnw826* 
Saturated fats aren't just found in animal products, though. Of course fats are good for you. It's just a matter of moderation and choice of fats.

That's exactly right. The devil's in the details. Price speaks to which fats to some degree but I am not sure that either work actually get to the amount of fat. And reason for the WAPF focus on butter is a substance Price isolated in butter that he called X-Factor. It aids in absorption of minerals. No one has researched the X-factor. I don't know if it's because no one is interested, because it doesn't exist, or because Price's work has been pretty obscure.

Quote:

JaneS, I did not find it hard getting my nutrients while being vegan. I am now an ovo-vegetarian, and admit I eat seafood if it is fresh and I am at the ocean.
But did you get 5-10X (or more) of the micronutrients of a modern diet of the 1930s? That's what traditional societies were eating according to Price's food analyses. I doubt I get that much and you should see the stuff I eat.


----------



## Benji'sMom (Sep 14, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *kallyn* 
If you read Nutrition and Physical Degeneration, you will see that Dr. Price studied cultures that varied widely in their dietary habits, from almost carnivorous to almost vegetarian. In all cases, those eating the traditional diet within their specific culture were healthier than those eating the modern diet within their specific culture. BUT, he also found that the healthy folks in the more carnivorous groups were healthier than the healthy folks in the more vegetarian groups. This was evidenced by the presence of dental caries. The mostly vegetarian group had many more caries than most of the other groups.


That's it? Just dental carries? I don't think that would be absolute proof of being "healthier" in general, to a lot of people it just proves healthier teeth, which obviously isn't your entire body, just teeth. But okay, I'm intrigued. I'll read the book, I promise.


----------



## pampered_mom (Mar 27, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *dnw826* 
Saturated fats aren't just found in animal products, though. Of course fats are good for you. It's just a matter of moderation and choice of fats.

I never said that they were only found in animal products...


----------



## newcastlemama (Jun 7, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Gale Force* 
What would be interesting is a comparison of a traditional diet like he studied and a diet like Joel Fuhrman advocates, with mountains of vegetables to get a lot of nutrients. A further interesting study would be to see if people on the Fuhrman diet eat as much produce as he appears to recommend. Of course this still wouldn't adress the issues of B12, vit A, and Vit D. (And DHA really)


I did follow the Fuhrman diet (example:smoothie with flax in the morning, huge salad for lunch, and salad plus bean soup for dinner) I just wonder how many nutrients are actually getting absorbed since _all_ fat is villianized. You are encouraged to not use oil in cooking or dressings, but you can have a little bit of nuts or avocado.

He also advocates what are pretty low weight IMO. According to him my optimal weight is 25 pounds less than I have ever achieved! (even on his program) I weigh the same as I did as a vegan but I have more energy and feel stronger with animal products.


----------



## kittywitty (Jul 5, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *pamered_mom* 
I never said that they were only found in animal products...

I didn't mean to say that you said it. But it's a common mistake that people think that sat fat is all bad and to avoid x and y when you don't even realize that it's in "healthy" stuff.


----------



## kittywitty (Jul 5, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *newcastlemama* 
I did follow the Fuhrman diet (example:smoothie with flax in the morning, huge salad for lunch, and salad plus bean soup for dinner) I just wonder how many nutrients are actually getting absorbed since _all_ fat is villianized. You are encouraged to not use oil in cooking or dressings, but you can have a little bit of nuts or avocado.

He also advocates what are pretty low weight IMO. According to him my optimal weight is 25 pounds less than I have ever achieved! (even on his program) I weigh the same as I did as a vegan but I have more energy and feel stronger with animal products.

Hmmm...I only have his Disease Proof your child book, so I didn't know all fats were villainized, but I don't remember that from the book. I do think that he has some excellent info on children and good recipes and tips. But I do not follow any diet, just take what sounds logical.


----------



## guestmama9916 (Jun 24, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Benji'sMom* 
That's it? Just dental carries? I don't think that would be absolute proof of being "healthier" in general, to a lot of people it just proves healthier teeth, which obviously isn't your entire body, just teeth. But okay, I'm intrigued. I'll read the book, I promise.









Acutally, the research doesn't stop at just dental caries. Later on, Price (or was it Pottenger?) theorized that dental caries and the bacteria that caused them were responsible for other chronic diseases in humans. To test his theory, he extracted the bad teeth from his human patients with chronic diseases and implanted them under the skin of cats. Whatever chronic disease the human had was passed on to the cat. I'll try to find a link that discusses this research in more detail. Its pretty fascinating and scary stuff.

