# Nourishing Traditions Vs. The China Study?



## milkmamamerina (Sep 29, 2008)

I have heard both of these books touted by my health/nutrition conscious friends. I have starting reading Nourishing Traditions and it seems very compelling. I have not yet read The China Study, but it seems it is in stark opposition to the information in Nourishing Traditions. I am a bit concerned with how NT views saturated fats in particular since it is so counter to everything I thought I knew. If I go forward feeding my family in the Traditional Eating way, I want to be extremely certain.

So, I am curious to hear thoughts from any of you wise mamas that have read both.
What did you conclude and why? What are your experiences?

We have hypoglycemia on both sides of the family which is a major factor in my dietary choices. I also have a daughter with a myriad of allergies (see signature) that would limit her food choices either way.


----------



## Sayward (Nov 16, 2009)

We're not really allowed to have this conversation here, unfortunately.

oops baby crying gotta go


----------



## tallulahma (Jun 16, 2006)

you can google "the china study criticism" and "weston a price criticism" and spend hours and hours reading.

weston a price has this on their website http://www.westonaprice.org/blogs/tags/the-china-study/


----------



## Purple Sage (Apr 23, 2007)

In all honesty, I don't care much for either book,, although NT is more in line with my dietary philosophy. One thing I will say is that there are several very good critiques of _The China Study_ online, some written by WAPF types and some by more mainstream folks. Just google.


----------



## kaleidoscopeeyes (May 14, 2006)

I've read them both, and honestly...I think they are both skewed. Perhaps one more than the other, but that is a matter for debate not appropriate to this board. I've also been vegan and TF. Vegan definitely didn't work out so well. TF so far has, but that may change in the future. I don't follow the guidelines in NT 100% anyway. When it comes to nutrition, I think you just have to try it and see. Humans are pretty resilient, we can bounce back from most things pretty well. Obsessing about everything that goes into your mouth is a terrible way to live, so I just don't do it.









I think really, Michael Pollan said it best: "Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants." (There are of course some caveats there, but the gist of that statement works for me.)


----------



## fruitfulmomma (Jun 8, 2002)

I haven't read The China Study. I have read NT. It is okay. I would recommend getting copies of Nina Planck's books and reading them. I think pretty much everyone on here that does TF/whole foods-type eating agrees that hers are better. She is much more AP/Breastfeeding-friendly than Fallon. She is also an ex-vegetarian (I *think* vegan) and discusses her own health issues with that diet. http://www.ninaplanck.com/

You could also read Richard Morris' 'A Life Unburdened' which is about his struggle with obesity and how he finally got healthy with a whole-foods diet. http://www.breadandmoney.com/ (His wife is also in the medical field and was very sick herself before making switches.)

My youngest has a ton of food intolerances and since I am nursing her we both eat the same diet. Also, I can't tolerate gluten, which I discovered a couple of years ago when dd3 started reacting to it. Our diet is primarily made up of animal products because that is basically all dd4 can tolerate. She has a very limited spectrum of veggie foods that we can do and only two fruits.


----------



## tallulahma (Jun 16, 2006)

i also think its important to incorporate in the different phases of our lives...

i had no problems being veg*n before kids, but after 5 years of pregnancy after pregnancy and tandem nursing my youngest two? yeah, I started having problems.

i mean, even the Dalai Lama eats meat!


----------



## koru (Sep 7, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Sayward* 
We're not really allowed to have this conversation here, unfortunately.

Curious why this is so? I haven't been hanging around these here parts so I'm uninformed.









I would say I'm middle of the road even though I lean towards NT with a vegetarian bent (raw milk, fresh milled grains, local farm-fresh eggs, organic grass-fed meats, coconut oil, etc.). What really appeals to me, though, is eating for your metabolic type.


----------



## mamadelbosque (Feb 6, 2007)

I've skimmed through both... and both gave me the vibe "this is the *ONLY* way to eat!!" vibe, which I suspect we all know is not true. Obviously humans have eaten a myriad of different diets over the millennia some more in line with The China Study, some more inline with Nourishing Traditions. But many, many, many different diets eating many, many, many different things, depending on what was available to them.

So... I too go more with Micheal Pollan's "Eat Food. Not too much. Mostly Plants." theory of eating. I try to get at least one or two vegetarian meals in us a week, and avoid white sugar/flour, HFCS and processed foods as much as I can (though we do get McDonalds, frozen pizzas, and chicken nuggets from time to time too). Basicly we eat a 'whole foods' type diet: focusing mostly on REAL food from REAL animals/plants and not highly processed stuff as is in the SAD. But thats us... I'm not very dogmatic though, which is kinda unusual around here in some ways, but thats us.


