Re: OT - traditional cultures

[Guest guest]

Most of the traditional cultures that

Price speaks about in his book did on average eat 60% of their diet in fats,

this included from the meats they ate as well as milk and other dairy type

products. I am sure there are cultures that don’t fall into this,

though. That is why the WAP Foundation pushes the eating of a lot of fats,

especially saturated.

Allyn

From: iodine [mailto:iodine ] On Behalf Of

Sent: Thursday, July 06, 2006 2:30

PM

iodine

Subject: OT - traditional

cultures

With apologies to Zoe for continuing an off-topic

discussion

(notice I've at least labelled it as such w/a topic change),

I must correct the assertion made below regarding the diets

of traditional cultures. (Perhaps this all ties in to iodine

in that almost all native diets are naturally low in sodium.)

Anyway, to my point... You may be right about the Inuit's

high-fat/low-carb diet, but I would posit they are certainly

not typical and that such a diet befits them well when you

consider the extreme environs in which they live. A more

common indigenous diet might be that of the Yanomamo, the

ever-popular teaching model of such untouched societies in

anthropology classes in universities country-wide.

Here is a paper describing their diet (and that of the Yora

and Shiwiar):

http://www.anth.ucsb.edu/faculty/walker/publications/PLW%201998%20SA%

20Dental%20Health.pdf

The Yanomamo, it says, " Up to 90% of their calories come

from cultigens " and " these plants [referring to plaintains

and bananas] can account for 70% of the total Yanomamo

caloric intake. "

-

[...snip...]

> I also know

> that the traditional cultures never ate a whole lot of carbs and

quite a few

> of them hardly ate veggies and fruits. The Inuit's ate 80% fat

and hardly

> ever ate any veggies. It is very interesting. But they were

really healthy

> with no cancer or heart disease, cavities, etc.

> Allyn

[Guest guest]

Continuing this discussion is likely to cause a huge debate. I highly

recommend that you read Nutrition and Physical Degeneration by Weston A.

Price to see the wide range of indigenous diets. The Yanomamo diet may

not be atypical of indigenous diets but it is certainly not typical of

what Weston Price found in his travels.

Irene

At 11:29 AM 7/6/2006, you wrote:

With apologies to Zoe for

continuing an off-topic discussion

(notice I've at least labelled it as such w/a topic change),

I must correct the assertion made below regarding the diets

of traditional cultures. (Perhaps this all ties in to iodine

in that almost all native diets are naturally low in sodium.)

Anyway, to my point... You may be right about the Inuit's

high-fat/low-carb diet, but I would posit they are certainly

not typical and that such a diet befits them well when you

consider the extreme environs in which they live. A more

common indigenous diet might be that of the Yanomamo, the

ever-popular teaching model of such untouched societies in

anthropology classes in universities country-wide.

Here is a paper describing their diet (and that of the Yora

and Shiwiar):

http://www.anth.ucsb.edu/faculty/walker/publications/PLW%201998%20SA%

20Dental%20Health.pdf

The Yanomamo, it says, " Up to 90% of their calories come

from cultigens " and " these plants [referring to plaintains

and bananas] can account for 70% of the total Yanomamo

caloric intake. "

-

[...snip...]

> I also know

> that the traditional cultures never ate a whole lot of carbs and

quite a few

> of them hardly ate veggies and fruits. The Inuit's ate 80% fat

and hardly

> ever ate any veggies. It is very interesting. But they were

really healthy

> with no cancer or heart disease, cavities, etc.

> Allyn

[Guest guest]

No doubt; it often does. I'm proud of myself for having kept

my mouth shut for as long as I did.

Before swallowed my last message, I replied to Allyn's

response that perhaps another factor, a *common* factor,

should be sought when it is obvious that healthy cultures exist

with varying fat contents in their diets. One possibility may

be no processed foods. Another may be low-sodium. Etc., etc..

-

> >

> >[...snip...]

> >

> > > I also know

> > > that the traditional cultures never ate a whole lot of carbs

and

> >quite a few

> > > of them hardly ate veggies and fruits. The Inuit's ate 80% fat

> >and hardly

> > > ever ate any veggies. It is very interesting. But they were

> >really healthy

> > > with no cancer or heart disease, cavities, etc.