ETA link:

_Dr. Price suspected that bacterial infection accompanied many degenerative illnesses. In the beginning, he didn't know what bacteria were involved or just how they contributed to so many disease conditions. But he did recall that in medical practice doctors made cultures from the infection site, grew the organism present in a culture medium and then injected the bacteria into an animal to see if they could reproduce the disease and thereby prove it was the cause of the illness.

Dr. Price suspected that these infections arose from the teeth. He decided to implant an extracted root-filled tooth under the skin of an animal. He felt that if bacteria were present and carrying illness, their presence in a tooth might offer the same kind of proof physicians found when they injected the bacterial culture to produce disease in an animal. That is exactly what took place. He found that by implanting the root-filled tooth, the disease of the patient was transferred to animals. Whatever disease the patient had, the animal with the extracted tooth under its skin developed the same disease as the patient.

In other words, if the patient had heart disease, the animal developed heart disease. If he had kidney trouble, disease of the kidney was transferred to the animal. If he had a problem in his joints, the animals' joints became similarly involved. The principle held true for the whole spectrum of human ailments. Whatever the disease, the animal would develop that of the patient.

Most of the time Dr. Price found the bacteria involved were of the streptococcus family, but he also found staphylococcus, spirochetes and fungi. He found that if a patient had more than one root-canal treated tooth, he could actually have a different organism infecting each one of the treated teeth. That is the reason some people have various ailments from their teeth, all at the same time. In addition, infected root canals have a detrimental effect on the immune system, causing a number of different illnesses._

http://www.price-pottenger.org/Articles/Rootcanal.htm

Kim


----------



## Panserbjorne (Sep 17, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *dnw826* 
Hmmm...I only have his Disease Proof your child book, so I didn't know all fats were villainized, but I don't remember that from the book. I do think that he has some excellent info on children and good recipes and tips. But I do not follow any diet, just take what sounds logical.

Because his third book was geared towards children it isn't a very low fat book. Eat to Live was geared towards adults who supposedly don't need much. I like his ideas, but I do think he missed the boat on a couple of things.

I think E2L is a good short term program as it really shifts people's ideas about what they can eat. Most people end up trying veggies they had never heard of before because you are required to eat so much. Long term, I don't think the nutrients are there.


----------



## Jennisee (Nov 15, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Mommay*
But I feel that thousands of years of tradition is much better testimony than decades-old diets.

I am not as well researched as many of the women here, but for me, this is what it comes down to. My body is the result of thousands, even millions, of years of evolution, and I try to think about what is my body designed to do. I liken it to breast milk and formula. My DD is designed to drink breast milk, and no scientific new formula will ever compare. Archeological findings show that our ancestors ate a variety of plant material and animal material, and I believe my body is designed to consume a traditional diet that includes meat, and I don't think modern science can come up with a suitable substitute. Granted, I find myself far away from such a diet, LOL, but it is the ideal I strive for.

I do have to say, though, I am attempting to take away from this discussion a justification to eat chocolate like I'm French.


----------



## pampered_mom (Mar 27, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *dnw826* 
I didn't mean to say that you said it. But it's a common mistake that people think that sat fat is all bad and to avoid x and y when you don't even realize that it's in "healthy" stuff.

I guess for me it's the fact that the standard for what's "healthy" keeps changing. I for one just got tired of trying to keep up with all the "bad" stuff and participating in this mass low-fat experiment that we've been subjected to.

I'd rather stick with butter and saturated fats/more traditional fats. At least they have a longer test period.









To each his own...


----------



## kittywitty (Jul 5, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *pamered_mom* 
I guess for me it's the fact that the standard for what's "healthy" keeps changing. I for one just got tired of trying to keep up with all the "bad" stuff and participating in this mass low-fat experiment that we've been subjected to.

I'd rather stick with butter and saturated fats/more traditional fats. At least they have a longer test period.









To each his own...

I'm in the middle. I am 100% anti-Atkins, but I think that you should have a moderate amount of healthy fats. There's nothing wrong with low fat if you don't take it to extremes.


----------



## avendesora (Sep 23, 2004)

I've seen a couple of quotes on here about Americans avoiding saturated fat, and I think I have to disagree.

I agree that switching from saturated fat to transfat is not a healthy move. However, if we replaced all our transfats with sat fat in the SAD, then that would still be too much saturated fat.

I think there was a line about "Americans avoiding saturated fat like the plague, and we're still all dying of heart disease." I think that's not true. I think there's lots of media stuff about avoiding saturated fat, hence the impression that we are avoiding saturated fat. However, I would argue that most Americans (eating SAD) aren't paying attention to that advice, and are continuing to eat saturated fats and are continuing to have heart disease.