----------



## Purple Sage (Apr 23, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mamadelbosque* 
I've skimmed through both... and both gave me the vibe "this is the *ONLY* way to eat!!" vibe, which I suspect we all know is not true. Obviously humans have eaten a myriad of different diets over the millennia some more in line with The China Study, some more inline with Nourishing Traditions. But many, many, many different diets eating many, many, many different things, depending on what was available to them.

That's actually one of the issues I have with The China Study. He is pretty adamant that all people should eat the way he says, that all people can thrive on a diet completely devoid of animal products, but he never actually studied any human populations who eat that way.

While I'm not a big fan of Sally Fallon, her assertion that people should include at least some animal products is based on Weston Price's finding that of all the healthy traditional populations he studied, every one of them ate some form of animal based food. So at least there's some evidence to back up this claim.


----------



## milkmamamerina (Sep 29, 2008)

As I'm reading more into NT I definitely see things I like and things that make me suspicious. I noticed that she says Asian peoples have larger pancreas and salivary glands which allows them to digest grains more effectively. That right there does cast a big doubt in my mind on the China Study's premise that all people should eat as China does. Not all people have the same physiology, especially when they have differing ancestory.

On the other hand, NT mentions that vegetarians (not vegans)will have a B12 deficient breastmilk unless they drink raw milk. I searched and searched on the internet for anything that would support this and there was nothing. LLL, Kellymom, and Dr. Mercola had nothing to support it. At best, it appears vegetarians might need to consider a supplement or regular amount of nutritional yeast, but it certainly is not as dire of a situation as NT makes it out to be.

I am interested to hear more on the saturated fat issue since this has been the one that seemed most contrary to current information and it seemed to be to be pretty well supported in NT.


----------



## koru (Sep 7, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *milkmamamerina* 
Not all people have the same physiology, especially when they have differing ancestory.

This is exactly what metabolic typing addresses which is why I appreciate it so much. I'm sure many of you have heard of it but here's a link, just in case...
http://www.metabolictypingdiet.com/

I went to a lecture this past fall & the speaker/nutritionist ascribed to many of the NT principals but the key is in the balance of animal & vegetable products. He actually went so far as to say that most people aren't their healthiest on a strict vegetarian/vegan diet, too. But I digress....


----------



## Purple Sage (Apr 23, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *milkmamamerina* 
As I'm reading more into NT I definitely see things I like and things that make me suspicious. I noticed that she says Asian peoples have larger pancreas and salivary glands which allows them to digest grains more effectively. That right there does cast a big doubt in my mind on the China Study's premise that all people should eat as China does. Not all people have the same physiology, especially when they have differing ancestory.

Well, I'm not sure where Sally Fallon gets this information about larger salivary glands and pancreases in Asians from....I haven't read that in any other source. And there really is no monolithic Chinese diet, either. The China Study made it clear that there are many different diets found in China, and none of them are completely vegan.

Quote:

On the other hand, NT mentions that vegetarians (not vegans)will have a B12 deficient breastmilk unless they drink raw milk. I searched and searched on the internet for anything that would support this and there was nothing. LLL, Kellymom, and Dr. Mercola had nothing to support it. At best, it appears vegetarians might need to consider a supplement or regular amount of nutritional yeast, but it certainly is not as dire of a situation as NT makes it out to be.

I am interested to hear more on the saturated fat issue since this has been the one that seemed most contrary to current information and it seemed to be to be pretty well supported in NT.
About vegetarians and B12, I think Fallon just loves to push raw milk. Vegans, of course, need supplemental B12 - even T. Colin Campbell says this. Nutritional yeast isn't a reliable source of B12, though, according to the veg*n sources I've read.

There is a LOT of information on saturated fat not being the public menace its been made out to be. _Good Calories, Bad Calories_ by Gary Taubes would be my recommendation for more on that, as well as blogs like Whole Health Source and Protein Power and many others (the blogrolls on those two blogs are a good place to start).


----------



## peaceful_mama (May 27, 2005)

I own NT, have not read the China Study (in fact, just heard of it right now), LOVED Nina Planck's books and Michael Pollan's too.

I have not read NT cover to cover but have read much of it.

Here is my philosophy, finally, after all this reading about what to eat, not to eat, etc.

