# WAP/raw foods discussion thread



## newcastlemama (Jun 7, 2005)

Hi mamas....
Over the the traditional foods forum we decided we wanted to discuss WAP/raw foods ect after Wendy started a thread about the WAPF pregnancy diet. Theat thread http://www.mothering.com/discussions...d.php?t=518382

I was a mostly raw strict vegetarian (after reading Dr.Joel Fuhrman's Eat to Live). After some health problems I started researching more and decided that I needed some animal products. I now lean more towards traditional foods but I really like the raw foods concepts also. I feel like I want to blend these. I go through phases where I feel I need meat, but feel it would be very easy for me to be mostly vegetarian if I could have raw butter, milk and cheese plus free range eggs. *Zoebird* --I really like the sound of your diet that you have compiled.

I want *Firefaery* to expand on how she likes Price's research but thinks that Fallon has interpreted some things wrong.

Let's talk about this for fun!!
Jennifer


----------



## Panserbjorne (Sep 17, 2003)

I'll have to do this when I have a bit more time...and remember, I'm still figuring this all out.

I love Weston Price's work and was first referred to it several years ago. I really liked what I was reading, but when I picked up NT I was a bit turned off. I didn't really understand why until I read N&PD. It was then that I realized that the problem for me was with Sally Fallon. I feel as though she really has an agenda. This was confirmed to me as I poked around and saw how she twists information. One of the best examples of this were her attacks on Loren Cordain who is brilliant and has alot more knowledge than she. Reading the transcripts of the exchanges was really what made her look terrible.

Then I started thinking about it. WAP talks about traditional diets. He speaks about indiginous tribes and their native food. Sally Fallon just meshes it all. I don't believe that WAP meant for his research to be used this way-of course I could be wrong. I'm not sure you can take all of the components of these different diets, add them up and not expect to be out of balance. THeir diets were what they were because they provided everything that they needed. When you add more in you run the risk of deficiencies or excesses.

I'll write more when I have more time, as I said. This is just what I'm exploring at this time.

Currently I am eating about 80% raw. I am back on meat again, but can't do eggs or dairy even in the form of fat (butter.) I soak and sprout all nuts and seeds. I use some fermented foods and I get as much fat as I can into my diet. I make everything from scratch out of necessity. I am GF and am in the process of trying to incorporate more grains into my diet ( I was grain free for a long time.) I tried oatmeal and it was a no-go. That's where I am now.


----------



## alamama (Mar 21, 2005)

Dh used to be vegan then discovered WAP; I was lacto-ovo vegetarian when we met and he got me into traditional eating. We both feel healthiest eating a traditional diet. I've learned a great deal and really benefited from the emphasis on high quality, grass fed animal products, raw milk, properly prepared grains and fermented foods.

That said, we shop at a health food store that emphasizes a vegan/raw food approach and we know many people who have experienced healing on that kind of diet. And over the past three years we've realized that dh is sensitive to wheat and cow dairy and have eliminated these from our diets.

So, my concerns with SF's approach...
-There is little recognition that many people have problems with cow dairy, even when it is raw. (Dh thrives on goat milk.)
-I still question what role grains should play in our diet, even when they are properly prepared. I find "paleo" approaches that de-emphasize grains very persuasive.
-Fruits and vegetables seem so neglected









Apart from her dietary recommendations, I find SF's approach rather "caustic" (to use her word from Wise Traditions). That negativity detracted from my enjoyment of WT.

So, I'm grateful for a lot of what WAPF does, including spreading the word and creating a network and market. But like anything else, I take what works for us and leave the rest.


----------



## Panserbjorne (Sep 17, 2003)

oooooh, don't tell Sally you like the paleo diet!







:


----------



## alamama (Mar 21, 2005)

Quote:

I feel as though she really has an agenda. This was confirmed to me as I poked around and saw how she twists information.
Yes, this is my sense as well. A few years back there was an issue of WT in which she insinuated that Andrea Yates, who murdered her children (possibly in a psychotic ppd episode) was suffering from a nutritional deficiency and should have been taking some CLO. I was horrified that she would exploit a family's tragedy in order to promote her own agenda.


----------



## guestmama9916 (Jun 24, 2006)

:

Has anyone ever noticed that the Realmilk website says that homogenized milk has been linked to heart disease but when you go to the WAPF site and read the long article on homogenized milk it clearly says that this link was disproven?? That's pretty misleading don't you think? Everybody's got an agenda, don't they?







: We need threads like this to sort it all out.

Kim


----------



## EBG (May 3, 2006)

I have not read N&PD as my local libraries don't have it, so I don't know how much Sally Fallon respresents or misrepresents his research. I have NT and love it! Some recipes don't work out too well, but probably because I'm still a newbie. This is the closest thing I found to the way people ate in the Bible. I'm A Christian and believe the Bible covers most aspects of our lives including a healthy diet. I believe God gave us plants and grains and animals to eat, and in their natural state they are nourishing and good for us. They shouldn't make us sick. There are warnings about overindulging in something that will make you sick. For example honey: Proverbs says that if you find honey, eat some of it because it's good for you but don't eat too much or you'll get sick.

Anyway, I think this is why I got sick: too much sugar and junk. During my pregnancy and after I could eat 6 doughnuts at one sitting. I was just so addicted to sugar.
The other problem with modern food is that it's not real: humans like to alter everything. I believe there's nothing wrong with cooking certain things like grains and meats if it makes them more digestible. I also believe we should ear as many things raw as we can with common sense (not grains or nuts, for example).

I agree with the bad and good oil stance, I felt so much better as a child when we used pork lard and butter and no wonder everybody's health started declining when we swithced to vegetable oils and margarine. And more and more sugar. And 2 percent milk and low-fat diet.

I agree that pasteurization and homogenization are horrible inventions. I remember drinking raw milk as a child a few times, and it was wonderful. I'm looking forward to having a family cow soon! Fortunately noone is allergic to milk proteins in my family.
I do agree there is a little too much emphasis on raw dairy in NT as if every traditional society consumed it all the time and everyone should do it now.
But allergies and intolerances to milk proteins and lactose are not normal IMO.

That Andrea Yates thing was strange to me too. I feel that SF blames everything on diet: psychotic behavior, homosexuality, etc etc. That's just not true. I do believe diet does have an influence on behavior and as we know the proper diet can reverse some mental problems but diet is not the only reason as she would have us believe. It's a little simplistic to think CLO would prevent a possessed woman from murder.

Just M2Cs.


----------



## Panserbjorne (Sep 17, 2003)

EBG- I think that's the worst part, is that there's so much great info you tend to sort of believe that alot of this stuff is fact the way she presents it. It's not, even by WAP. It's her interpretation which there are MANY holes in.

I actually think Jordan Rubin comes closer to the Bible. Have you read him at all? He refers to the good parts of NT and WAp quite a bit.


----------



## WendyC (Jun 16, 2005)

I keep getting stuck when my dh makes a big point that our (ie - British Isle) ancestors never had coconut oil. Coconut oil makes us a little ill (well in his case - very ill, his belly can't handle it well at all) But the raw milk has been a very positive addition to our diet - we feel great when we drink it. That seems to make sense that it would work well with our phisology.

One reason the pregnancy diet really threw me off was the lack of emphasis on fruits and veggies! The have them at the bottom of the list - why? Seems to me that especially in my pregnant state i should be eating lots and lots of those. Just common sense.

And I have hemochromotosis - as does a large percentage of people decended from the British isles, its the most prevelant chromosomal disorder of that group. We can't process iron and store up too much of in our bodies until we drop dead from organ failure, usually after menopause because our monthlies bleed out the excess iron while we are young. So in my pregnant - non bleeding state, I want to advoid eating liver, and too much iron or it can really make me sick - but she seems to gloss over everything as being cured by CLO or Raw milk with no exceptions made whatsoever.

This is all disjointed and not very well put together - but i am really searching for the right mix of diets for our family and traditional foods makes a ton of sense, but there are those elements that don't really fit together like the coconut oil and liver.

Can anyone go into more about raw foods and how they are important in a traditional diet? Sally seemed way more into fermenting the veggies and fruits than emphasising raw.

Last night i was watching Tribal Life on TLC - anyone see that? They follow the Bunlap tribe that lives a traditional lifestyle on Vanantu in the South Pacific - beautiful, gleaming white teeth, lean healthy beautiful bodies, round faces... I watched as they hunted bats, ate a banana off a tree and dug fresh walnuts out of the forrest and ate those raw.

Another disjointed thought - Wouldn't it suck to have Sally over for dinner! Yikes! What a nightmare.


----------



## caedmyn (Jan 13, 2006)

subbing


----------



## mamabohl (May 21, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *WendyC*

Another disjointed thought - Wouldn't it suck to have Sally over for dinner! Yikes! What a nightmare.









At least you wouldn't have to worry about the food actually TASTING good, judging by her recipes.


----------



## EBG (May 3, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *firefaery*
EBG- I think that's the worst part, is that there's so much great info you tend to sort of believe that alot of this stuff is fact the way she presents it. It's not, even by WAP. It's her interpretation which there are MANY holes in.

I actually think Jordan Rubin comes closer to the Bible. Have you read him at all? He refers to the good parts of NT and WAp quite a bit.

No, but I'll check my library.
Can you tell me more about how SF misrepresents WAP's research? I'm very curious now.


----------



## Vaquitita (Mar 2, 2006)

this thread is very interesting, thought i'd throw in my 2c.

i think that wp's research shows that there isn't any one way we need to eat. there are alot of different ways to get what we need. i think as long as we stick to properly prepared whole foods, then eating what you like/crave will get you the nutrients you need. i don't believe in evolution -that my body can only handle the foods my ancestors have evolved to handle. i love mexican food and indian food (and have no problems digesting them), i'm not going to stop eating them because that isn't my ancestry. i'm mostly scottish and german, but i'm not about to start eating sheeps brains and blood sausage.

i'm probably not explaining myself well, but i just don't think that our bodies can only handle a specific combination of foods, we are way more adaptable than that.

Quote:

I'm not sure you can take all of the components of these different diets, add them up and not expect to be out of balance. THeir diets were what they were because they provided everything that they needed. When you add more in you run the risk of deficiencies or excesses.


----------



## newcastlemama (Jun 7, 2005)

*EBG*-Traditional foods made sense in a spiritual way for me too. The mostly raw foods strict veggie thing was also supported by some Christian groups because they say it is how we would have eaten before the fall of mankind. (Halleluja Diet, Genesis Diet). I was reading beyondveg.com and their was a former Halleluja Diet "minister" who was talking about the super low-fat vegan diets making people mental. After more research I had to agree. Plus,we know Jesus ate fish.