I agree that saturated fats can play a role in diet, but moderation would be key in my mind.

I have a question... it's also been mentioned here (sorry, I can't remember where on this post I read anything!) about vegetable oils being modern and therefore being bad. I'll agree with that regarding canola, etc, but what about olive oil? Hasn't that been around for a long time? Doesn't that have some good stuff to it?

Aven


----------



## caedmyn (Jan 13, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *avendesora* 
I've seen a couple of quotes on here about Americans avoiding saturated fat, and I think I have to disagree.

I agree that switching from saturated fat to transfat is not a healthy move. However, if we replaced all our transfats with sat fat in the SAD, then that would still be too much saturated fat.

I think there was a line about "Americans avoiding saturated fat like the plague, and we're still all dying of heart disease." I think that's not true. I think there's lots of media stuff about avoiding saturated fat, hence the impression that we are avoiding saturated fat. However, I would argue that most Americans (eating SAD) aren't paying attention to that advice, and are continuing to eat saturated fats and are continuing to have heart disease.

I agree that saturated fats can play a role in diet, but moderation would be key in my mind.

I have a question... it's also been mentioned here (sorry, I can't remember where on this post I read anything!) about vegetable oils being modern and therefore being bad. I'll agree with that regarding canola, etc, but what about olive oil? Hasn't that been around for a long time? Doesn't that have some good stuff to it?

Aven

Again, if you go back and look at Dr. Price's research, several of the populations he studied ate A LOT of saturated fat and were perfectly healthy...it's interesting that heart disease was unknown in the United States when people only consumed saturated/animal fats--it wasn't until they started consuming vegetable oils that heart disease became common. Your body needs saturated fat to function--your brain and heart can't work without it. It's especially important for babies and young children, which is why BM contains a lot of saturated fat.

Olive oil is a traditional oil that is processed totally differently than modern vegetable oils (although you need to get oil that says "100% cold pressed extra virgin olive oil" or other oils or lesser quality olive oil are mixed in with it...or so I've read). Olive oil contains mostly monounsaturated fats, while most vegetable oils contain mostly polyunsaturated fats/fatty acids.


----------



## kittywitty (Jul 5, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *avendesora* 
I've seen a couple of quotes on here about Americans avoiding saturated fat, and I think I have to disagree.

I agree that switching from saturated fat to transfat is not a healthy move. However, if we replaced all our transfats with sat fat in the SAD, then that would still be too much saturated fat.

I think there was a line about "Americans avoiding saturated fat like the plague, and we're still all dying of heart disease." I think that's not true. I think there's lots of media stuff about avoiding saturated fat, hence the impression that we are avoiding saturated fat. However, I would argue that most Americans (eating SAD) aren't paying attention to that advice, and are continuing to eat saturated fats and are continuing to have heart disease.

I agree that saturated fats can play a role in diet, but moderation would be key in my mind.

I have a question... it's also been mentioned here (sorry, I can't remember where on this post I read anything!) about vegetable oils being modern and therefore being bad. I'll agree with that regarding canola, etc, but what about olive oil? Hasn't that been around for a long time? Doesn't that have some good stuff to it?

Aven


Good points. I agree. As much attention as sat fats get here, Americans do not avoid sat fats like we say. Look at the average American diet for proof of sat fat levels.


----------



## AJP (Apr 30, 2003)

I think if you look at the available stats, per capita, Americans eat much _less_ butter and other animal fats now, and much _more_ veg oils high in polyunsaturates, since the 1950s or so, than in the couple of hundred years prior to that (when heart disease, among other things, was much less common). I agree most people aren't putting much thought into what they eat, it's not as if they're consciously choosing to eat polyunsaturated and trans fats instead of natural, saturated fats, but they eat what the food processing industry offers and/or what's cheap. Highly processed, damaged vegetable oils, including partially hydrogenated, are the foundation fats used in food processing - baked goods, all things boxed or frozen in grocery stores, fast foods, etc.


----------



## Selesai (Oct 26, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *AJP* 
I think if you look at the available stats, per capita, Americans eat much _less_ butter and other animal fats now, and much _more_ veg oils high in polyunsaturates, since the 1950s or so, than in the couple of hundred years prior to that (when heart disease, among other things, was much less common). I agree most people aren't putting much thought into what they eat, it's not as if they're consciously choosing to eat polyunsaturated and trans fats instead of natural, saturated fats, but they eat what the food processing industry offers and/or what's cheap. Highly processed, damaged vegetable oils, including partially hydrogenated, are the foundation fats used in food processing - baked goods, all things boxed or frozen in grocery stores, fast foods, etc.