If it grows on a plant or has a mother, it likely also has a place in a healthy diet. (animal foods and plant foods)

If it is something my great-grandmother would've recognized as a food, it is likely something that can have a place in a healthy diet. (







I had this mental pic once of my great-grandmother trying to figure out a box of the "Potato Buds" instant mashed potatoes my mom used to make, if it didn't have a label for some reason with the picture of potatoes on it. Hmmm, is this soap flakes? Is it some sort of glue?--if it was mixed with water. WHAT is this?







)

A place--i.e. homemade sweets can have *a place* in a healthy diet. Cookies as an afternoon snack sometimes. Cake and ice cream at parties. Popcorn with butter and salt as a movie snack. (real, homemade with butter) Candy on occasion. A special dessert with holiday/Sunday dinner.

If it is something with a list of ingredients I can't pronounce, I likely should not ingest it, as I should not be eating things that I don't know what they are.







And if it was crafted in a lab basically. (Why there is BUTTER in my house, not MARGARINE, and my PB is NATURAL. stuff like that.)

That said, I have given up trying to exert control over what the others in my home choose to eat or choose to buy for the kids. Life's too short. And yes, they are going to get junk outside the home. So what? They also go completely INSANE with happiness over things like melons.







Moderation.


----------



## Smokering (Sep 5, 2007)

Quote:

I've skimmed through both... and both gave me the vibe "this is the *ONLY* way to eat!!" vibe, which I suspect we all know is not true.
Yes and no... Nourishing Traditions does come across as pretty hard-core, but the book is also very clear that _within_ Traditional Foodism there are heaps and heaps of different diets. WAP found heaps of healthy cultures eating quite different things, after all - some with practically no vegetable matter, some mostly vegetarian with some seafood, some dairy-heavy, some dairy-free, some who ate raw meat, some who ate preserved meats...

So there are dozens and dozens of quite different diets that could be considered TF, ranging from raw meat and milk to a fairly standard turkey dinner to a plate of raw vegan food with a sardine perched on top.







There are TFers on MDC who are grain-free, dairy-free, mostly raw, even a few vegetarians. Some of us are way into making our own sauerkraut and cheeses, kefir, kombucha and stock; others of us wouldn't touch it with a barge-pole. Personally I haven't yet learned to love liver.







So... yes, the book advocates certain _principles_ of eating quite strongly, like saturated-fat-isn't-evil and animal-products-are-good-for-you, but it doesn't push _a_ specific diet, simply because WAP found that plenty of very different whole-foodsy diets worked beautifully for different groups of people.


----------



## shantimama (Mar 11, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *koru* 
Curious why this is so? I haven't been hanging around these here parts so I'm uninformed.










These guidelines are in a sticky at the top of each page within the Nutrition and Good Eating forum









Quote:

*Nutrition and Good Eating guidelines*

Nutrition and Good Eating and its subforums are boards of support, respectful requests of information, and sharing of ideas and experiences. *To uphold this purpose MDC will not host discussions of debate or criticism* within Nutrition and Good Eating, Vegetarian & Vegan Living, Traditional Foods and Meal Planning. Disagreements about dietary choices and personal beliefs should be set aside out of respect for the diversity and varying interpretations and beliefs that we hold as a community.

We will be active in discouraging individuals from posting for the purpose of disagreement, with no interest in practicing the belief or view in discussion, or to prove a dietary concept or a belief to be wrong, misguided, or not based on fact. Controversial subjects of discussion and debate related to dietary choices and lifestyles can be found elsewhere on the internet and we invite you to seek out other sites for that purpose.

It is our wish that Nutrition and Good Eating and its subforums be a supportive and welcoming atmosphere for everyone. Please help us achieve this by doing your part and adhering to our guidelines. And as always, please make sure your posting is in accordance with the MDC User Agreement.


----------



## koru (Sep 7, 2006)

Thanks, Shantimama! I obviously didn't read the guidelines.







Looks like this thread is all good, though. Good discussion!


----------



## Chicharronita (Oct 8, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *milkmamamerina* 
I am a bit concerned with how NT views saturated fats in particular *since it is so counter to everything I thought I knew.* If I go forward feeding my family in the Traditional Eating way, I want to be extremely certain.

IKWYM. I used to be concerned about saturated fat intake too, to the point of using meat as a "condiment," and virtually eliminating all dairy.

Nowadays pretty much all the health "authorities" are saying to cut down on meat & fat, and increase fruits and veggies, aren't they?

But what happens when your diet is low in protein and fat? I don't know about you, but when I eat that way I am left with a constant hunger, and a strong craving for sugar.