> > > Allyn

> >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Already been done.

Check out Characteristics of Traditional Diets

http://www.westonaprice.org/basicnutrition/characteristics.html

Number one is the lack of industrialized foods. There are 11 points

altogether.

Irene

At 01:56 PM 7/6/2006, you wrote:

No doubt; it often does. I'm

proud of myself for having kept

my mouth shut for as long as I did.

Before swallowed my last message, I replied to Allyn's

response that perhaps another factor, a *common* factor,

should be sought when it is obvious that healthy cultures exist

with varying fat contents in their diets. One possibility may

be no processed foods. Another may be low-sodium. Etc., etc..

-

> >

> >[...snip...]

> >

> > > I also know

> > > that the traditional cultures never ate a whole lot of

carbs

and

> >quite a few

> > > of them hardly ate veggies and fruits. The Inuit's ate 80%

fat

> >and hardly

> > > ever ate any veggies. It is very interesting. But they

were

> >really healthy

> > > with no cancer or heart disease, cavities, etc.

> > > Allyn

> >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

The very comprehensive work of T. Collin , PhD,

written into publically-accessible form in the book The

China Study (ISBN 1932100660) comes to rather different

conclusions, especially with regard to meat and dairy.

-

> > > >

> > > >[...snip...]

> > > >

> > > > > I also know

> > > > > that the traditional cultures never ate a whole lot of

carbs

> >and

> > > >quite a few

> > > > > of them hardly ate veggies and fruits. The Inuit's ate 80%

fat

> > > >and hardly

> > > > > ever ate any veggies. It is very interesting. But they were

> > > >really healthy

> > > > > with no cancer or heart disease, cavities, etc.

> > > > > Allyn

> > > >

> > > >

> > >

> >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

I think no processed foods is a

biggie. I am not sure about low sodium though, I think most cultures ate a

lot of good salt but back then they didn’t have the junk that we have.

Would have to check that out though.

Maybe I will try to find it in his book tonight.

I do personally think a lot of nutrition

was passed down from generation to generation otherwise how did they know to

get seafood for a pregnant mother, etc. I think this is what we have lost

the most when we went to someone other than ourselves producing our food.

Allyn

From: iodine [mailto:iodine ] On Behalf Of Irene.M@...

Sent: Thursday, July 06, 2006 5:32

PM

iodine

Subject: Re: Re: OT -

traditional cultures

Already been done.

Check out Characteristics of Traditional Diets

http://www.westonaprice.org/basicnutrition/characteristics.html

Number one is the lack of industrialized foods. There are 11 points altogether.

Irene

At 01:56 PM 7/6/2006, you wrote:

No doubt; it often does.

I'm proud of myself for having kept

my mouth shut for as long as I did.

Before swallowed my last message, I replied to Allyn's

response that perhaps another factor, a *common* factor,

should be sought when it is obvious that healthy cultures exist

with varying fat contents in their diets. One possibility may

be no processed foods. Another may be low-sodium. Etc., etc..

-

> >

> >[...snip...]

> >

> > > I also know

> > > that the traditional cultures never ate a whole lot of carbs

and

> >quite a few

> > > of them hardly ate veggies and fruits. The Inuit's ate 80% fat

> >and hardly

> > > ever ate any veggies. It is very interesting. But they were

> >really healthy

> > > with no cancer or heart disease, cavities, etc.

> > > Allyn

> >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

In what way is this book comprehensive?

Irene

At 04:52 PM 7/6/2006, you wrote:

The very comprehensive work of

T. Collin , PhD,

written into publically-accessible form in the book The

China Study (ISBN 1932100660) comes to rather different

conclusions, especially with regard to meat and dairy.

-

> > > >

> > > >[...snip...]

> > > >

> > > > > I also know

> > > > > that the traditional cultures never ate a whole

lot of

carbs

> >and

> > > >quite a few

> > > > > of them hardly ate veggies and fruits. The

Inuit's ate 80%

fat

> > > >and hardly

> > > > > ever ate any veggies. It is very interesting.

But they were

> > > >really healthy

> > > > > with no cancer or heart disease, cavities,

etc.