This seems accurate. However, I don't think you can equate highly processed and damaged vegetable oils with cold, expeller pressed oils. And I don't really understand how these oils are "less natural" than saturated fat? They both require processing of some sort-- whether it is growing and milking a cow, then churning the butter, or slaughtering a pig and deriving the lard, or growing some olives, sticking them in a press, and squeezing. ?


----------



## MyLittleWonders (Feb 16, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Selesai* 
This seems accurate. However, I don't think you can equate highly processed and damaged vegetable oils with cold, expeller pressed oils. And I don't really understand how these oils are "less natural" than saturated fat? They both require processing of some sort-- whether it is growing and milking a cow, then churning the butter, or slaughtering a pig and deriving the lard, or growing some olives, sticking them in a press, and squeezing. ?

I don't think anyone here is arguing against the use of cold-pressed olive oil. It's the corn, soy, safflower, vegetable, and canola oils that "traditional foodists" have issues with as being unnatural and harmful to the body. They really are different types of oil all around. Olive oil has been long used in history; it's proven itself to be healthy in moderation, though it's best used cold/room temperature and not cooked.

Yes, butter requires "processing" but nothing more than what you can do in your own kitchen. You can milk the cow, skim the cream, and churn your own butter without too much work. Try making corn oil, canola oil, or the like in your kitchen though. Personally, I don't consider butter, true lard, or olive oil to be "processed" in the same sense as corn oil or partially hydrogenated fats. There really is no comparrison.


----------



## Gale Force (Jun 15, 2003)

I read The China Study and it is very compelling, but without seeing the original study, it's hard to engage in a good discussion. In the Masterjohn review, he basically says this -- he questions whether markers of animal eating are actually markers of animal eating. And it's a good question. Campbell talks about homocysteine as a protein from animal food, and so high homocysteine suggests animal eating. But plasma homocysteine is used as an indirect measure of your B-12, folate, and B-6 status. Low levels of those vitamins translate into high homocysteine, so high homocysteine means a poor B-12, folate, and/or B-6 status. Because B-12 is only in animal and animal is more dense in B-6, vegetarians tend to have higher levels of plasma homocysteine.

I would like to see the statistical models in the original study and was just at UC Berkeley but the book was not available. It's a $300 book and there are only about four UCs that have it.


----------



## Gale Force (Jun 15, 2003)

And by that general definition of "processed," all food is processed. I have to pick salad greens, wash them, dry them, and tear them before having my salad. I guess when I pick the apple right off the tree and eat it, it's not processed. But if I wash it and slice it to eat with almond butter, it's also processed.


----------



## kittywitty (Jul 5, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MyLittleWonders* 
I don't think anyone here is arguing against the use of cold-pressed olive oil. It's the corn, soy, safflower, vegetable, and canola oils that "traditional foodists" have issues with as being unnatural and harmful to the body. They really are different types of oil all around. Olive oil has been long used in history; it's proven itself to be healthy in moderation, though it's best used cold/room temperature and not cooked.

Yes, butter requires "processing" but nothing more than what you can do in your own kitchen. You can milk the cow, skim the cream, and churn your own butter without too much work. Try making corn oil, canola oil, or the like in your kitchen though. Personally, I don't consider butter, true lard, or olive oil to be "processed" in the same sense as corn oil or partially hydrogenated fats. There really is no comparrison.

WHy is Olive Oil not best cooked? That doesn't make sense to me.


----------



## Aguazul (Sep 16, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MyLittleWonders* 
I don't think anyone here is arguing against the use of cold-pressed olive oil. It's the corn, soy, safflower, vegetable, and canola oils that "traditional foodists" have issues with as being unnatural and harmful to the body. They really are different types of oil all around. Olive oil has been long used in history; it's proven itself to be healthy in moderation, though it's best used cold/room temperature and not cooked.

Yes, butter requires "processing" but nothing more than what you can do in your own kitchen. You can milk the cow, skim the cream, and churn your own butter without too much work. Try making corn oil, canola oil, or the like in your kitchen though. Personally, I don't consider butter, true lard, or olive oil to be "processed" in the same sense as corn oil or partially hydrogenated fats. There really is no comparrison.


What about coconut oil? I've seen mention of it lately, but have never tried it. Is it healthier than other oils?


----------



## guestmama9916 (Jun 24, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *dnw826* 
WHy is Olive Oil not best cooked? That doesn't make sense to me.

The key to cooking with ANY oil is to not heat it higher than its smoke point. Heating olive oil too high changes it. It then becomes rancid when you eat it and zaps your body of vitamin E instead of giving your body vitamin E. Here's a great link for figuring out good fats versus bad fats. Also check out this link for smoke points and uses for certain oils.