Personally I think this type of diet is being promoted by Big Pharma and Big Agra to increase sales of drugs and junk foods.

Sally Fallon and Dr. Mary Enig go into this in their essay and movie, "The Oiling of America."

Sally Fallon is often derided because she studied art or literature in college, but Dr. Mary Enig is a biochemist who has studied lipids and nutrition extensively (and therefore you never see any criticism or mention of her in anti-WAPF diatribes, lol).

I highly recommend it, if for no other reason than to understand how a nation of enthusiastic saturated fat consumers got hoodwinked into replacing butter, tallow, and lard with vegetable oils.

Quote:

So, I am curious to hear thoughts from any of you wise mamas that have read both.
What did you conclude and why? What are your experiences?
I've read both, and many of the other books mentioned in this thread.

Although I don't have a science background and am extremely math-challenged, I've come away with a huge skepticism towards Dr. Campbell and _The China Study_.

Especially lately, in his lame non-responses to blogger Denise Minger's recent dismantling of the China Study numbers (as presented in the original monograph that the book supposedly got its information from).

Quote:

We have hypoglycemia on both sides of the family which is a major factor in my dietary choices.
Me too! And the only way for me to control that is with a diet that's high in fat and has moderate protein.

This is the reason Micheal Pollan's "Eat Food. Not too much. Mostly Plants" theory of eating doesn't work for me. I read an amusing twist on that theory (was it here on MDC?) that applies to me: "I ate food. Not much. Mostly plants. Was still hungry."


----------



## Chicharronita (Oct 8, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Smokering* 
Nourishing Traditions does come across as pretty hard-core, but the book is also very clear that _within_ Traditional Foodism there are heaps and heaps of different diets. *WAP found heaps of healthy cultures eating quite different things, after all - some with practically no vegetable matter, some mostly vegetarian with some seafood, some dairy-heavy, some dairy-free, some who ate raw meat, some who ate preserved meats...*

I think WAP's _Nutrition and Phsyical Degeneration_ is an excellent book. You can even read it online. He summarizes the diets of healthy people in Chapter 16, "Primitive control of dental caries."

Price found that all the diets contained what he called "fat-soluble activators." These activators are found in dairy foods, organ meats, seafood, and insects, and many of the groups had two or more food sources.

Isn't it strange that these are the very foods the "authorities" are telling us to eliminate from our diet? Hmmm. Yet research shows that without fat, the body can't utilize fat-soluble nutrients.


----------



## karika (Nov 4, 2005)

I was jut skimming this thread and those two things popped out at me. I tend to believe this article about B12 that I recently read

http://www.naturalnews.com/029531_vi...B12_vegan.html

When I first heard of the supposed deficiency and where other plant eating mammals get their B12 from, I concluded it only makes sense that humans would get it the same way, from bacteria in our gut....

Some people have said they feel a constant hunger when eating a more vegetarian diet. The evidence is in to say that is a good thing. Longer life, better health and brain function are a side effect of a lifestyle that includes fasting or restricted caloric intake.

http://www.naturalnews.com/029565_ca...on_health.html

However, as a nursing mom I agree we have to have enough calories to keep the mother's milk flowing. I eat a lot of homemade GFCFSF peanut butter cookies, lol


----------



## Sayward (Nov 16, 2009)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *karika* 
I was jut skimming this thread and those two things popped out at me. I tend to believe this article about B12 that I recently read

http://www.naturalnews.com/029531_vi...B12_vegan.html

When I first heard of the supposed deficiency and where other plant eating mammals get their B12 from, I concluded it only makes sense that humans would get it the same way, from bacteria in our gut....

I'm a veg*n and have no problem saying that this 'article' is simply not based on science. It is TOTALLY irresponsible to encourage people to become vegan by lying to them. B12 deficiency is nothing to mess around with, especially in a pregnancy/parenting community.

I firmly believe that a vegan diet is optimal, and I am a scientist (biologist). There's nothing wrong with the fact that vegans should supplement with B12 - everyone is supplementing with something!







It doesn't invalidate veganism.

I don't want to argue, but for anyone else reading this PLEASE do your research - if you do you'll see that EVERY reputable source recommends vegans include some sort of B12 - either from fortified foods or by supplement - and the scientific literature backs them up.