> > > > > Allyn

> > > >

> > > >

> > >

> >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

>From: " ALLYN FERRIS " <aferris7272@...>

>I think no processed foods is a biggie. I am not sure about low sodium

>though, I think most cultures ate a lot of good salt but back then they

>didn't have the junk that we have.

Salt is necessary for life, and especially important to those with under

functioning adrenal glands, a not uncommon situation.

I saw a show recently (I think Wild Kingdom) where a herd of elephants would

make a trip to pitch dark caves and feel their way along with their trunks

in order to get the salt from the caves.

Salt has been much maligned. Even in the goiter belt, they'll tell us to

eat less salt. Well, how do we get our IODINE then? (Of course, to get

iodine most people must be sure they are eating iodized salt as it is not in

most factory made food. Potato chips don't have iodized salt generally, the

other kind of salt is cheaper. Does Mcs use iodized salt? I don't

know, and I doubt that most people do. )

Of course, if one eats a lot of processed food, they may be getting too much

sodium.

Skipper

_________________________________________________________________

Don’t just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search!

http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/

[Guest guest]

" Sodium " can be sodium anything... most of the sodium in processed

foods comes from sodium nitrate and other sodium based

preservatives. Then you have the issue of the salt that is used

in the SAD is pure NaCl instead of having a variety of minerals like

sea salt does... Using pure NaCl is like drinking pure water - it

will leech minerals out of your body. Potassium is one of the

major ones, and deficiency in that can cause all sorts of heart

issues. Same goes with magnesium.

I don't think you can fairly compare sodium intake of SADers and

primitives since health in relation to sodium is dependant on many

other minerals too.

-Lana

On 7/6/06, ALLYN FERRIS <aferris7272@...> wrote:

I think no processed foods is a

biggie. I am not sure about low sodium though, I think most cultures ate a

lot of good salt but back then they didn't have the junk that we have.

Would have to check that out though.

Maybe I will try to find it in his book tonight.

I do personally think a lot of nutrition

was passed down from generation to generation otherwise how did they know to

get seafood for a pregnant mother, etc. I think this is what we have lost

the most when we went to someone other than ourselves producing our food.

Allyn

[Guest guest]

, There are differences of opinion regarding the Colin

research. The below is from Sally Fallen and Enig:

" n the 1980s, a group of researchers from Cornell University carried

out a massive dietary survey, covering all 25 of China's farflung

provinces, in an effort to determine food consumption and disease

patterns. This study is often cited as proof that plant-based diets

are healthier than those based on animal foods like meat and milk.

Study director T. Colin claims that the Cornell findings

suggest " that a diet high in animal products produces disease, and a

diet high in grains, vegetables and other plant matter produces

health. " 12 But the Cornell survey data, when carefully studied, does

not support such claims.13

What the Cornell researchers discovered was that meat intake in

China was highest in the western border region and very low in a

number of impoverished areas centering on Sian. They found that meat

eaters had lower triglycerides and less cirrhosis of the liver—and

that they took more snuff—but otherwise they found no strong

correlation, either negative or positive, with meat eating and any

disease.

....

In his introduction to the research results, study director T. Colin

states that there is considerable contemporary evidence

supporting the hypothesis " that the lowest risk for cancer is

generated by the consumption of a variety of fresh plant

products. " 16 Yet Cornell researchers found that the consumption of

green vegetables, which ranged from almost 700 grams per day in

Jingxing to zero on the western border, showed no correlation,

either positive of negative, with any disease. Dietary fiber intake

seemed to protect against esophageal cancer, but was positively

correlated with higher levels of TB, neurological disorders and

nasal cancer—perhaps because there was a strong correlation between

total fiber intake and pipe smoking. Fiber intake did not confer any

significant protection against heart disease or most cancers,

including cancer of the bowel.:In his introduction to the research

results, study director T. Colin states that there is

considerable contemporary evidence supporting the hypothesis " that

the lowest risk for cancer is generated by the consumption of a

variety of fresh plant products. " 16 Yet Cornell researchers found

that the consumption of green vegetables, which ranged from almost

700 grams per day in Jingxing to zero on the western border, showed

no correlation, either positive of negative, with any disease.