The Maker's Diet is cool because Rubin had a personal transformation and he talks about other health enhancing old-fashioned advice--no vax, use less chemical products, mercury fillings are not good, get outside, get sun, get activity and beleive you will get better. I think there is some validity to the abstaining from pork, shellfish ect but I personally feel that if you start following some Levitical/OT laws because you think it is right, then you need to follow the rest. (I don't care if others abstain though, just my beleifs).

My best friend was telling me this term she heard called "God-food" and "man-made food". SAD/low-fat makes you think that the only way you can stay healthy and thin is by using newly invented foods like fake spray butter, 100 calorie oreo packs, and diet soda. I agree that God gave us choices in dairy, fruits, vegs, seeds, breads, meats, eggs...we need to figure out what is a good combo for us.

I am figuring out that grains do not work well for me. I feel sleepy and fat when I eat them. Raw cow milk products do not work for ds. I wish there was more talk in the WAPF about raw goats milk. I think CLO is great, but feel like WAPF thinks it is of #1 importance. My best friend is even of Scandinavian heritage and it makes her break out. And she was stressing about that!


----------



## Shirelle (May 22, 2006)

Subbing!

Quote:

actually think Jordan Rubin comes closer to the Bible. Have you read him at all? He refers to the good parts of NT and WAp quite a bit.
I have actually only read The Maker's Diet , I have picked up a little info on these boards about NT, but I have yet to read it (library doesn't have it, and it's kinda pricey to buy!). I have only incorporated a few ideas into our diet, but I kind of go by WAPs example of the lunch that he fed the school-children...raw milk, CLO, butter, broth, grass fed meats. I was feeling very overwhelmed at having to implement it ALL in right now, so I decided to kind of go by his principle of some is better than none. I started drinking raw milk and having sourdough pancakes for breaskfast, and for lunch, I would have raw veggies, hard boiled eggs, and sometime during the day, I try to drink a mug of broth. I was still eating a SAD dinner, with a side of veggies. I also just started taking a tsp. of CLO per day. I had no idea what a difference these small changes were making until the weekend. This weekend all I ate was processed crap. Candy, cookies, tuna casserole...and yesterday I felt absolutely awful. I was exhausted, irritable, I had headache, and I could not focus. I actually had to take a nap yesterday afternoon because I felt so bad ( and I never do that). So, I'm definitely going back to what I was doing before!

For me, so far I'm just not really big on a lot of raw veggies. They just don't really appeal to me for some reason. I wonder if that means that I don't need as much of them? However, I have been craving the fermented carrots that I made. I absolutely love them, and I don't care for raw carrots or cooked carrots, at all. I wonder what that means I'm missing from my diet?


----------



## newcastlemama (Jun 7, 2005)

One thing that is great about the raw foods/NT is that so many people have been cured of their ills and had healthy babies too. The problem I find is that feeling that if I can eat perfectly (and who can!) then me and my babies will have no issues. That leaves a lot of moms feeling guilty. It also leaves people who follow NT feeling like they did something wrong if their child did not get straight teeth ect after doing the NT pregnancy diet. It helps me to know that I live in an imperfect world and great nutrition will make my journey here better, but not perfect.

I did have PPD/PPP 2 years ago. I do think CLO and other things may have helped, but things are not that simple...I wish it was.


----------



## moneca (Sep 5, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *newcastlemama*
One thing that is great about the raw foods/NT is that so many people have been cured of their ills and had healthy babies too. The problem I find is that feeling that if I can eat perfectly (and who can!) then me and my babies will have no issues. That leaves a lot of moms feeling guilty. It also leaves people who follow NT feeling like they did something wrong if their child did not get straight teeth ect after doing the NT pregnancy diet. It helps me to know that I live in an imperfect world and great nutrition will make my journey here better, but not perfect.

Yes, there are too many other factors. I remind myself that the people groups WP studied in N&PD did not have the toxic factors that we have today messing with our bodies in every way including our natural detoxification pathways. Unless you grew up with parents that ate a "pure" diet you have been affected by those in additon to toxins in the air, water, soil. Vaccines, amalgams, and nutrient deficient soil are just a few.
I'm trying really hard to learn to listen to my body's cravings (not talking about SAD food at all). When I first started eating nutrient dense food almost a year ago I craved lots of red meat. Never been a veggie so I've always eaten some and lots of the wrong kind of dairy. Three months or so ago the thought of eating red meat almost made me sick. I'm only eating a small portion of it once every three weeks or so. Keeping up with all the other good stuff. I believe that my body was repairing and restocking all this time and let me know when it had enough. Much like you listened to your body and ate meat at the end of your pregnancy Elisabeth.
Listening to helathy body cravings is something MT discussed on _Nutrition 101_ sticky in vax and I was intrigued. It made so much sense, but has been a bit hard to actually follow because I tend to think of that rediculous food pyramid I grew up with. I'm getting there and finding that trusting my body to tell me what it needs is so much easier







.


----------



## gardenmommy (Nov 23, 2001)

I think a lot of very good points have been raised here. I, in theory, should be able to handle all sort of dairy, fish, cheese, etc. as I am primarily Dutch and English. I can't stand fish (except the occasional salmon), and two of my three children have been unable to tolerate any dairy until about 18 months.

Instead of looking at what your ancestors ate, and following that, I think a better way is to simply focus on eating traditional foods that you like and tolerate well. And staying away from newer, less proven foods/products.

I really like Jordin Rubin's stuff. I don't agree with all that he writes, but I find him to be very biblically based (which as a Christian, I like), and nutritionally sound. I followed TMD earlier this year with very good results. I still try to stick pretty close to it, as I find I feel best when I eat that way.

Firefaery, I agree with you about loading up on nutrient-dense foods. I do think that if you have been deficient for an extended period of time, it can be helpful to throw it all at your body for a short time. In the long run, however, I think it is probably best to level off some. If you don't like coconut oil, but like butter and raw milk, I think you're probably still going to be healthy.

I think it's easy to fixate on one food to the exclusion of other, just as healthy foods. You can not drink milk and still be balanced and healthy. You can eat only fish (or beef, or lamb, or whatever), and still get a good nutrient profile.

JMO.


----------



## alamama (Mar 21, 2005)

I like Jordan Rubin, too. Another cookbook that I really love is "The Garden of Eating" by Rachel and Don Matesz. They cite a lot of WAP research in their book, but offer a more paleo (very limited grains and legumes) approach. Here is their general recommendation:
-Make fresh locally grown fruits and vegetables 65-75 percent of hte weight/volume of your meals.
-Make clean, lean grass-fed animal products 20-35 percent of the weight/volume of your meals.
-Use friendly fats in moderation, according to individual needs
-Minimize use of salt, using only unrefined, sun-dried sea salt
-Eliminate refined grains, conventional dairy, mass-market meats, refined sugars, unfriendly vegetable oils, alcohol and all synthetic foods
-Properly prepared whole grains and dairy prodcuts from grass-fed animals are optional

I really like their approach, and the cookbook is loaded with menu planning and food prep ideas, all sorts of helpful tips to make eating this way more realistic. Their greens recipes are so yummy that we've been able to really increase the amt of greens in our diet. We still consume oats, buckwheat, rice and cornmeal, but are less grain-dependent than we used to be.


----------



## Panserbjorne (Sep 17, 2003)

EBG-I just lost a HUGE post that was really geared towards you! I'll sum up: It's really about Fallon having an agenda, which she absolutely does. WAP's research (as people have pointed out in this thread) showed what various cultures ate. Fallon took from that that all are superfoods and that everyone should eat them. WAP never said or even suggested that. He simply was looking at how refined foods really screwed things up. Fallon took the components of the diets he saw and decided that that's how we were meant to eat. That's a pretty big leap, IMO.

I much prefer Rubin's take. He has more credentials than Fallon, yet is far less in your face. He talks about what worked for him, and why scientifically that is the case. He ties it up with religion, which even though I'm not religious is fine by me. He has much more of a take what works, leave what doesn't attitiude.

I think the big part of any successful diet is just cutting out refined things. Of course if you're eating the SAD you will be "cured" by eating NT, or any other diet that is based on whole unrefined foods. The CLO is amazing because even if you are eating whole foods if they are conventional you aren't getting alot of omega 3's and DHA. CLO will correct that. I'm not saying everything in NT is a load, just that I feel people would be better reading the literature it evolved from and taking NT itself with a grain of salt.

NCM- exactly on the God Food vs. Man Made Food. If it isnt' found in nature-DON'T EAT IT!

Vaquitita-I'm with you. I know that my body functions better with high amounts of fat and protein and almost no grains. I can eat a good amount of veggies, but not a ton of fruit. With these pieces I can follow almost any diet and make it work. The idea here is once you've found the right pieces to YOUR puzzle, good health will follow. It will be different for everyone, but it will always be real, whole natural foods.


----------



## Panserbjorne (Sep 17, 2003)

alamama, that one get a good amount of use in my house as well. It's dh's favorite.


----------



## Gale Force (Jun 15, 2003)

I would like to invite everyone over for dinner to continue this discussion. How does Friday work?

Don't you wish we could do that?


----------



## Panserbjorne (Sep 17, 2003)

If I leave now I could be there for Friday, but man would my feet hurt!


----------



## Shirelle (May 22, 2006)

I'm game!


----------



## alamama (Mar 21, 2005)

Let's make it a potluck! I'll bring greens simmered in bone broth


----------



## Gale Force (Jun 15, 2003)

Very good, then. I'll see you all Friday at about six.


----------



## nicolena (Oct 10, 2005)

i really enjoy this discussion! more more (as my girls would say)!

i did really well on NT at first (as i think my posts relentless reflect); then i tried no grains, which just didn't work for me. but somehow, too much milk and meat and grains and eggs and clo--something is out of order for me here because my face is breaking out and i've gained weight while nursing two. it has made me realize, however, that nutrition is not the end all and be all. i need to find balance in my diet, but also in other areas--like doing yoga and getting my teeth taken care of. i know that sounds simple, but i believed the stuff sally printed, that good fats could solve everything. i may have even thought a comment like the one she made about the murderer (where can i read that?). i still feel convinced that much of my depression came from eating an almost zero fat diet.

but here is the thing that really worries me about NT (and i think most of it is great--tho i'll be checking out the garden of eating because i too notice the dearth of raw veggies). please don't kill me for this. but i think if sally were really eating what she should be eating, shouldn't she have been able to nurse for longer than she did? she didn't mention any unusual stresses. i probably shouldn't even have gone there, but.......

be back to discuss superfoods soon. can you get too much?