HTH!

Kim


----------



## guestmama9916 (Jun 24, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Aguazul* 
What about coconut oil? I've seen mention of it lately, but have never tried it. Is it healthier than other oils?

Coconut oil has a higher smoke point than olive oil and many other oils. That makes it a good candidate for cooking with. Coconut oil is cholesterol free and has many health benefits such as being good for your skin as well as antimicrobal and antifungal. Coconut oil also supports your metabolism. I eat it to help me lose weight and its working.

Kim


----------



## pampered_mom (Mar 27, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *AJP* 
I agree most people aren't putting much thought into what they eat, it's not as if they're consciously choosing to eat polyunsaturated and trans fats instead of natural, saturated fats, but they eat what the food processing industry offers and/or what's cheap. Highly processed, damaged vegetable oils, including partially hydrogenated, are the foundation fats used in food processing - baked goods, all things boxed or frozen in grocery stores, fast foods, etc.


I would agree that in general most folks don't "think" about what they eat and why - they do go for what's available. At the same time, the recommendations coming from groups like the federal government and the AHA awhile back were suggesting the consumption of trans fats over saturated fats. Whether or not that results in everyone does this or not isn't the point - it's the fact that it results in an underlying nutritional understanding.

Another example of the saturated fat - trans fat discussion would be to look at McDonald's. Early on in their history they were using beef tallow - a saturated fat - to cook their fries. When staurated fats became the evil then they switched to partially hydrogenated vegetable oils which, if their own food labeling is to be trusted results in 4.5 g of trans fat in their present medium size. Of course, now the push is on to come up with a trans fat free option - so what options are left? Obviously, one is to avoid McD's completely, but there are folks who won't. The other is to choose a more fragile vegetable oil which poses another health risk.

Of course, part of this discussion of fats should be acknowledgement of the fact that animal products are not comprised of only saturated fats. Traditional lard (not the partially hydrogenated stuff available in most stores), for example, is mostly _un_saturated.


----------



## Mommay (Jul 29, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *dnw826* 
Saturated fats aren't just found in animal products, though. Of course fats are good for you. It's just a matter of moderation and choice of fats.

Gale Force addressed this already, but another detail, only animal fats have the retinol the "true" form of vitamin A. Beta carotene is in plant foods. According to NT, it takes complex physiologic, enzymatic processes to extract true A from beta-carotene, and a person would have to eat broccoli dawn to sunset to derive enough. Plus there are micro-nutrients in fats that probably aid in the usability of the FAT-soluble vitamins. Sally Fallon in one of her talks talked about how we should save our resources (nutrients and enzymes) for growth and other metabolic processes. We need retinol.


----------



## Mommay (Jul 29, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Jennisee* 
.

I do have to say, though, I am attempting to take away from this discussion a justification to eat chocolate like I'm French.

















And who wouldn't draw that conclusion?


----------



## Mommay (Jul 29, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *dnw826* 
Good points. I agree. As much attention as sat fats get here, Americans do not avoid sat fats like we say. Look at the average American diet for proof of sat fat levels.

Another consideration is whether animal fats from conventional animals is good for you. I don't know if there are studies, but I think trans fats is probably the issue with SAD. All the fast food places use trans fats (well with the exception now of Wendy's and KFC). Also, the sugar, fried foods, chemicals, and all that crap that goes into fast food probably all contribute. So it's an over-all picture.


----------



## pampered_mom (Mar 27, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Mommay* 
All the fast food places use trans fats (well with the exception now of Wendy's and KFC).

I wonder about what oil Wendy's and KFC is using and to what degree the high temperatures and reuse that these oils go through will damage the oil...


----------



## guestmama9916 (Jun 24, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *pamered_mom* 
I wonder about what oil Wendy's and KFC is using and to what degree the high temperatures and reuse that these oils go through will damage the oil...

I heard on the radio that KFC was planning to use Soybean oil but then I read somewhere else that it was Canola. Either way I wouldn't touch the stuff. Canola is genetically modified and can turn into something like varnish inside the body if its heated too high during frying. I don't know much about soybean oil but the mere fact that its soy is enough to make me run very far away from KFC.







I looked up Wendy's online and they are using a blend of corn and soybean oil.