Dietary fiber intake seemed to protect against esophageal cancer,

but was positively correlated with higher levels of TB, neurological

disorders and nasal cancer—perhaps because there was a strong

correlation between total fiber intake and pipe smoking. Fiber

intake did not confer any significant protection against heart

disease or most cancers, including cancer of the bowel. "

http://www.westonaprice.org/traditional_diets/food_in_china.html

> The very comprehensive work of T. Collin , PhD,

> written into publically-accessible form in the book The

> China Study (ISBN 1932100660) comes to rather different

> conclusions, especially with regard to meat and dairy.

>

> -

>

>

>

> >

> > >No doubt; it often does. I'm proud of myself for having kept

> > >my mouth shut for as long as I did.

> > >

> > >Before swallowed my last message, I replied to Allyn's

> > >response that perhaps another factor, a *common* factor,

> > >should be sought when it is obvious that healthy cultures exist

> > >with varying fat contents in their diets. One possibility may

> > >be no processed foods. Another may be low-sodium. Etc., etc..

> > >

> > >-

[Guest guest]

In addition, my only point was this. It doesn't really matter what the

China study found. Let's say that indeed the chinese faired better on a

" plant-based " diet whatever that may mean. What does that have

to do with the Masai, or inuit, or any of the other meat, fish, dairy or

insect eating cultures that WAP found? It is foolishness to look at one

healthy culture and assume that their diet is appropriate for all humans.

That is in fact the genius of WAP. He studied many traditional cultures

and saw how much their diets varied. To his credit, WAP resisted any

temptation to idolize any one peoples or diet. He instead looked for the

commonalities between them.

The point that upsets people is that he found that all cultures had a

source of animal fats and protein. In other words he found no traditional

cultures that were vegan. Not that there aren't any on the planet, just

that he did not find any. So, although the amount and kinds of animal

fats and protein varied a great deal between cultures, they all ate some

even if it was only insects. Some people interpret this to mean everyone

must eat meat and dairy but he did not say that at all. It does however

fly in the face of the notion that you can't eat meat and be healthy

because lots of cultures do it.

Now I don't know what they mean in the China study by a " plant based

diet " . But if these people ate any meat, or milk, or eggs, or

insects, or fish in addition to their plant food then there really is no

real conflict with anything that WAP found in his travels. If indeed the

healthiest Chinese were vegan, then we can add veganism to the list of

healthy diets possible for humans. I don't see a problem.

Irene

At 11:07 AM 7/7/2006, you wrote:

, There are differences of

opinion regarding the Colin

research. The below is from Sally Fallen and Enig:

" n the 1980s, a group of researchers from Cornell University carried

out a massive dietary survey, covering all 25 of China's farflung

provinces, in an effort to determine food consumption and disease

patterns. This study is often cited as proof that plant-based diets

are healthier than those based on animal foods like meat and milk.

Study director T. Colin claims that the Cornell findings

suggest " that a diet high in animal products produces disease, and a

diet high in grains, vegetables and other plant matter produces

health. " 12 But the Cornell survey data, when carefully studied, does

not support such claims.13

What the Cornell researchers discovered was that meat intake in

China was highest in the western border region and very low in a

number of impoverished areas centering on Sian. They found that meat

eaters had lower triglycerides and less cirrhosis of the liver—and

that they took more snuff—but otherwise they found no strong

correlation, either negative or positive, with meat eating and any

disease.

....

In his introduction to the research results, study director T. Colin

states that there is considerable contemporary evidence

supporting the hypothesis " that the lowest risk for cancer is

generated by the consumption of a variety of fresh plant

products. " 16 Yet Cornell researchers found that the consumption of

green vegetables, which ranged from almost 700 grams per day in

Jingxing to zero on the western border, showed no correlation,

either positive of negative, with any disease. Dietary fiber intake

seemed to protect against esophageal cancer, but was positively

correlated with higher levels of TB, neurological disorders and

nasal cancer—perhaps because there was a strong correlation between

total fiber intake and pipe smoking. Fiber intake did not confer any

significant protection against heart disease or most cancers,

including cancer of the bowel.:In his introduction to the research

results, study director T. Colin states that there is

considerable contemporary evidence supporting the hypothesis " that

the lowest risk for cancer is generated by the consumption of a

variety of fresh plant products. " 16 Yet Cornell researchers found

that the consumption of green vegetables, which ranged from almost

700 grams per day in Jingxing to zero on the western border, showed

no correlation, either positive of negative, with any disease.