----------



## WendyC (Jun 16, 2005)

What is the story on Sally and nursing? I was curious about that because NT has so much info on how to feed your infant (other than breastfeeding of coarse!) Which I thought was odd - why not emphasis breastfeeding? I am aware of coarse that not everyone can breastfeed, but shouldn't the emphasis then be on obtaining another NT mom to donate milk?

Again - I think more weight needs to be given to veggies and fruits. Just simply making a new rule that anything I put in my body has to be REAL food has made a huge difference for me.


----------



## WendyC (Jun 16, 2005)

Oh! And when i come for dinner what should I bring?

Soaked, dried and salted nuts for a pre-dinner munchie?
Some ginger carrots?

How about a big crock of nasty smelling but OHHHH so nutrious beef stock? We can all sip it out of wine glasses and bemoan the people who ingest that nasty alcohol stuff!


----------



## TopazBlueMama (Nov 23, 2002)

Quote:

Fallon took from that that all are superfoods and that everyone should eat them. WAP never said or even suggested that. He simply was looking at how refined foods really screwed things up. Fallon took the components of the diets he saw and decided that that's how we were meant to eat. That's a pretty big leap, IMO.
That wasn't her intent, I've heard her say numerous times that people shouldn't get overwhelmed, and to just do what they can. And that it is just a set of principles, not a set eating plan to follow. She's just trying to educate.

I have had the thoughts before when I see others or myself stressing out about trying to do it all--it's really not meant to be like that all at once! That's why I like to recommend to people to make sure they don't just read NT, but read N&PD so that they see where the main research is coming from. After reading that it's realized that NT is just putting it all together and you can try things from there and put together your own way of eating. It is sooo true that none of the tribes did all of these things at once! I think that's why Price and Fallon focused so much on CLO, because then at least you are getting the A and D and fat in a very modern and convenient form.

I like Rubin, but I wish I would have just gotten it from the library instead. lol It's basically all from NT with a few more of his ideas thrown in.

Quote:

I agree with you about loading up on nutrient-dense foods. I do think that if you have been deficient for an extended period of time, it can be helpful to throw it all at your body for a short time. In the long run, however, I think it is probably best to level off some. If you don't like coconut oil, but like butter and raw milk, I think you're probably still going to be healthy.
ITA, gardenmommy. I think some of us just might have to load up on things when we are coming from a deficient state, but it doesn't need to stay like that forever! We all go through seasons where we need to change things. I know I go through cycles, that's for sure! The thought of a lot of fat or meat makes me sick right now, and I'm craving greens, but earlier this year I was totally loading up on the other. Same thing with dairy for me, I'm always going on cycles of where I can't get enough, and where I don't want it at all.

Gale Force, can you fly us all out?


----------



## Gale Force (Jun 15, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *tweetybirds2*
Gale Force, can you fly us all out?









For that you'd probably want to stay for a week and we could forage, hunt, and can.


----------



## TopazBlueMama (Nov 23, 2002)

Oh how fun that would BE!


----------



## MyLittleWonders (Feb 16, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Gale Force*
I would like to invite everyone over for dinner to continue this discussion. How does Friday work?

Don't you wish we could do that?

I'll come - you aren't more than a few hours drive from me! Of course, my boys will want to go all a'wandering and exploring, and might turn there noses up at some things (man can 2-5 year olds be picky about food sometimes!), but dh and I would







the food and conversation.









I had bought the NT book right when I got pregnant with ds#3 - I took it back because at the time all I craved were store-bought cereal and milk! Now though I can't get enough fat and protein, and also am craving veggies. One of my favorites is bison meat cooked with onion, garlic, anaheim chilis (from my garden), and some organic corn thrown in. Serve it on tortillas (can be sprouted corn, but I like the "homemade" ones from Trader Joes) with cheese and sour cream. OMG it's delicious to me. I'm also craving sweet onions and red & yellow bell peppers saute'd in coconut oil ... very tastey.

Right now I'm loosely following Eat Fat, Lose Fat, though I make my own recipes. We love raw milk around here, and consume quite a bit of it, as well as butter, coconut oil, cheese, eggs, etc. My mil thinks I'm nuts for having all that fat and cholesterol!







But I too wonder about the fruits and vegetables. I get a bunch of fruit in my morning smoothie, but I know that the veggies are lacking and I think that's why I'm craving them. I agree that nutrient dense is very healing ... it's helping with my mood issues, but not as much, necessarily, as making sure I have Natural Calm magnesium, 5-HTP, and GABA each day. Those have been my life-savers. But with Sally's stuff, and Jordan Rubin's (we did TMD last summer before I got pregnant), and other's is to take what works, and really, what makes you feel good and healthy. For me, coconut oil has been a God-send because it has helped kill my sweet-tooth. I don't live on grains/bread/crackers/cookies like I used to, and I can do pretty well waking at 6:30 with the first boy awake, and not truly stop until the last one is asleep at about 10pm. So, for me, loose ffollowing of EFLF works for now ... I want to check out that book mentioned earlier too!


----------



## newcastlemama (Jun 7, 2005)

I too go through cycles of foods and traditional foods have given me the freedom to eat them without worry--I went through a serious pot roast phase and came to find out that I was extremely deficient in iron and zinc!

I think you can follow your craving as long is it is for real food. I am learning to lisen to my body and be flexible. I want to check out the Garden of Eating book too. I heard the Full Moon Feast is about eating the the seasons and that sounds good too. (I guess I will have a big Christmas List this year!)

I am wondering if Fallon did not focus on fruits and veggies more because so many other diets do? NICOLENA-I am interested in her BF story. I am dissapointed that she thinks that homemeade formula is better than BF if the mom is not eating optimally. BF is so much more then just food. There is the bonding, sucking motion that is good for the baby's development, easier co-sleeping...plus the antibodies!

I agree also that if you switch from SAD to a diet of real food you will feel better. I also agree that we have sooo many factors that the people WAP studied did not have. That should bing the guilt factor down.

GALE FORCE (Amanda)- I would love to come over Friday! I am sure I can think of a reason to drive down. I will be down in SF on Thursday...I will just tell dh to keep driving south!

Jennifer


----------



## gardenmommy (Nov 23, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Gale Force*
I would like to invite everyone over for dinner to continue this discussion. How does Friday work?

Don't you wish we could do that?

If I left tomorrow, I'd get there in time for dinner. What do you want me to bring? I've lots of tomatoes, some broccoli, a few green beans.

That would be fun!


----------



## JaneS (Jan 11, 2003)

Oooooo.... I'm butting my way in here b/c I want to come to dinner and then go out foraging too!!







: Why oh why do I not own my own private jet.









I just made some delish walnut/pecan bars we can take with us for sustanance and I've got TONS of really yummy goat's milk kefir with raw honey to share.

Firefaery,
I totally hear what you are saying. I've thought similar in the past re: mixing of foods from various traditional diets into one whole seemed strange. However I still wonder if our poor abused modern bodies may still have different requirements than "traditionals" ... perhaps it could be that we desperately need more superfoods? Each person needs to make their own determination of what agrees with them and should be part of their regular diet. A long journey for most. I'm still not at a level I think I should be after 2 years.

I do think the next step is thinking about how exactly to get the general rec of 10x fat soluble vits and 4x minerals that traditional diets did as reported by WAP. There are many ways to do this.

EBG and others,
_N&PD_ is online here, save to your harddrive:

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


----------



## Panserbjorne (Sep 17, 2003)

Ummm, that sounds super yummy! Share Jane, SHARE!







The recipe at least. I love yummy nut bars!

I agree with you totally. I guess that's my point. There is no one good way to eat and I get so super wary of anyone that has THE cure.


----------



## Hibou (Apr 7, 2003)

subbing.

Just found this thread. Interesting stuff.
I just wanted to say about the fruits and veggies- the isolated Swiss, Germans, and Inuit that Price studied had almost none, so IMO that explains why there is lesser importance placed on them than we are typically used to seeing. Altho, it's next to impossible to find the same quality of meat/dairy that they were eating. I thought there was plenty of emphasis put on raw foods in NT, but there was so much info, it sort of got lost in the mix.

I have found, since becoming healthier, my body is a better indicator of what I need to be eating. It didn't used to seem to know what it needed. In both my pregnancies (before I learned about WAP) I ate and craved tons of fruit. In hindsight, I think I really needed more fat.


----------



## mama-a-llama (Feb 8, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *JaneS*
EBG and others,
_N&PD_ is online here, save to your harddrive:


How do I do that?


----------



## newcastlemama (Jun 7, 2005)

JaneS said:


> I do think the next step is thinking about how exactly to get the general rec of 10x fat soluble vits and 4x minerals that traditional diets did as reported by WAP. There are many ways to do this.
> 
> 
> 
> > That is a good point.


----------



## lilsparrow (Apr 19, 2006)

oops sorry ... great thread by the way


----------



## emma_goldman (May 18, 2005)

I'm lovin' it!









Learning so much from you ladies, that is...


----------



## weliveintheforest (Sep 3, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *gardenmommy*
Instead of looking at what your ancestors ate, and following that, I think a better way is to simply focus on eating traditional foods that you like and tolerate well.

I strongly agree, because even most of our ancestors were immigrants to the areas they lived... It's hard to know genealogy more than a few hundred years, and I think you would have to go back much _much_ farther than that to get to the point where it matters what food they were eating.

I'm really liking this thread


----------



## guestmama9916 (Jun 24, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *nicolena*
i really enjoy this discussion! more more (as my girls would say)!

i did really well on NT at first (as i think my posts relentless reflect); then i tried no grains, which just didn't work for me. but somehow, too much milk and meat and grains and eggs and clo--something is out of order for me here because my face is breaking out and i've gained weight while nursing two.

Nicolena,
I'm slowly getting into NT and have been doing a few small things at a time. I added coconut oil to my diet on a regular basis for about 3 weeks then I started breaking out too. It was the only thing different that I did so I think it was the EVCO. I've always had clear skin and now I have a huge bump on the side of my face like I've never had before plus a few smaller bumps on the chin and forehead. I've backed off the EVCO and my bumps are going away. I think I'll continue to do EVCO but not everyday like before.