Kim


----------



## Mommay (Jul 29, 2004)

pamered mom and kimbernet, Thanks for the info. and thought. I hope I didn't come across as being okay with KFC and Wendy's for using non-trans-fats. Anything fried of course is not okay from my understanding. High heat and oil releases toxins, right? I'm not sure about protein, but I know that frying starches, especially potatos, releases acrylamides, which are cancerous. This is a good link to talk about that: http://www.deliciousorganics.com/Con...otatochips.htm

We might (hopefully soon) start seeing a cancer warning label on potato chips and french fry bags.

I point this out even though I gave french fries to my ds just today.







: When in Rome...


----------



## JaneS (Jan 11, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Mommay* 
According to NT, it takes complex physiologic, enzymatic processes to extract true A from beta-carotene, and a person would have to eat broccoli dawn to sunset to derive enough.

Actually the Institute of Medicine says this and concluded that in healthy individuals, beta carotene to retinol conversion is 12:1, meaning it would take at least *6 carrots* to get the paltry 5,000 IU of retinol ... which is I think is the current RDA? And that is IF your gut is working properly. Which as we know, many peoples' digestion is not.

Recent studies have show that this IOM estimate is low and it's more like 20:1.

Studies on children have shown upwards of 48:1.


----------



## Mommay (Jul 29, 2004)

Thanks for that info. JaneS. I was going by a presentation that S. Fallon gave, but it's a good confirmation to know that it's backed up from other sources.

One thing I hope people don't get from this thread is to go out and buy a bunch of vit. A supplements because if they're synthetic, they could be useless at best and harmful at worst. And if they're from whole food sources, if it's beta-carotene, it still has the problem of taxing the body's reserves. One thing I like about NT is that because of its (w)holistic approach, it's as much about the synergestic affect of food taken as a whole as it is about eating specific things. Fats especially seem to be essential to metabolic processes. So I've heard it said that one should eat greens with oils, etc. I have a vegetarian friend who gives her dd a serving of cod liver oil, like a 1/2 tsp. That may be all it takes for anyone.


----------



## kittywitty (Jul 5, 2005)

kimbernet said:


> The key to cooking with ANY oil is to not heat it higher than its smoke point. Heating olive oil too high changes it. It then becomes rancid when you eat it and zaps your body of vitamin E instead of giving your body vitamin E. Here's a great link for figuring out good fats versus bad fats. Also check out this link for smoke points and uses for certain oils.
> 
> HTH!
> 
> ...


----------



## kittywitty (Jul 5, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Mommay* 
Gale Force addressed this already, but another detail, only animal fats have the retinol the "true" form of vitamin A. Beta carotene is in plant foods. According to NT, it takes complex physiologic, enzymatic processes to extract true A from beta-carotene, and a person would have to eat broccoli dawn to sunset to derive enough. Plus there are micro-nutrients in fats that probably aid in the usability of the FAT-soluble vitamins. Sally Fallon in one of her talks talked about how we should save our resources (nutrients and enzymes) for growth and other metabolic processes. We need retinol.

When I was in nutrition, they never addresed this. So I was looking stuff up about what you said with Vit A.

"Vitamin A is a fat-soluble vitamin derived primarily from animal-based foods. However, the body can also make vitamin A from beta-carotene, a fat-soluble nutrient found in dark green leafy vegetables and the more brightly colored fruits and vegetables such as carrots, sweet potatoes, and cantaloupe."

"In many cases, taking beta-carotene (a building block of vitamin A, is a safer alternative to taking vitamin A. Unlike vitamin A, beta-carotene does not build up in the body, so it can be taken in larger amounts without the same risk. This makes it a better alternative for children, adults with liver or kidney disease, and pregnant women in particular."

There is some great info on here. I do eat eggs, so this isn't an issue for me.
http://www.umm.edu/altmed/ConsSupple...Retinolcs.html

It also says that broccoli only contains 45.6% of your DV, but carrots contain 686.3% in your dv. So getting enough shouldn't be an issue.

"Vegetarians who do not consume eggs and dairy foods need provitamin A carotenoids to meet their need for vitamin A [1]. They should include a minimum of five servings of fruits and vegetables in their daily diet and regularly choose dark green leafy vegetables and orange and yellow fruits to consume recommended amounts of vitamin A."
http://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/vitamina.asp


----------



## Gale Force (Jun 15, 2003)

dnw826 -- that issue really goes to the heart of the plant vs animal food debate. Are there plant sources of all of the necessary nutrients to keep a person healthy on an exclusive plant diet? The beta carotene to Vit A is controversial, as is the algae forms of B-12 and DHA. Some people also believe that we can't or don't get enough vit D from the sun and that we need it from food. It's only found in animal.

My view is that if I am deficient in one, I'm going to go right to the source and not count on my body converting it from a plant if it is found in a direct form in an animal. But I've chased around my share of deficiencies and it's tiring.