Dietary fiber intake seemed to protect against esophageal cancer,

but was positively correlated with higher levels of TB, neurological

disorders and nasal cancer—perhaps because there was a strong

correlation between total fiber intake and pipe smoking. Fiber

intake did not confer any significant protection against heart

disease or most cancers, including cancer of the bowel. "

http://www.westonaprice.org/traditional_diets/food_in_china.html

> The very comprehensive work of T. Collin , PhD,

> written into publically-accessible form in the book The

> China Study (ISBN 1932100660) comes to rather different

> conclusions, especially with regard to meat and dairy.

>

> -

>

>

>

> >

> > >No doubt; it often does. I'm proud of myself for having

kept

> > >my mouth shut for as long as I did.

> > >

> > >Before swallowed my last message, I replied to

Allyn's

> > >response that perhaps another factor, a *common*

factor,

> > >should be sought when it is obvious that healthy cultures

exist

> > >with varying fat contents in their diets. One possibility

may

> > >be no processed foods. Another may be low-sodium. Etc.,

etc..

> > >

> > >-

[Guest guest]

>From: Irene.M@...

If

>indeed the healthiest Chinese were vegan, then we can add veganism to the

>list of healthy diets possible for humans. I don't see a problem.

Which isn't that likely without a good source of Vitamin B-12.

Also, just because it works for the Chinese doesn't mean it can be applied

to all humans.

Most people in the USA have Vitamin D deficiency. That of black people is

going to be a lot higher, because their dark skin requires a lot more

sunshine to get adequate amounts. They also have higher blood pressure,

though I presume they eat the same as whites. (Though I could'nt tell you

what my neighbors eat white or black, so I could be wrong.)

Skipper

_________________________________________________________________

Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE!

http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/

[Guest guest]

That is exactly my point.

Irene

At 02:47 PM 7/7/2006, you wrote:

>Also, just because it works for the Chinese doesn't mean it can be applied

>to all humans.

[Guest guest]

>

> In addition, my only point was this. It doesn't really matter what the

> China study found. Let's say that indeed the chinese faired better on a

> " plant-based " diet whatever that may mean. What does that have to do with

> the Masai, or inuit, or any of the other meat, fish, dairy or insect eating

> cultures that WAP found? It is foolishness to look at one healthy culture

> and assume that their diet is appropriate for all humans.

Thank you for the clarification of your position. This is awesome

because, guess what? I was making the same point! By presenting

the case of another healthy traditional culture, this one without high

levels of fat consumption, I was arguing that there might be some

other commonality. Either that or what is good for one society under

their given environment situation may not be good for another.

Happily leaving off this debate. As I said before, I just couldn't

hold my tongue any longer. But, it certainly is nice to find

some understanding and agreement on what is often a contentious issue

(nutrition) or rather set of issues (anthropology, evolution), esp.,

I am finding, on alternative health groups.

-

[Guest guest]

My position? I am not sure what you mean. I also don't know what you felt

you needed to hold your tongue about. I just wanted to explain the work

of Weston Price because it seems so many people misunderstand.

Irene

At 05:24 PM 7/7/2006, you wrote:

>

> In addition, my only point was this. It doesn't really matter what

the

> China study found. Let's say that indeed the chinese faired better

on a

> " plant-based " diet whatever that may mean. What does that

have to do with

> the Masai, or inuit, or any of the other meat, fish, dairy or insect

eating

> cultures that WAP found? It is foolishness to look at one healthy

culture

> and assume that their diet is appropriate for all humans.

Thank you for the clarification of your position. This is awesome

because, guess what? I was making the same point! By presenting

the case of another healthy traditional culture, this one without

high

levels of fat consumption, I was arguing that there might be some

other commonality. Either that or what is good for one society under

their given environment situation may not be good for another.