Kim


----------



## EBG (May 3, 2006)

I don't believe in listening to my body's cravings/needs. I still crave SAD junk food. Mostly pizza, doughnuts, fries....Even if I apply it to NT foods, if I'd listened to my body, I'd eat grains, nut butters and whipped cream all the time. I know it's not what I need. So, I'd rather follow common sense and of course the Bible.

My library has Rubin's books, so I'll check them out soon!! Yay!


----------



## EBG (May 3, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *firefaery*
EBG-I just lost a HUGE post that was really geared towards you! I'll sum up: It's really about Fallon having an agenda, which she absolutely does. WAP's research (as people have pointed out in this thread) showed what various cultures ate. Fallon took from that that all are superfoods and that everyone should eat them. WAP never said or even suggested that. He simply was looking at how refined foods really screwed things up. Fallon took the components of the diets he saw and decided that that's how we were meant to eat. That's a pretty big leap, IMO.

I much prefer Rubin's take. He has more credentials than Fallon, yet is far less in your face. He talks about what worked for him, and why scientifically that is the case. He ties it up with religion, which even though I'm not religious is fine by me. He has much more of a take what works, leave what doesn't attitiude.

I think the big part of any successful diet is just cutting out refined things. Of course if you're eating the SAD you will be "cured" by eating NT, or any other diet that is based on whole unrefined foods. The CLO is amazing because even if you are eating whole foods if they are conventional you aren't getting alot of omega 3's and DHA. CLO will correct that. I'm not saying everything in NT is a load, just that I feel people would be better reading the literature it evolved from and taking NT itself with a grain of salt.

NCM- exactly on the God Food vs. Man Made Food. If it isnt' found in nature-DON'T EAT IT!

Vaquitita-I'm with you. I know that my body functions better with high amounts of fat and protein and almost no grains. I can eat a good amount of veggies, but not a ton of fruit. With these pieces I can follow almost any diet and make it work. The idea here is once you've found the right pieces to YOUR puzzle, good health will follow. It will be different for everyone, but it will always be real, whole natural foods.


Thank you so much, this is good info!


----------



## EBG (May 3, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *WendyC*
What is the story on Sally and nursing? I was curious about that because NT has so much info on how to feed your infant (other than breastfeeding of coarse!) Which I thought was odd - why not emphasis breastfeeding? I am aware of coarse that not everyone can breastfeed, but shouldn't the emphasis then be on obtaining another NT mom to donate milk?

Again - I think more weight needs to be given to veggies and fruits. Just simply making a new rule that anything I put in my body has to be REAL food has made a huge difference for me.

I don't know what you read but Sally emphasises over and over again that breastfeeding is best and should be continued as long as you can. At least in my NT book and website readings. To me it was clear that the formula recipes are for emergency. One of my best friends had to supplement with formula (didn't know any better) because she was missing milkducts. She had very little breast milk and was breasfeeding for about 18 months but had to supplement. So I mean these cases and not when you can actually do something about your own situation and milk supply.

Of course I don't know SF's personal story, is there any link to that?


----------



## EBG (May 3, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *kimbernet*
Nicolena,
I'm slowly getting into NT and have been doing a few small things at a time. I added coconut oil to my diet on a regular basis for about 3 weeks then I started breaking out too. It was the only thing different that I did so I think it was the EVCO. I've always had clear skin and now I have a huge bump on the side of my face like I've never had before plus a few smaller bumps on the chin and forehead. I've backed off the EVCO and my bumps are going away. I think I'll continue to do EVCO but not everyday like before.

Kim

In the beginning, CO made my face horrible, too. I backed off a little and don't eat 3 tbs. It's better now... I think my body got used to it.
Also, nuts make me break out. Maybe too much omega 6? Don't know....

Also, Jane, thanks. I do have that link saved but cannot find time to actually read those long chapters...

I also think that when we look at traditional diets we have to keep in mind that those people had a blank sheet to starts with, an uncorrupted health.
So digging out walnuts and eating them raw won't make them sick beause their enzymes are not depleted like ours, they weren't vaxed and given tons of abx, don't drink chlorine and fluoride etc etc...Babies are born vaginally, mamas nurse them for years and have no leaky gut to pass it on.

We are trying to heal (oh, this is not the healing the gut thread?) ourselves with food, or improve, so yes we need more superfoods than those people; we need to supplement and combine the most powerful aspects of these healhty diets in order to get well in this country where the soil is bad, real milk is illegal inmost states and everything is pesticide/poison-ridden. So IMO the WAPF and NT is a tremendous help... for people like me who is yet to read the whole N&PD









And you can't stick to one diet anyway a 100 percent or it will make you crazy. I think NT is not meant to be another diet to follow, it's more like a guide to changing your whole view of what is really healthy and it's really a cook book.
I don't feel that fruits and vegetables are not emphasized. I think it's just that they don't need to be because even the current SAD view of them is that they need to be eaten more. So NT doesn't need to deal with this issue. However, when it comes to dairy, fats and grains, people need to be educated because the truth is the opposite of what is being told by doctors and the media. So maybe that's why SF spends so much time on these foods.


----------



## Wolfmeis (Nov 16, 2004)

What a rockin' discussion! This was nice to see!


----------



## Panserbjorne (Sep 17, 2003)

I have to remember where, but Fallon absolutely has said that formula (made the NT way) is better than mother's milk when she isn't getting proper nutrition. It was one of the more disgusting things I have read. I will say (as I did in another discussion) that nutrition plays a HUGE role. I have problems bfing and saw a major change in the composition of my milk when I added CLO. So she's right in that respect, but as far as te rest of it-I'm disappointed to say the least. Anyone who is reading her stuff and be willing to make formula is also willing (IMO) to change their diets. The emphasis is all wrong. BF is where nutrition and ohysical development start. She needs to be much more clear on HOW TO MAKE THIS IMPORTANT RELATIONSHIP WORK instead of using fear tactics (your baby may be malnourished if you eat a less than ideal diet) and making mothers feel as though their kid has a better chance with formula. It's really sad. I'll have to find where I read it so you can get the full taste.

THere are of course instances in which formula is necessary, but with proper education it would be used far less. And it almost always comes back to nutrition from what I have read, seen and experienced. Even in this most recent bf relationship I found what my underlying problem has been-and it originated with a damaged gut. Go figure.


----------



## AJP (Apr 30, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *EBG*
And you can't stick to one diet anyway a 100 percent or it will make you crazy. I think NT is not meant to be another diet to follow, it's more like a guide to changing your whole view of what is really healthy and it's really a cook book.
I don't feel that fruits and vegetables are not emphasized. I think it's just that they don't need to be because even the current SAD view of them is that they need to be eaten more. So NT doesn't need to deal with this issue. However, when it comes to dairy, fats and grains, people need to be educated because the truth is the opposite of what is being told by doctors and the media. So maybe that's why SF spends so much time on these foods.

I have some gripes with NT ans the WAPF websites, too, most of which have already been brought up on this thread, but I agree with the above. I see it largely as a guidebook to the nutritionally valuable foods that are not commonplace and have been either ignored or demonized by modern nutritional recommendations, that many people would have no clue how to prepare and handle (raw and fermented dairy, sprouted or soaked grains, etc.). I've never been fond of most of the recipes in it, but reading it changed my life in terms of how I look at food, and with a thorough understanding of the principles of obtaining and optimizing nutrient-dense food, I can cook far, far beyond what is spelled out in NT.

I have been through cycles when I felt affinity for different foods, and believe them to be healthy cravings that I listen to - sometimes wanting tons of raw/fresh and raw/fermented veggies and light foods, sometimes raw dairy, sometimes cooked, warm foods like soups, stews, beans, grains, breads, cooked veggies, well-cooked meat, etc., sometimes seared but still raw inside beef or lamb. I follow those cravings when it's practical. I was an ethical vegetarian for a time (nearly vegan for part of it, the only animal product being occasional eggs from my own chickens), and I understand all those issues re: the eating of animal products. I wasn't eating low-fat during that time (lots of nuts, olive oil and the like), but nonetheless it was not speaking to my nutritional soul and my body started to not like it. In addition to being dissatisfied with that, my son's teeth had an enamel defect (toddler at the time), and I encountered NT/WAPF while searching for info about nutrition and teeth.

I agree that we don't need to do _everything_ in NT, there is no one perfect diet, there are individual variations in tolerances, affinities, etc. based on both genetics and environment. Complaints with agendas, personalities, inconsistencies and the like aside, I think SF has done a very great deal to introduce the vital concept of nutrient-dense food to large numbers of people. As for raw, I believe it says in NT that we should aim to have 50% of our diet raw, but of course that includes animal foods, whereas most raw food stuff I've read except for Vanderplonitz is entirely plant-based.

I've come to realize over the past 5 years that I need a balanced diet to stay feeling well and feeling good about life - not exactly a radical concept, but one that tends to get lost in our culture of extremes. I mean balanced between plant and animal foods, raw and cooked, protein/fat/carbs, fresh and fermented, sweet, sour, salty, bitter - balanced in all respects. Not that every meal, or even every day or week, needs to be balanced, but it needs to be a complete circle for me.

I think eating with the seasons is a _very_ valuable concept, in terms of both human and environmental health, as is eating in harmony with your location. Full Moon Feast is a wonderful book for that, it's not so much a "this is what you should eat" book (although the important points are there in terms of food quality, local sources, clean, etc.) as a reconnecting of our diets with the circle of life. It's really lovely and lyrical, I highly recommend it. If I could afford it, I'd give one to everyone I know, and all of you, too.


----------



## Panserbjorne (Sep 17, 2003)

Everyone keeps talking about that one...I'm gonna have to check it out. Are alot of the recipes in FMF full of dairy?


----------



## newcastlemama (Jun 7, 2005)

EBG said:


> I don't believe in listening to my body's cravings/needs. I still crave SAD junk food. Mostly pizza, doughnuts, fries....Even if I apply it to NT foods, if I'd listened to my body, I'd eat grains, nut butters and whipped cream all the time. I know it's not what I need. So, I'd rather follow common sense and of course the Bible.
> 
> 
> > I don't listen to my cravings (especially PMS ones!) if they are for SAD food, sweets, grains because I know those make me feel bad. I have not been eating any sweets though and I really wanted a treat so I made some walnuts wrapped medjool dates and that hit the spot. I am finding it easier to not crave sweets/bread all the time now that I am eating more fat and protein and I feel more satisfied with real food.
> ...