----------



## kittywitty (Jul 5, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Gale Force* 
dnw826 -- that issue really goes to the heart of the plant vs animal food debate. Are there plant sources of all of the necessary nutrients to keep a person healthy on an exclusive plant diet? The beta carotene to Vit A is controversial, as is the algae forms of B-12 and DHA. Some people also believe that we can't or don't get enough vit D from the sun and that we need it from food. It's only found in animal.

My view is that if I am deficient in one, I'm going to go right to the source and not count on my body converting it from a plant if it is found in a direct form in an animal. But I've chased around my share of deficiencies and it's tiring.

No, I agree. If you are very deficient, get it the best way possible. But plant sources are fine if you eat healthfully and monitor your intake (I do this kind of obsessively) and keep on top of it. Everyone is different.









As far as Vit D, I found some really good research on the connection between the shift to becoming white for certain populations, lactose intolerance, and Vit D. I will try and find the link.

"Other selective forces may also have been at work. Flatz (1987) has suggested that calcium absorption was such a factor in northern Europe. Lactose is known to facilitate calcium absorption in the intestine. The cold, cloudy climate frequently discouraged skin exposure to sunlight, thereby reducing the body's production of vitamin D. Relatively little dietary vitamin D was available, and so in its absence, calcium was poorly absorbed. Northern populations were thus vulnerable to rickets and osteomalacia. Pelvic deformities made births more difficult. The gradual extinction of the Greenland Viking colony is an example; skeletal evidence shows that such bone diseases were common among this moribund population. A mutant LAC*P allele would not only allow adults to use an excellent source of calcium, but the lactose would also facilitate its absorption. While not proven, this hypothesis has attracted much attention. It would complement the theory that the pale skin of northern Europeans is a genetic trait maximizing the utility of sunlight in vitamin D production and, hence, calcium absorption."
http://www.cambridge.org/us/books/kiple/lactose.htm

Interesting, huh!!!


----------



## Mommay (Jul 29, 2004)

Ditto Gale Force. I would also add that the idea that beta-carotene is "safer" comes from the controversy started when people realized that one could overdose on vit. A. But as far as I know, the real concern is over synthetic supplements of A. I don't know the exact facts, so I hope someone else can chime in, but there is no real concern when the retinol is from a whole foods source, which includes CLO. But again, I haven't done the research. I'm going by what I've read on the Traditional Foods forum.

Dnw826, you seem very open-minded. Thanks for having this discussion. I think more often than not, the NT people are more willing to engage, probably because we can back up things with nutritional facts. With veg*ans, they stand on ethics, which is a more amorphous area and perhaps harder to argue. I respect your choices, and thanks for showing the respect back.

ETA: You do argue nutritional facts, but the harder argument is the ethical one.


----------



## nicolelynn (Aug 18, 2006)

I've always thought and always will that moderation is everything.

Even as I am convinced on traditional foods, I don't swallow everything W.A. Price and S. Fallon say whole (I still have my 1 cup of organic coffee per day, don't drink gobs of coconut oil as a supplement...and will never stomach the idea of a Raw Liver Tonic, as healthy as it may be). But what convinced me that we need some animal products is that there has never been a people group truly vegan with excellent health for multiple generations to really track. Mankind has thrived for thousands of years in the circle of life consuming animal products in varying forms.

I am convinced that I need saturated fat, but I don't go to great lengths to get alot in me. DH and I already go through nearly a whole stick of high quality butter each per week (thats about 2 TBLSP a day each) so I'm sure that alone is enough. We still have a few days a week we are practically vegetarian (oatmeal for breakfast, egg salad sandwich on sprouted grain bread and salad for lunch, veggie curry with coconut milk, rice and veggie ferment for dinner..etc) except maybe some both brone to cook our grains in. I am convinced we need animal products, but I'm not convinced we need meat everyday.

Anyways, it will be interesting to see some research a couple generations down the road between whole food vegans and whole traditional foods followers. In the meantime...whole foods either way has got to be better than heavily processed soy vegan diets and commercial pasteurized animal product diets.

Na Zhdarovy







,
Nicole


----------



## nicolelynn (Aug 18, 2006)

I've always thought and always will that moderation is everything.

Even as I am convinced on traditional foods, I don't swallow everything W.A. Price and S. Fallon say whole (I still have my 1 cup of organic coffee per day, don't drink gobs of coconut oil as a supplement...and will never stomach the idea of a Raw Liver Tonic, as healthy as it may be). But what convinced me that we need some animal products is that there has never been a people group truly vegan with excellent health for multiple generations to really track. Mankind has thrived for thousands of years in the circle of life consuming animal products in varying forms.