----------



## Purple Sage (Apr 23, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *karika* 
Some people have said they feel a constant hunger when eating a more vegetarian diet. The evidence is in to say that is a good thing. Longer life, better health and brain function are a side effect of a lifestyle that includes fasting or restricted caloric intake.

http://www.naturalnews.com/029565_ca...on_health.html

This would only apply, though, if the hunger is accompanied by a lower intake of calories. As a vegan (not the entire time I was vegan, but towards the end) I was hungry all the time _and_ eating all the time. I was definitely not restricting calories - and certainly not to CRON levels. You'd be surprised at how many calories of beans, grains, nuts, vegetables, etc. I could eat and still be hungry.









Interestingly, in most of the studies on low carb diets that I've read about, the participants naturally reduce the number of calories they eat (as compared to what they were eating prior to the diet). That's why you hear so frequently that low carb diets work because they're really low calorie diets in disguise. The interesting thing is that the reason people on low carb diets eat fewer calories is because _they aren't as hungry_.

I guess what I'm saying is that CRON might be a good thing (and it might not - everyone seems to agree that more research is needed), but hunger is not necessarily a good indicator of calorie restriction.


----------



## Otto (Oct 19, 2009)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Sayward* 
I'm a veg*n and have no problem saying that this 'article' is simply not based on science. It is TOTALLY irresponsible to encourage people to become vegan by lying to them.

This. The following sentence should be enough to set off alarm bells: "According to Dr. Vivian V. Vetrano, vitamin B12 actually comes from coenzymes, which are already present in bacteria found on the human body (in and around the mouth, for example)." Vetrano is a chiropractor with an unfortunate habit of being around when people drop dead of extreme fasts (William Carlton and three others [e.g., 722 F.2d 203], Dennis McDaniel [W.D. Texas, No. SA-06-CA-920-H]).


----------



## Chicharronita (Oct 8, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Purple Sage* 
This would only apply, though, if the hunger is accompanied by a lower intake of calories. As a vegan (not the entire time I was vegan, but towards the end) *I was hungry all the time and eating all the time*. I was definitely not restricting calories - and certainly not to CRON levels. *You'd be surprised at how many calories of beans, grains, nuts, vegetables, etc. I could eat and still be hungry*.









Yep. I've bt and dt, and I wasn't even vegetarian! Was trying to be, but didn't make it.

Quote:

Interestingly, in most of the studies on low carb diets that I've read about, the participants naturally reduce the number of calories they eat (as compared to what they were eating prior to the diet). That's why you hear so frequently that low carb diets work because they're really low calorie diets in disguise. *The interesting thing is that the reason people on low carb diets eat fewer calories is because they aren't as hungry.*
I've found that to be true.

Finally, for the first time in my life, I'm not obsessed about food. I eat two or three meals, and that's it.

I don't think about food, fantasize about food, wish for food, look at food porn....you get the picture.









Building meals around fat and protein is extremely satiating _and_ satisfying.


----------



## ChristaN (Feb 14, 2003)

Just to provide the perspective of a vegan who isn't perpetually hungry, I have been vegan for 22 yrs including through two pregnancies and four years of nursing. I was never unduly hungry and am mom to a nearly 12 y/o and my little one who will be 10 in a month. Yikes, they're getting old on me!


----------



## Chicharronita (Oct 8, 2006)

Chris Masterjohn just posted an interesting (and long!) look at other, lesser-known rat studies that Dr. C authored or co-authored, and finds that a lot of them contradict or at least call into question the ones that he used in his book:

The Curious Case of Campbell's Rats -- Does Protein Deficiency Prevent Cancer?

This is quite technical, and I'm still digesting all the information. It appears that in some of his early studies, Campbell found that rats fed a low-protein diet suffered from a lot of problems.

In one of the studies he quotes in his book, rats were given aflatoxin every day for six months, and then either given a diet containing 5% protein or 20%.

Although the study went on for 2 years, they had to stop giving aflatoxin after six months to the 5% group because half of them had *died*.

However, ALL of the 20% protein diet rats were still alive at that point.

The 20% rats went on to develop liver cancer or pre-cancerous changes to the liver, but the 5% protein diet rats who were still alive didn't, and this fact is used to tout the "benefits" of a low-protein diet.

I think this just proves the old adage that "what doesn't kill you only makes you stronger."









In a review Campbell co-authored called "The Effect of Quantity and Quality of Dietary Protein on Drug Metabolism" which looked at the effects of pesticides and other environmental toxins on a low-protein diet, toxicity to 3 compounds decreased, but toxicity to 18 other compounds were *increased*.

The early studies show that the low-protein diet rats ate less food, failed to grow, and weren't able to efficiently detox aflatoxin and other toxins. They developed fatty liver, their internal organs stopped developing, and they tended to die at an early age. Yow!


----------