----------



## AJP (Apr 30, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *firefaery*
Anyone who is reading her stuff and be willing to make formula is also willing (IMO) to change their diets. The emphasis is all wrong. BF is where nutrition and ohysical development start. She needs to be much more clear on HOW TO MAKE THIS IMPORTANT RELATIONSHIP WORK instead of using fear tactics (your baby may be malnourished if you eat a less than ideal diet) and making mothers feel as though their kid has a better chance with formula.

This is my biggest issue, as well, and ITA with what you've said here. I've always thought that if the mother is capable of lactating, it would be more valuable to have _her_ drink the formula ingredients and turn it into human breastmilk for the baby than to feed the formula to the baby.


----------



## AJP (Apr 30, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *firefaery*
Everyone keeps talking about that one...I'm gonna have to check it out. Are alot of the recipes in FMF full of dairy?

Plenty have no dairy, but you could sub in the ones that do since you're experienced with that. The main value of the book is the non-recipe stuff, anyway, IMO.


----------



## ConsCathMamma (Aug 17, 2004)

New to a NT diet and I have been reading the archives trying to soak it all in. This thread is interesting as well!

Many have asked about Fallon's breastfeeding situation, and here is a link to her article about her personal experience on WAP

http://www.westonaprice.org/children/saga.html


----------



## MyLittleWonders (Feb 16, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *newcastlemama*
I don't listen to my cravings (especially PMS ones!) if they are for SAD food, sweets, grains because I know those make me feel bad. I have not been eating any sweets though and I really wanted a treat so I made some walnuts wrapped medjool dates and that hit the spot. I am finding it easier to not crave sweets/bread all the time now that I am eating more fat and protein and I feel more satisfied with real food.

This is where, imo, EFLF has allowed me to get - able to listen to my body's *true* cravings, and I really feel it's because I've become more conscious about getting more and more fat and protein in my diet. Last night (and still today), I craved red meat (really bison meat







) and vegetables ... we didnt' have the resources or time to do that last night, so today I'm going by the HFS, getting some pastured ground beef and greens, and making a big salad, and cooking the meat up with onions, red chilis, and some corn. My mouth waters thinking about it.







But, that aside, I think making sure my body is more satiated with what it desires has allowed me to begin to understand it's needs, if that makes sense.


----------



## newcastlemama (Jun 7, 2005)

Quote:

Now all my children are healthy-they were rarely sick, none needed braces, and all have grown up into high-functioning adults-*but the interesting thing is that the last child, who only got two months of breast milk, is the healthiest of all. I am sure it was because of the high quality of the milk in France -from pasture-fed cows.* A third of the bottle was beautiful yellow cream. This child has literally never been sick in his life and was the most cheerful of all the children-he is also the smartest and the only one who doesn't need glasses. My second child, although quite healthy, did have some problems with asthma, and still gets hay fever at times. This may be due to the fact that for about a month in his infancy, he did not get adequate nutrition, *and I blame myself for being too fanatical about breastfeeding and not supplementing soon enough*
This is taken from Fallon's BF story. Bold is mine. To me it is like she is saying the cow's milk is better than hers.
I do think it is great to have a better alternative than canned formula, but this paragraph bothers me.


----------



## MyLittleWonders (Feb 16, 2004)




----------



## Panserbjorne (Sep 17, 2003)

Yup-there's the link. I could pick it apart with my eyes closed. If she chose to research and get more information NOW and put it out there I'd have alot more respect for her. I mean come on, some parts are absurd. I'm sorry if she had bad information, but why doesn't she feel that she should get better info now that she is writing a BOOK for crying out loud?


----------



## newcastlemama (Jun 7, 2005)

Same article (Bold is mine)

Quote:

The good news is that my babies had no problems on raw-milk formula-they grew up as healthy as children who had been breastfed. *In fact, they are healthier than lots of individuals who have been breastfed for many months.* One acquaintance of mine breastfed both her children for four years, but otherwise took no care with her diet. These two girls have been unhealthy since infancy. They get frequent colds and have poor bone structure. One is overweight and has learning disabilities. Another friend also nursed several years and in the first year the baby got breast milk exclusively. Her child has multiple health problems-leaky gut syndrome, multiple allergies and learning disabilities. It turns out that when her child was born, she had a gall bladder problem and the doctors put her on a lowfat diet. So her milk did not have adequate fat-soluble vitamins, hence the baby did not have the necessary components to build a healthy gut wall and make connections in the brain.
I agree with AJP on focusing on getting the great nutrition into the mother as #1 and then talking about alternatives.


----------



## alamama (Mar 21, 2005)

Yes, I've been puzzled too about SF's idea that mothers without nutritious diets would be better off formula feeding...Have you ever read the recipes for formulas she recommends? Imagine making that multiple times a day for many months...what mother would be willing to do that but not willing to eat healthy herself?

Also, many mamas overcome low milk production through diet, supplements, reduction of stress, etc. I think of the lengths some mamas in our LLL group have gone through to increase their supply -- often with great success. That kind of information would be more helpful than being so quick to suggest formula instead. And for those who truly cannot bf, of course I'm glad that other options exist.


----------



## ~Quse~ (Aug 8, 2004)

:


----------



## Panserbjorne (Sep 17, 2003)

Oh-I did make a formula every day while we figured out my issues. I did it for about eight months. I'll tell you this, is was a GREAT motivational tool. I would have done anything to not have to go through that again!


----------



## twins10705 (Feb 10, 2006)

Well, another reason for the formula...other than a mom "not making enough milk" -- is for when a baby will not breastfeed, due to oral aversion or special needs issues etc. Some women are not able to pump much at all -- which is why I use the formula recipe for my smallest ds. He also gets small amounts of my milk and 1-2 bottles of donor breastmilk per day.

I *totally* agree that she should be emphasizing breastfeeding more than she is in her book....and saying that a nutritionally deficient mother won't have good breastmilk is a bad idea -- especially in this country where bottle feeding is the norm. I am leaning toward agreeing with her on that point based on some studies I have read, but I don't think she should mention it the way she does. She should focus on improving the diet of the breastfeeding mother. That said, virtually every diet book I have read is full of the author's opinions...so even if I disagree, I'm not going to metaphorically lynch her because of it KWIM?

A lot of people keep mentioning that SF has an agenda, but no one is specifically outlining what that may be. I mean, other than potentially selling more copies of NT, what does she really have to gain? A lot of big business is irritated with her -- conventional meat and dairy hate her, as do the formula companies and all food processing companies and the FDA I'm sure....it seems to me that she has gone out of her way to promote something she wholeheartedly believes in -- and she is stepping on a lot of toes to do it. This alone makes me like her.

But...maybe I don't have the whole story -- what is her agenda?


----------



## Panserbjorne (Sep 17, 2003)

For me her agenda seems to be getting NT out there at all costs. Doesn't sound like a particularly bad thing when you say it, but the fact is she takes cheap shots at other people trying to "debunk" them when they are saying what she is, just more accurately. She is so hell bent on everyone seeing things her way she ends up looking really foolish sometimes to anyone who sits back and takes it all in. She has been wrong in a number of cases that could really make anyone question everything she has to say. She needs to be a little less arrogant and a liitle more informed IMO. I also have a real problem with the way she tends to bend the truth. She has flat out misrepresented other authorities to make them look like they are ignorant. If you go back and see what was actually said, the only one looking suspect is her. After doing this several times I have just lost respect.


----------



## Panserbjorne (Sep 17, 2003)

Here's a sample of one I just read...

The third paragraph of Fallon's diatribe becomes personal and insulting - not just for me for any educated person. I prefer to let the data and information speak for itself, regardless of a person's gender, racial background or academic affiliation. Information should not be accepted or rejected upon who generates it, but rather upon the merit and objectivity of the idea. I personally find it repulsive to prejudice an individual or person based upon personal issues or characteristics that are unrelated to the information being presented.

In the third paragraph of her review, Fallon once again mistakenly suggests that we indicated that hunter-gatherers ate low fat diets. This never has been the case. Apparently, she has not bothered to read our paper (Cordain L, Brand ****** J, Eaton SB, Mann N, Holt SHA, Speth JD. Plant to animal subsistence ratios and macronutrient energy estimations in world wide hunter-gatherer diets. Am J Clin Nutr 2000, 71:682-92) in which we say "Our analysis showed that whenever and wherever it was ecologically possible, hunter-gatherers consumed high amounts (45-65% of energy) of animal food. And "the fat intake would be comparable or higher (28-58% energy) than values currently consumed in modern, industrialized societies."

Fallon brings up the notion of political correctness (pc) in her review. As scientists, we utilize the scientific method to form and test our hypotheses and let the chips fall where they will regardless of any pre-conceived notions. Although it may be politically correct to state that saturated fats are not necessarily healthful when consumed in the high amounts in the typical U.S. diet, it is terribly politically incorrect to recommend limiting grains of any kind (whole or processed) or dairy products. Our dietary recommendations have no basis in political correctness, but rather reflect what the data indicate.

In Fallon's 4th paragraph she completely misleads the reader by stating that: "He says that Paleolithic peoples had no carbohydrate foods like grains or starchy root foods-never mind reports of grains found in the fire ashes of some of the earliest human groups, or the widespread use of tubers among primitive peoples, usually fermented or slow cooked." This statement steps far beyond the bounds of truth. We go on record as stating that Pre-Agricultural people ate few or no grains, however we have never suggested that they did not eat tubers. Again, if Fallon would take the time to read our scientific papers, she would be aware of this. In our AJCN 2000 paper (Table 3) we show that tubers, roots and bulbs would have comprised 23.6 % of all the plant food consumed by the average hunter-gatherer. Grains are virtually indigestible unless the cell walls are broken via (grinding or milling) and the starch is gelatinized by cooking. Hence the appearance of stone grinding tools (mortar and pestle, saddle stones etc) heralds the widespread use of grains in hunter-gatherer societies. The first primitive grinding tools do not make their appearance anywhere in the world until the late Paleolithic (~15-20,000 years ago), and the first hunter gatherer society known to have made wide scale use of grains were the Natufians who lived in the Levant ~13,000 years ago.

The next statement in this paragraph is highly objectionable, false and is totally ignorant of the actual data regarding the fatty acid composition of the tissue of wild animals. "He says that there isn't much fat in wild animals (did he check with any hunters while writing his book?) and that what fat these animals had was highly politically correct-low in "lethal" saturated fat and rich in monounsaturates and omega-3 fatty acids. Did he look up the fatty acid profile of buffalo fat while researching his book? Obviously not. If he had, it would have ruined his whole theory because buffalo fat is more saturated than beef fat." Apparently, Fallon again has failed to do her homework. If she would take the time to read our paper (Cordain L, Watkins BA, Florant GL, Kehler M, Rogers L, Li Y. Fatty acid analysis of wild ruminant tissues: Evolutionary implications for reducing diet-related chronic disease. Eur J Clin Nutr, 2002; 56:181-191.) she would know that our conclusions are based upon hundreds of hours of painstaking analysis. I don't believe Fallon has ever analyzed the tissues of any wild animals - we have, and our scientific results are much different than her opinions.