I am convinced that I need saturated fat, but I don't go to great lengths to get alot in me. DH and I already go through nearly a whole stick of high quality butter each per week (thats about 2 TBLSP a day each) so I'm sure that alone is enough. We still have a few days a week we are practically vegetarian (oatmeal for breakfast, egg salad sandwich on sprouted grain bread and salad for lunch, veggie curry with coconut milk, rice and veggie ferment for dinner..etc) except maybe some both brone to cook our grains in. I am convinced we need animal products, but I'm not convinced we need meat everyday.

Anyways, it will be interesting to see some research a couple generations down the road between whole food vegans and whole traditional foods followers. In the meantime...whole foods either way has got to be better than heavily processed soy vegan diets and commercial pasteurized animal product diets.

Na Zhdarovy







,
Nicole


----------



## kittywitty (Jul 5, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *nicolelynn* 
I've always thought and always will that moderation is everything.

Even as I am convinced on traditional foods, I don't swallow everything W.A. Price and S. Fallon say whole (I still have my 1 cup of organic coffee per day, don't drink gobs of coconut oil as a supplement...and will never stomach the idea of a Raw Liver Tonic, as healthy as it may be). But what convinced me that we need some animal products is that there has never been a people group truly vegan with excellent health for multiple generations to really track. Mankind has thrived for thousands of years in the circle of life consuming animal products in varying forms.

I am convinced that I need saturated fat, but I don't go to great lengths to get alot in me. DH and I already go through nearly a whole stick of high quality butter each per week (thats about 2 TBLSP a day each) so I'm sure that alone is enough. We still have a few days a week we are practically vegetarian (oatmeal for breakfast, egg salad sandwich on sprouted grain bread and salad for lunch, veggie curry with coconut milk, rice and veggie ferment for dinner..etc) except maybe some both brone to cook our grains in. I am convinced we need animal products, but I'm not convinced we need meat everyday.

Anyways, it will be interesting to see some research a couple generations down the road between whole food vegans and whole traditional foods followers. In the meantime...whole foods either way has got to be better than heavily processed soy vegan diets and commercial pasteurized animal product diets.

Na Zhdarovy







,
Nicole

I agree. Though I have been ethically a vegetarian on and off since childhood. I have never really liked the taste or texture, as well. I think that the big problem with veganism is so many people rely so heavily on everything soy. I was for awhile, but fell off the wagon when we moved to the ocean and the kids started liking eggs.









My big thing is that most of us *can not* have dairy. And I would gladly trade my soy stuff for some real raw local and humanely raised sheep (like what I hope to do someday) milk and butter and cheese. But it's just not gonna happen. So I find we rely a lot on soy. And I love soy, but I also believe in moderation. I am really trying to find a good substitute for rice milk, but it doesn't have enough nutrients in it, IMO and it doesn't work as well for baking.

Noone happens to have the above things do you?


----------



## Panserbjorne (Sep 17, 2003)

How about almond or coconut milk? We use no soy (even as vegans!) and always ate very well. Coconut milk goes in almost anything, and almond does the job when coconut doesn't.


----------



## kittywitty (Jul 5, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *firefaery* 
How about almond or coconut milk? We use no soy (even as vegans!) and always ate very well. Coconut milk goes in almost anything, and almond does the job when coconut doesn't.

I do use coconut milk some. It just always seems kind of expensive, chunky, and weird. Maybe it's just the brand I get? Almond milk is okay, but the last brand I got was super funky. Are there any known problems with drinking a lot of almond milk?


----------



## Gale Force (Jun 15, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *dnw826* 
No, I agree. If you are very deficient, get it the best way possible. But plant sources are fine if you eat healthfully and monitor your intake (I do this kind of obsessively) and keep on top of it. Everyone is different.









I was thinking about this last night and forgot when I read this yesterday that you also said you eat eggs. Free range eggs or the eggs from hens fed flax have DHA in the yolks, so you wouldn't have to worry about whether you are converting vegan sources. They also have the fat soluble vitamins if you eat the yolks and some B-12. So I guess what I am saying is that you don't rely on plants for these nutrients, you get them in eggs.

Right now I can hear 20 chicks peeping in the porch room behind me. We'll have plenty of eggs in the spring.


----------



## kittywitty (Jul 5, 2005)

I can't wait till next summer! We are trying to buy a house and I plan on getting chickens for eggs, and some other animals and starting a farm. Ah, dreams. I do eat free range, and the best, most ethical I can find. But I want to raise my own chickens "to be sure".


----------