Happily leaving off this debate. As I said before, I just couldn't

hold my tongue any longer. But, it certainly is nice to find

some understanding and agreement on what is often a contentious

issue

(nutrition) or rather set of issues (anthropology, evolution), esp.,

I am finding, on alternative health groups.

-

[Guest guest]

I don't see a problem at all either...in theory. But there is one

thing that really lingers in my mind, and that I can't help wonder

about. Based on my reading of Nutrition and Physical Degeneration, I

got the distinct impression that the native peoples he studied used

all the available animal food resources that they had. That is, if an

animal food was available to eat, they ate it. They didn't turn away

from any animal food or especially any animal fat available. They ate

every bit of what was available, the more available the more they ate.

(Within reason of course, not to the point of obesity.) That some ate

less animal foods than others was not a choice but solely due to what

was available, and I took away the impression that if those low animal

food groups were given the opportunity they would have certainly eaten

more animal foods. Now I'm sure there is some gray in what I just

described. But still, what really sticks with me and what I think has

some meaning, is that the low animal food groups were not that way by

choice.

Sharon

> Now I don't know what they mean in the China study by a " plant based

diet " .

> But if these people ate any meat, or milk, or eggs, or insects, or

fish in

> addition to their plant food then there really is no real conflict

with

> anything that WAP found in his travels. If indeed the healthiest

Chinese

> were vegan, then we can add veganism to the list of healthy diets

possible

> for humans. I don't see a problem.

>

> Irene

[Guest guest]

Well I also have that impression from reading of the book. And personally

I would be surprised if anyone actually found a truly vegan tradtional

culture. However this is a big planet and WAP only studied 14 or so

cultures I think if was. No telling what else might be out

there.

Irene

At 07:02 PM 7/8/2006, you wrote:

I don't see a problem at all

either...in theory. But there is one

thing that really lingers in my mind, and that I can't help wonder

about. Based on my reading of Nutrition and Physical Degeneration, I

got the distinct impression that the native peoples he studied used

all the available animal food resources that they had. That is, if an

animal food was available to eat, they ate it. They didn't turn away

from any animal food or especially any animal fat available. They ate

every bit of what was available, the more available the more they ate.

(Within reason of course, not to the point of obesity.) That some ate

less animal foods than others was not a choice but solely due to what

was available, and I took away the impression that if those low animal

food groups were given the opportunity they would have certainly eaten

more animal foods. Now I'm sure there is some gray in what I just

described. But still, what really sticks with me and what I think has

some meaning, is that the low animal food groups were not that way by

choice.

Sharon

> Now I don't know what they mean in the China study by a " plant

based

diet " .

> But if these people ate any meat, or milk, or eggs, or insects, or

fish in

> addition to their plant food then there really is no real conflict

with

> anything that WAP found in his travels. If indeed the healthiest

Chinese

> were vegan, then we can add veganism to the list of healthy diets

possible

> for humans. I don't see a problem.

>

> Irene

[Guest guest]

Yes, indeed. Well said.

Sharon

> Well I also have that impression from reading of the book. And

personally I

> would be surprised if anyone actually found a truly vegan

tradtional

> culture. However this is a big planet and WAP only studied 14 or

so

> cultures I think if was. No telling what else might be out there.

>

> Irene

>

>

> At 07:02 PM 7/8/2006, you wrote:

>

> >I don't see a problem at all either...in theory. But there is one

> >thing that really lingers in my mind, and that I can't help wonder

> >about. Based on my reading of Nutrition and Physical

Degeneration, I

> >got the distinct impression that the native peoples he studied

used

> >all the available animal food resources that they had. That is,

if an

> >animal food was available to eat, they ate it. They didn't turn

away

> >from any animal food or especially any animal fat available. They

ate

> >every bit of what was available, the more available the more they

ate.

> >(Within reason of course, not to the point of obesity.) That some

ate

> >less animal foods than others was not a choice but solely due to

what

> >was available, and I took away the impression that if those low

animal

> >food groups were given the opportunity they would have certainly

eaten

> >more animal foods. Now I'm sure there is some gray in what I just

> >described. But still, what really sticks with me and what I think

has

> >some meaning, is that the low animal food groups were not that

way by

> >choice.

> >Sharon

> >

> > > Now I don't know what they mean in the China study by a " plant

based

> >diet " .