Here's another completely false statement: "And obviously he didn't check up on canola oil, which he recommends as a source of omega-3 fatty acids-because virtually all canola oil is deodorized, a process that gets rid of the omega-3s." This statement shows how anyone can say anything on the internet with absolutely no systems of checks and balances that are normally provided by the peer review process in scientific publications. Any reader who wants to can access Medline (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi) and find numerous studies showing that canola oil contains about 10% of it's total fatty acids as omega 3 fatty acids. Here are 2 citations (Dupont J et al. J Am Coll Nutr 1989;8:360-75; Ayorinde FO et al. Rapid Commun Mass Spectrom. 2000;14:608-15).

In regard to salt, Fallon again does the reader a disservice by not adequately presenting the data. The systematic mining, manufacture and transportation of salt have their origin in the Neolithic. Dragging and gathering salt from dry lakebeds is known to have taken place on Lake Yuncheng in the Northern Province of Shanxi, China by 6000 B.C. The earliest evidence for salt exploitation in Europe comes from salt mines at Cardona, Spain dating to 4200 - 3600 B.C. It is likely that Paleolithic or Holocene hunter-gatherers living in coastal areas may have dipped food in seawater or used dried seawater salt in a manner similar to nearly all Polynesian societies at the time of European contact However, the inland living Maori of New Zealand lost the salt habit, and most recently studied inland hunter-gatherers add no or little salt to their food on a daily basis. Further, there is no evidence that Paleolithic (2.5 million years ago until 10,000 years ago) people undertook salt extraction or took interest in inland salt deposits. Collectively, this evidence suggests that the high salt consumption (~10 g per day) in western societies has minimal or no evolutionary precedent in all hominin species prior to the Neolithic period.

Fallon's final paragraph represents opinion unsubstantiated by factual data. Again, if she would have taken the time to read our paper (Cordain L, Watkins BA, Florant GL, Kehler M, Rogers L, Li Y. Fatty acid analysis of wild ruminant tissues: Evolutionary implications for reducing diet-related chronic disease. Eur J Clin Nutr, 2002; 56:181-191.), she would have known that a modern Paleo Diet contains almost 8 times the RDA for vitamin A. Consequently, her statement that high protein diets lead to vitamin A deficiency is nonsense and completely untrue. Although hunter-gatherers did not consume dairy products, their bones were robust and resistant to fracture and rarely exhibited signs and symptoms of osteoporosis which is endemic in western populations. As we have outlined at my website as well as in the JANA paper and elsewhere, these people maintained strong bones because they were in calcium balance - meaning that calcium intake exceeded calcium losses in the urine. When the diet is net alkaline-producing, calcium balance can be maintained at lower calcium intakes.


----------



## twins10705 (Feb 10, 2006)

I definately see what you mean...though it seems to me she is more stubborn and a bit ignorant perhaps rather than purposely skewing things, but who knows?







I guess when I hear of someone having an agenda, I picture high-ups in cahoots and dirty money and smear campaigns and...politics...maybe Sally just needs a vacation and to spend some time reading up on other's ideas before spouting off about them.

About the Andrea Yate's comment -- is there a link to the transcript? While I certainly don't think a little CLO and bone broth would have kept her from doing what she did...I can't completely discard the idea that severe nutritional deficits especially ongoing from generations back, can cause extreme physical and mental illness.

Good topic though...I'm going to have to check out The Maker's Diet.


----------



## twins10705 (Feb 10, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *firefaery*
In regard to salt, Fallon again does the reader a disservice by not adequately presenting the data. The systematic mining, manufacture and transportation of salt have their origin in the Neolithic. Dragging and gathering salt from dry lakebeds is known to have taken place on Lake Yuncheng in the Northern Province of Shanxi, China by 6000 B.C. The earliest evidence for salt exploitation in Europe comes from salt mines at Cardona, Spain dating to 4200 - 3600 B.C. It is likely that Paleolithic or Holocene hunter-gatherers living in coastal areas may have dipped food in seawater or used dried seawater salt in a manner similar to nearly all Polynesian societies at the time of European contact However, the inland living Maori of New Zealand lost the salt habit, and most recently studied inland hunter-gatherers add no or little salt to their food on a daily basis. *Further, there is no evidence that Paleolithic (2.5 million years ago until 10,000 years ago) people undertook salt extraction or took interest in inland salt deposits.* Collectively, this evidence suggests that the high salt consumption (~10 g per day) in western societies has minimal or no evolutionary precedent in all hominin species prior to the Neolithic period.

Sorry to go off on a tangent....but there is also no real evidence that "Paleolithic" peoples or even life at all existed more than 10,000 years ago...it is all theory.
It seems to me from reading NT that SF is coming from a Creationist/Intelligent Design angle...which could also explain why there are a lot of differing opinions on this particular topic and others.


----------



## twins10705 (Feb 10, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *firefaery*
Here's a sample of one I just read...

The third paragraph of Fallon's diatribe becomes personal and insulting - not just for me for any educated person. I prefer to let the data and information speak for itself, regardless of a person's gender, racial background or academic affiliation. Information should not be accepted or rejected upon who generates it, but rather upon the merit and objectivity of the idea. I personally find it repulsive to prejudice an individual or person based upon personal issues or characteristics that are unrelated to the information being presented.

In the third paragraph of her review, Fallon once again mistakenly suggests that we indicated that hunter-gatherers ate low fat diets. This never has been the case. Apparently, she has not bothered to read our paper (Cordain L, Brand ****** J, Eaton SB, Mann N, Holt SHA, Speth JD. Plant to animal subsistence ratios and macronutrient energy estimations in world wide hunter-gatherer diets. Am J Clin Nutr 2000, 71:682-92) in which we say "Our analysis showed that whenever and wherever it was ecologically possible, hunter-gatherers consumed high amounts (45-65% of energy) of animal food. And "the fat intake would be comparable or higher (28-58% energy) than values currently consumed in modern, industrialized societies."

Fallon brings up the notion of political correctness (pc) in her review. As scientists, we utilize the scientific method to form and test our hypotheses and let the chips fall where they will regardless of any pre-conceived notions. Although it may be politically correct to state that saturated fats are not necessarily healthful when consumed in the high amounts in the typical U.S. diet, it is terribly politically incorrect to recommend limiting grains of any kind (whole or processed) or dairy products. Our dietary recommendations have no basis in political correctness, but rather reflect what the data indicate.

In Fallon's 4th paragraph she completely misleads the reader by stating that: "He says that Paleolithic peoples had no carbohydrate foods like grains or starchy root foods-never mind reports of grains found in the fire ashes of some of the earliest human groups, or the widespread use of tubers among primitive peoples, usually fermented or slow cooked." This statement steps far beyond the bounds of truth. We go on record as stating that Pre-Agricultural people ate few or no grains, however we have never suggested that they did not eat tubers. Again, if Fallon would take the time to read our scientific papers, she would be aware of this. In our AJCN 2000 paper (Table 3) we show that tubers, roots and bulbs would have comprised 23.6 % of all the plant food consumed by the average hunter-gatherer. Grains are virtually indigestible unless the cell walls are broken via (grinding or milling) and the starch is gelatinized by cooking. Hence the appearance of stone grinding tools (mortar and pestle, saddle stones etc) heralds the widespread use of grains in hunter-gatherer societies. The first primitive grinding tools do not make their appearance anywhere in the world until the late Paleolithic (~15-20,000 years ago), and the first hunter gatherer society known to have made wide scale use of grains were the Natufians who lived in the Levant ~13,000 years ago.

The next statement in this paragraph is highly objectionable, false and is totally ignorant of the actual data regarding the fatty acid composition of the tissue of wild animals. "He says that there isn't much fat in wild animals (did he check with any hunters while writing his book?) and that what fat these animals had was highly politically correct-low in "lethal" saturated fat and rich in monounsaturates and omega-3 fatty acids. Did he look up the fatty acid profile of buffalo fat while researching his book? Obviously not. If he had, it would have ruined his whole theory because buffalo fat is more saturated than beef fat." Apparently, Fallon again has failed to do her homework. If she would take the time to read our paper (Cordain L, Watkins BA, Florant GL, Kehler M, Rogers L, Li Y. Fatty acid analysis of wild ruminant tissues: Evolutionary implications for reducing diet-related chronic disease. Eur J Clin Nutr, 2002; 56:181-191.) she would know that our conclusions are based upon hundreds of hours of painstaking analysis. I don't believe Fallon has ever analyzed the tissues of any wild animals - we have, and our scientific results are much different than her opinions.

Here's another completely false statement: "And obviously he didn't check up on canola oil, which he recommends as a source of omega-3 fatty acids-because virtually all canola oil is deodorized, a process that gets rid of the omega-3s." This statement shows how anyone can say anything on the internet with absolutely no systems of checks and balances that are normally provided by the peer review process in scientific publications. Any reader who wants to can access Medline (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi) and find numerous studies showing that canola oil contains about 10% of it's total fatty acids as omega 3 fatty acids. Here are 2 citations (Dupont J et al. J Am Coll Nutr 1989;8:360-75; Ayorinde FO et al. Rapid Commun Mass Spectrom. 2000;14:608-15).

In regard to salt, Fallon again does the reader a disservice by not adequately presenting the data. The systematic mining, manufacture and transportation of salt have their origin in the Neolithic. Dragging and gathering salt from dry lakebeds is known to have taken place on Lake Yuncheng in the Northern Province of Shanxi, China by 6000 B.C. The earliest evidence for salt exploitation in Europe comes from salt mines at Cardona, Spain dating to 4200 - 3600 B.C. It is likely that Paleolithic or Holocene hunter-gatherers living in coastal areas may have dipped food in seawater or used dried seawater salt in a manner similar to nearly all Polynesian societies at the time of European contact However, the inland living Maori of New Zealand lost the salt habit, and most recently studied inland hunter-gatherers add no or little salt to their food on a daily basis. Further, there is no evidence that Paleolithic (2.5 million years ago until 10,000 years ago) people undertook salt extraction or took interest in inland salt deposits. Collectively, this evidence suggests that the high salt consumption (~10 g per day) in western societies has minimal or no evolutionary precedent in all hominin species prior to the Neolithic period.

Fallon's final paragraph represents opinion unsubstantiated by factual data. Again, if she would have taken the time to read our paper (Cordain L, Watkins BA, Florant GL, Kehler M, Rogers L, Li Y. Fatty acid analysis of wild ruminant tissues: Evolutionary implications for reducing diet-related chronic disease. Eur J Clin Nutr, 2002; 56:181-191.), she would have known that a modern Paleo Diet contains almost 8 times the RDA for vitamin A. Consequently, her statement that high protein diets lead to vitamin A deficiency is nonsense and completely untrue. Although hunter-gatherers did not consume dairy products, their bones were robust and resistant to fracture and rarely exhibited signs and symptoms of osteoporosis which is endemic in western populations. As we have outlined at my website as well as in the JANA paper and elsewhere, these people maintained strong bones because they were in calcium balance - meaning that calcium intake exceeded calcium losses in the urine. When the diet is net alkaline-producing, calcium balance can be maintained at lower calcium intakes.

You know...after reading over this for a second time...it sounds like the authors of this paper may possibly have more of an agenda than Sally Fallon. It is easy to jump all over one phrase someone makes and spend a couple of hours compiling information to "prove" that said person is an idiot.

There are plenty of articles that make parents who don't vax and who don't follow the back to sleep campaign etc look like total reckless fools who are endangering the lives of their children.

Honestly, I'd like to see them give SF a proper chance to rebut.


----------



## Wolfmeis (Nov 16, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *twins10705*
Sorry to go off on a tangent....but there is also no real evidence that "Paleolithic" peoples or even life at all existed more than 10,000 years ago...it is all theory.

What?????

Dude, carbon dating alone proves that........


----------



## Shirelle (May 22, 2006)

Not to totally threadjack, but, some believe that carbon dating is very unreliable. http://www.drdino.com/articles.php?spec=79 This guy is a fundamentalist Christian (who thinks Catholics need to run far, far away from the Catholic Church







), who is also a scientist. I know very little about science, and am torn on the evolution/creationism issue, but I thought I'd throw it out there!


----------



## Wolfmeis (Nov 16, 2004)

I am thoroughly in love with science, and while I am also a Christian I think they can go hand in hand without the craziness. Life on earth is very clearly far older than 10,000 years.

This should make another thread, because I don't want to hijack this one. But when I said carbon dating alone proves it, I am indicating many other bases of evidence. Ice cores. Ocean cores. Geological strata.

Science has even proven the plausibility of Noah's ark.... it's not one or the other.


----------



## twins10705 (Feb 10, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Wolfmeis*
What?????

Dude, carbon dating alone proves that........

A lot of people believe carbon dating to be ridiculously inaccurate...if you believe in the Biblical account of the Great Deluge it makes more sense to a modern-scientifically minded person.


----------



## twins10705 (Feb 10, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Wolfmeis*
Science has even proven the plausibility of Noah's ark.... it's not one or the other.

Clearly, my beliefs would be considered unorthodox by some modern scientific communities -- but that is not to say I discard science to believe in "craziness". There are many Creationist scientists, with all of the PhDs I personally do not have, that make an argument at least as sound as that of any given evolutionist...I think my opinion is already apparent however.


----------



## AJP (Apr 30, 2003)

Whoa! Let's not totally derail this thread. I think the mods would agree that the evolution/creation/ID discussion should take place elsewhere. Perhaps you could start a new thread if you wish to discuss the impact those particular belief systems have on dietary decisions.


----------



## kallyn (May 24, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *twins10705*
Honestly, I'd like to see them give SF a proper chance to rebut.

Sally Fallon had an ongoing conversation/debate with Loren Cordain. It was not one-sided, and they were both offered many chances to rebut. To see part of the debate, you can go to the paleodiet.com archives here: http://listserv.icors.org/archives/paleodiet.html and search for fallon.


----------



## bluets (Mar 15, 2005)

evolution happens - this is not a point of debate amongst scientists. the debate is more about how it happens, how quickly it happens, etc.

but back to the original topic.

my big complaint is about the way WAP advocates high doses of vitamin A *through cod liver oil* as part of a regular supplement (see http://www.westonaprice.org/basicnut...ications.html). 20000 IU of vitamin A through cod liver oil for pregnant and nursing women?! to me, this recommendation advocates heavy use of nutraceuticals - isn't it better, in general, to lightly (to moderately) supplement and then focus on getting your nutrients through high quality food?


----------



## Panserbjorne (Sep 17, 2003)

Ive read enough things like that, and the research behind it (and yes, Fallon did have a chance to rebut) to tell me that I just don't think what she says is 100% in line with WAP. I really like what he had to say, and not so much what she does. I don't like her personally from what I've seen, but that's neither here nor there. I just don't think she's all that credible and I'd rather read what WAP has to say than her. That's all I'm saying.


----------



## CluckyInAZ (May 4, 2004)

Quote:

my big complaint is about the way WAP advocates high doses of vitamin A through cod liver oil as part of a regular supplement (see http://www.westonaprice.org/basicnut...ications.html). 20000 IU of vitamin A through cod liver oil for pregnant and nursing women?! to me, this recommendation advocates heavy use of nutraceuticals - isn't it better, in general, to lightly (to moderately) supplement and then focus on getting your nutrients through high quality food?
With the state of the nutrient density of modern food, I think it is important to supplement. I don't live in an amazing mecca of fertile soil, it is lacking. The availability of perfect foods for every component of my meals is lacking too. I just don't think it is realistic to get that sort of nutrient profile strictly from current food sources that are available to most people. That is why I supplement my family with large doses of high vitamin cod liver oil. I have read N&PD and WAP found that those vitamins regulate the absorbtion of other nutrients. I figure if I get enough CLO I can make the best use of the limited minerals in my food.

I agree that Sally's gung-ho, arrogant and rude as well as often false writting style is incredibly off putting. I enjoy reading Mary Enig's articles immessurably more, because I don't feel like I have to be on my guard the whole time against statements that just aren't true hidden in amid everything else she says. It definitely hurts Sally's credibility. A good example is the afforementioned issue of homogenized milk and heart disease.


----------



## Gale Force (Jun 15, 2003)

The vigilant anti-vegan message is unfortunate. I don't think a vegan diet is the best diet or I'd be a vegan, but it doesn't follow that you should be nasty about it. For instance, the article on the site about the devastation of the earth without animal husbandry has some interesting elements but is too inflammatory to be all that useful in marketing the message.


----------



## alamama (Mar 21, 2005)

For me the issues with SF come down to tone and trust.

I simply don't enjoy the virulent tone of her attacks on other viewpoints -- I find it does nothing to increase knowledge or peace in my life. I'm sure it doesn't bother some people, but I don't need that vibe in my life. (I don't listen to talk radio rants either!) There are many, many people who believe passionately in their nutritional philosophies and yet manage to discuss them without resorting to that kind of tone.

And trust -- she makes enough questionable assertions, without backing them up with facts, that I no longer find her credible. I share many concerns and views with her about diet, but I take anything she writes with a grain of salt.

Despite that, I'm still grateful for much of what WAPF does.


----------



## EBG (May 3, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *firefaery*
Here's a sample of one I just read...

The third paragraph of Fallon's diatribe becomes personal and insulting - not just for me for any educated person. I prefer to let the data and information speak for itself, regardless of a person's gender, racial background or academic affiliation. Information should not be accepted or rejected upon who generates it, but rather upon the merit and objectivity of the idea. I personally find it repulsive to prejudice an individual or person based upon personal issues or characteristics that are unrelated to the information being presented.

In the third paragraph of her review, Fallon once again mistakenly suggests that we indicated that hunter-gatherers ate low fat diets. This never has been the case. Apparently, she has not bothered to read our paper (Cordain L, Brand ****** J, Eaton SB, Mann N, Holt SHA, Speth JD. Plant to animal subsistence ratios and macronutrient energy estimations in world wide hunter-gatherer diets. Am J Clin Nutr 2000, 71:682-92) in which we say "Our analysis showed that whenever and wherever it was ecologically possible, hunter-gatherers consumed high amounts (45-65% of energy) of animal food. And "the fat intake would be comparable or higher (28-58% energy) than values currently consumed in modern, industrialized societies."

Fallon brings up the notion of political correctness (pc) in her review. As scientists, we utilize the scientific method to form and test our hypotheses and let the chips fall where they will regardless of any pre-conceived notions. Although it may be politically correct to state that saturated fats are not necessarily healthful when consumed in the high amounts in the typical U.S. diet, it is terribly politically incorrect to recommend limiting grains of any kind (whole or processed) or dairy products. Our dietary recommendations have no basis in political correctness, but rather reflect what the data indicate.

In Fallon's 4th paragraph she completely misleads the reader by stating that: "He says that Paleolithic peoples had no carbohydrate foods like grains or starchy root foods-never mind reports of grains found in the fire ashes of some of the earliest human groups, or the widespread use of tubers among primitive peoples, usually fermented or slow cooked." This statement steps far beyond the bounds of truth. We go on record as stating that Pre-Agricultural people ate few or no grains, however we have never suggested that they did not eat tubers. Again, if Fallon would take the time to read our scientific papers, she would be aware of this. In our AJCN 2000 paper (Table 3) we show that tubers, roots and bulbs would have comprised 23.6 % of all the plant food consumed by the average hunter-gatherer. Grains are virtually indigestible unless the cell walls are broken via (grinding or milling) and the starch is gelatinized by cooking. Hence the appearance of stone grinding tools (mortar and pestle, saddle stones etc) heralds the widespread use of grains in hunter-gatherer societies. The first primitive grinding tools do not make their appearance anywhere in the world until the late Paleolithic (~15-20,000 years ago), and the first hunter gatherer society known to have made wide scale use of grains were the Natufians who lived in the Levant ~13,000 years ago.