> > > But if these people ate any meat, or milk, or eggs, or

insects, or

> >fish in

> > > addition to their plant food then there really is no real

conflict

> >with

> > > anything that WAP found in his travels. If indeed the

healthiest

> >Chinese

> > > were vegan, then we can add veganism to the list of healthy

diets

> >possible

> > > for humans. I don't see a problem.

> > >

> > > Irene

> >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Dr. Price studied the 14 cultures which he could find on the earth still living and eating according to their traditional ways. This does not mean there were virtually no others, but these were the best examples he could find from around the world and which were accesible to him. From what I understand (I am a WAPF'er) Dr. Price did look for traditional vegetarian cultures but did not find them, or at least not any that were healthy.

He did notice that the more animal foods people ate, the larger, stronger, healthier, and happier they were. And people did eat the whole animal, flesh meat being secondary to organ meats. There is a much greater and varied nutrient content in the organs. This would likely have included a greater iodine intake, would it not, especially in those cultures consumming seafood? And also magnesium, etc., as well as the fat soluble activators needed for mineral absorption.

BTW, for a critique of the China Study and the problems associated with it, look for an article in the spring 2005 issue of Wise Traditions, the quarterly journal of the WAPF. It may be available online in the archives. Go to www.westonaprice.org and do a search if you'd like to read more on that.

Maureen

(new member as of last week)

[Guest guest]

>

> Dr. Price studied the 14 cultures which he could find on the earth

still living and eating according to their traditional ways. This

does not mean there were virtually no others, but these were the

best examples he could find from around the world and which were

accesible to him. From what I understand (I am a WAPF'er) Dr. Price

did look for traditional vegetarian cultures but did not find them,

or at least not any that were healthy.

I read on another forum that his methodology was basically to

go to these tribes and ask them what they ate and/or prepare

him a meal. It is no wonder they whipped out the " best stuff "

(i.e., meat), regardless of whether this is what they usually

dined upon.

> He did notice that the more animal foods people ate, the larger,

stronger, healthier, and happier they were. And people did eat the

whole animal, flesh meat being secondary to organ meats. There is a

much greater and varied nutrient content in the organs. This would

likely have included a greater iodine intake, would it not,

especially in those cultures consumming seafood? And also

magnesium, etc., as well as the fat soluble activators needed for

mineral absorption.

> BTW, for a critique of the China Study and the problems associated

with it, look for an article in the spring 2005 issue of Wise

Traditions, the quarterly journal of the WAPF. It may be available

online in the archives. Go to www.westonaprice.org and do a search

if you'd like to read more on that.

> Maureen

> (new member as of last week)

Or you could read the book. Also, check out the designated

website at http://www.thechinastudy.com/

-

[Guest guest]

I somehow don't think Dr. Price just went and ate one meal with them nor can I believe he would base a book on that. It appears to me he spent far more time with these people researching their food etc. What good would his research be based on being fed a meal without spending more time to find out their typical food not what they fed their guests. His research appears to be far more in depth than that.

Allyn

Re: OT - traditional cultures

>> Dr. Price studied the 14 cultures which he could find on the earth still living and eating according to their traditional ways. This does not mean there were virtually no others, but these were the best examples he could find from around the world and which were accesible to him. From what I understand (I am a WAPF'er) Dr. Price did look for traditional vegetarian cultures but did not find them, or at least not any that were healthy. I read on another forum that his methodology was basically togo to these tribes and ask them what they ate and/or preparehim a meal. It is no wonder they whipped out the "best stuff"(i.e., meat), regardless of whether this is what they usuallydined upon.> He did notice that the more animal foods people ate, the larger, stronger, healthier, and happier they were. And people did eat the whole animal, flesh meat being secondary to organ meats. There is a much greater and varied nutrient content in the organs. This would likely have included a greater iodine intake, would it not, especially in those cultures consumming seafood? And also magnesium, etc., as well as the fat soluble activators needed for mineral absorption. > BTW, for a critique of the China Study and the problems associated with it, look for an article in the spring 2005 issue of Wise Traditions, the quarterly journal of the WAPF. It may be available online in the archives. Go to www.westonaprice.org and do a search if you'd like to read more on that.> Maureen> (new member as of last week)Or you could read the book. Also, check out the designatedwebsite at http://www.thechinastudy.com/-

[Guest guest]

No that is not true. Why don't you read the book?

Irene

At 01:00 PM 7/10/2006, you wrote:

>I read on another forum that his methodology was basically to

>go to these tribes and ask them what they ate and/or prepare

>him a meal. It is no wonder they whipped out the " best stuff "

>(i.e., meat), regardless of whether this is what they usually

>dined upon.

[Guest guest]

>From: Heidi <heidis@...>

>It remains the BIG question though: why did

>some amount of " foods of modern commerce "

>ruin the skeletons of those people? Given that they

>did not actually replace their diets with western

>foods in most cases, it seems as though the western

>diets were actually *toxic* not just depleted of

>nutrients. Today we know that the things that cause

>crooked teeth and cavities have to do with Vitamin D,

>calcium, and vitamin K, which are pretty much

>the same issues most of us face.

Vitamin D is from sunshine, so for that to suddenly change would require a

new lifestyle. Calcium is available in dairy products or green vegetables,

so those would have to be eliminated too. (Of course, pasteurization might

change the availability.)

So, it was just adding a few western foods that changed the skeletons?

Maybe we can't afford the empty calories of processed flour and sugar, but

need to eat real food all the time to be healthy.

I still can't imagine how they were originally allowed to process the

nutrients out of flour and sell it as food, since historically bread and

flour were considered highly nutritional by many populations.

Skipper

_________________________________________________________________

Don’t just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search!

http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/

[Guest guest]

Skipper Beers wrote:

> Vitamin D is from sunshine, so for that to suddenly change would require a

> new lifestyle. Calcium is available in dairy products or green vegetables,

> so those would have to be eliminated too. (Of course, pasteurization might

> change the availability.)

>

> So, it was just adding a few western foods that changed the skeletons?

> Maybe we can't afford the empty calories of processed flour and sugar, but

> need to eat real food all the time to be healthy.

>

I don't know. My take is that the natives never had wheat

before, and reacted to it. That's happened recently with

food aid programs. The kids reacted so strongly

that doctors were sent in, figuring it was a new kind

of parasite that was giving them bloated stomachs

and malnutrition, even though they had plenty of

food.

The IgA reaction to wheat is such

that it severely messes up how D and calcium are used

and how Vit K gets produced, plus it messes up intestinal

absorption of nutrients. I don't think Price could have

known that though, and the food aid people are still

having difficulties with the idea. White flour seems to

cause a lot more problems in this regard than whole wheat

flour ... I think something in the wheat germ makes the

gluten less sticky, but have you ever noticed how hard

it is to get whole wheat bread to rise?

> I still can't imagine how they were originally allowed to process the

> nutrients out of flour and sell it as food, since historically bread and

> flour were considered highly nutritional by many populations.

>

Historically the wheat had a lot less gluten in it too.

But really, it was only a small part of the world

that ate wheat -- it was basically a Middle Eastern grain. And the really

high-gluten wheat was first bred in North America

in the 1700's or so, the " hard winter wheat " .

Most of the world eats (or ate) yams, rice, or millet,

I think.

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

You know that is not how I have remembered NAPD so I pulled it out. It

seems like most of the affected people I've looked at so far according to

Dr. Price ate a " largely modernied diet " or " exchanged their primitive diet

for a modern diet " . Most of them got their food, in the cases I looked at

so far, from the government if they were on a reservation, or missionaries,

or the mining company like in Alaska. So far I haven't found a situation

where a primitive culture just added a few modern foods to their native

diet and had a big degradation in health. I am still looking so if you have

a specific group in mind let me know.

Irene

At 09:54 PM 7/10/2006, you wrote:

>It remains the BIG question though: why did

>some amount of " foods of modern commerce "

>ruin the skeletons of those people? Given that they

>did not actually replace their diets with western

>foods in most cases, it seems as though the western

>diets were actually *toxic* not just depleted of

>nutrients. Today we know that the things that cause

>crooked teeth and cavities have to do with Vitamin D,

>calcium, and vitamin K, which are pretty much

>the same issues most of us face.

>

>-- Heidi