The next statement in this paragraph is highly objectionable, false and is totally ignorant of the actual data regarding the fatty acid composition of the tissue of wild animals. "He says that there isn't much fat in wild animals (did he check with any hunters while writing his book?) and that what fat these animals had was highly politically correct-low in "lethal" saturated fat and rich in monounsaturates and omega-3 fatty acids. Did he look up the fatty acid profile of buffalo fat while researching his book? Obviously not. If he had, it would have ruined his whole theory because buffalo fat is more saturated than beef fat." Apparently, Fallon again has failed to do her homework. If she would take the time to read our paper (Cordain L, Watkins BA, Florant GL, Kehler M, Rogers L, Li Y. Fatty acid analysis of wild ruminant tissues: Evolutionary implications for reducing diet-related chronic disease. Eur J Clin Nutr, 2002; 56:181-191.) she would know that our conclusions are based upon hundreds of hours of painstaking analysis. I don't believe Fallon has ever analyzed the tissues of any wild animals - we have, and our scientific results are much different than her opinions.

Here's another completely false statement: "And obviously he didn't check up on canola oil, which he recommends as a source of omega-3 fatty acids-because virtually all canola oil is deodorized, a process that gets rid of the omega-3s." This statement shows how anyone can say anything on the internet with absolutely no systems of checks and balances that are normally provided by the peer review process in scientific publications. Any reader who wants to can access Medline (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi) and find numerous studies showing that canola oil contains about 10% of it's total fatty acids as omega 3 fatty acids. Here are 2 citations (Dupont J et al. J Am Coll Nutr 1989;8:360-75; Ayorinde FO et al. Rapid Commun Mass Spectrom. 2000;14:608-15).

In regard to salt, Fallon again does the reader a disservice by not adequately presenting the data. The systematic mining, manufacture and transportation of salt have their origin in the Neolithic. Dragging and gathering salt from dry lakebeds is known to have taken place on Lake Yuncheng in the Northern Province of Shanxi, China by 6000 B.C. The earliest evidence for salt exploitation in Europe comes from salt mines at Cardona, Spain dating to 4200 - 3600 B.C. It is likely that Paleolithic or Holocene hunter-gatherers living in coastal areas may have dipped food in seawater or used dried seawater salt in a manner similar to nearly all Polynesian societies at the time of European contact However, the inland living Maori of New Zealand lost the salt habit, and most recently studied inland hunter-gatherers add no or little salt to their food on a daily basis. Further, there is no evidence that Paleolithic (2.5 million years ago until 10,000 years ago) people undertook salt extraction or took interest in inland salt deposits. Collectively, this evidence suggests that the high salt consumption (~10 g per day) in western societies has minimal or no evolutionary precedent in all hominin species prior to the Neolithic period.

Fallon's final paragraph represents opinion unsubstantiated by factual data. Again, if she would have taken the time to read our paper (Cordain L, Watkins BA, Florant GL, Kehler M, Rogers L, Li Y. Fatty acid analysis of wild ruminant tissues: Evolutionary implications for reducing diet-related chronic disease. Eur J Clin Nutr, 2002; 56:181-191.), she would have known that a modern Paleo Diet contains almost 8 times the RDA for vitamin A. Consequently, her statement that high protein diets lead to vitamin A deficiency is nonsense and completely untrue. Although hunter-gatherers did not consume dairy products, their bones were robust and resistant to fracture and rarely exhibited signs and symptoms of osteoporosis which is endemic in western populations. As we have outlined at my website as well as in the JANA paper and elsewhere, these people maintained strong bones because they were in calcium balance - meaning that calcium intake exceeded calcium losses in the urine. When the diet is net alkaline-producing, calcium balance can be maintained at lower calcium intakes.


Interesting... However, this paleo stuff would only make sense if you're an evolutionist.
I'm not. For me the Bible speaks the truth. And when I look at what people ate, it's clear that they did eat dairy very early. As early as Abel and Cain- we have livestock- possibly for fur, but could be for dairy and later on their meat. After the flood Noah was told to eat animals besides the plants that had already been given to men.

Land of the milk and honey....

And high protein diets are indeed dangerous. Have you heard the term rabbit-starvation?

God promised his people the fat of the land...
A prophecy about Jesus says that he will eat curds/butter and honey....

As for grains, the Bible's paleo people did eat grains but possibly not as much, only in whole grain form that was allowed to germinate in the fields after harvest, so they actually "sprouted" them and "soaked" them and made their breads with natural leavening as it is also suggested by SF.
Rubin also talks about this.

I still think, especially with conjunction with Rubin's book that I just finished, that NT and the Maker's diet is the best approach to healthy living FOR ME.

End of blog.


----------



## EBG (May 3, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Wolfmeis*
What?????

Dude, carbon dating alone proves that........

Is there a creation/evolution debate thread here?


----------



## Shirelle (May 22, 2006)

Quote:

Is there a creation/evolution debate thread here?
I doubt that that would be allowed anywhere on MDC.


----------



## gardenmommy (Nov 23, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *EBG*
Is there a creation/evolution debate thread here?

It has been debated in the past, but I think the threads ended up being locked due to the heated nature the discussions took.


----------



## Panserbjorne (Sep 17, 2003)

That post was less about the content and more about the tone. In this instance there are some things that L. Cordain is more well versed in, but I'm not saying he's right and she's wrong. It's more about the way that she treats people and (I feel) makes waters murky by being so sarcastic and condescending without having hard facts on her side. She really does blatently misrepresent his research just to try and discredit him. Why? The diet he's advocating isn't that different. I just really don't like her tone. Again, just my .02.


----------



## caedmyn (Jan 13, 2006)

I do wish Fallon would have put less of an emphasis on dairy. In this day and age many people cannot tolerate even raw or cultured dairy. So many of the recipes in NT contain dairy that it makes it hard for someone dealing with dairy intolerances to even sort through and find the non-dairy ones. Like the fermented foods--how hard would it have been to simply mention that you can substitute liquid from a previous ferment in place of the whey?


----------



## Gale Force (Jun 15, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *firefaery* 
In this instance there are some things that L. Cordain is more well versed in, but I'm not saying he's right and she's wrong. It's more about the way that she treats people and (I feel) makes waters murky by being so sarcastic and condescending without having hard facts on her side. She really does blatently misrepresent his research just to try and discredit him. Why? The diet he's advocating isn't that different.

This thread inspired me to look at Cordain's book The Paleo Diet. The WAPF review of it is scathing, but the book is good. He does suggest people give up sugared sodas and replace them with diet sodas (in moderation) and that is the subject of ridicule in the WAPF review. His advice also diverges from WAPF in recommending lean meats. But his reasoning makes sense: Paleo diets were lean -- wild game is lean. The dilemma for him as a writer, however, is how to get people to head down the Paleo path when wild game is not available in the market. So what he does is he says that you should eat regular meats but chop off some of the fat. In this context, he recommends chicken breasts (the other target of the WAPF review). I see his recommendations as trying to appeal to mainstream American rather than a small Paleo niche. The diet soda is unfortunate, but the chicken breast makes sense from his perspective. And both recommendations are an attempt to make the diet do-able.

In any case, there is a disconnect between the WAPF review and the actual book especially given how similar these philosophies are. Well, similar compared to the SAD diet. He is anti-grain and dairy, pro-fat but not too much fat. He does not recommend coconut oil because it has no Omega 3.


----------



## pampered_mom (Mar 27, 2006)

I wanted to say that I've really appreciated this thread as well as this one. It's been very helpful to get an honest evaluation of folks who have BTDT and find that in many ways it express my gut feelings regarding the first impressions I have had of the organization and many of the folks associated with it that I have encountered IRL.

I think Gale force summed my impression up best in her post above where she said:

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Gale Force* 
The WAPF review of it is scathing,

The word choice here aptly describing the items that I have read. That's not to say that any other organization (or individual) out there is any less "scathing" in their handlings of their "opponents" (for lack of a better term). It's just that it's a barrier to anyone who may even be remotely interested in finding out more.

The discussion in this thread and the other one I mentioned regarding the WAPF's take on lacto-ovo veg and breastfeeding (mainly Sally Fallon's statements on it) have touched on by in far the largest stumbling block for me as to ever really wanting to get further into the discussion/writings of NT.

I certainly applaud any organization that opposes industrial food, factory farms, or feedlots. It's just too bad that, at least from my point of view, ever making "friends" so to speak with the WAPF seems a little bit like hugging a porcupine.

Thanks, firefaery for starting this thread. It's certainly food for thought (no pun intended).


----------



## Gale Force (Jun 15, 2003)

Another problem I have with anyone who employs this practice is singling out specific people and ridiculing them for health problems they are having. It's hard enough for anybody these days to be in good health and good diets will protect us from a lot but with all of the toxic exposure we get everyday and the deficiencies we have inherited, any one of us can have our number called at any time. Nutrition will reduce our chances that our number is called, but the risk is still there.

Ridiculing people who are struggling is just mean. This happens on all sides: the WAPF website is guilty, opponents of WAPF's Stephen Byrnes are guilty of doing this upon his death.


----------



## newcastlemama (Jun 7, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Gale Force* 
Another problem I have with anyone who employs this practice is singling out specific people and ridiculing them for health problems they are having. It's hard enough for anybody these days to be in good health and good diets will protect us from a lot but with all of the toxic exposure we get everyday and the deficiencies we have inherited, any one of us can have our number called at any time. Nutrition will reduce our chances that our number is called, but the risk is still there.


It's so true. No way of eating is a cure all or guarantee....but they make you think it is. Eating healthy will certainly improve your health but not fix everthing.


----------



## Gale Force (Jun 15, 2003)

I think a good diet will fix a whole lot but it's no guarantee that none of us are going to get something deadly tomorrow. There are too many factors working against us. I like my odds better on a good diet.


----------



## pampered_mom (Mar 27, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Gale Force* 
Ridiculing people who are struggling is just mean. This happens on all sides: the WAPF website is guilty, opponents of WAPF's Stephen Byrnes are guilty of doing this upon his death.

Absolutely!


----------



## rayo de sol (Sep 28, 2006)

This is a very interesting thread, but I'm a bit distracted by something that was said offhand towards the beginning of the thread.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *EBG* 
I feel that SF blames everything on diet: psychotic behavior, homosexuality, etc etc. That's just not true. I do believe diet does have an influence on behavior and as we know the proper diet can reverse some mental problems but diet is not the only reason as she would have us believe. It's a little simplistic to think CLO would prevent a possessed woman from murder.

Just M2Cs.

I find it quite offensive and upsetting that homosexuality is being compared here to psychotic behavior. Is the poster trying to say that SF is a homophobe who thinks that being gay or lesbian is a defect caused by an inadequate diet? Or is it the poster who is homophobic and equating being gay with being a murderer?







:


----------



## Panserbjorne (Sep 17, 2003)

Absolutely not the poster! If you read SF stuff you will understand. She really does blame everything on diet. Please don't think that EBG was saying that.


----------

