those evil grains...NOT (was: an accusation)

[Guest guest]

> Re: an accusation

>

>

>NAPD really needs to be read here in order for there to be basis for this

>focus on grains.

Wanita,

I'm not sure what you mean by a " focus on grains " ? What focus?

There are only two groups, the Swiss eating rye

>and Gaelic

>island eating oats of a dozen or more groups. Iirc, both these groups had

>the most dental caries post diet change.

This is actually incorrect. Several of the African tribes Price studied also

ate cereal grains. And *some* of these folks had a remarkable lack of tooth

decay just like the other healthy groups he studied (albeit not all). For

instance, on page 148 of the 6th edition, Price writes that the Baitu tribe

of Ruanda subsisted on goat and cow's milk (oh that evil milk!) along with

sweet potatoes, cereals and bananas. In a study of 364 teeth in thirteen

individuals, not ONE tooth had decay! (Would be interesting how the " milk is

evil/grains are evil " crowd would respond to such evidence.)

Even more interesting is the Dinkas. Their diet consisted largely of fish

from the Nile and cereal grains. Price writes that although they were not as

tall as the cattle herding tribes, they were physically better proportioned

and were stronger. They had *0.2%* tooth decay. This is comparable to many

of the groups that did not consume cereal grains, IIRC.

There are several other tribes he mentions who ate cereal grains. Some had

more tooth decay than others, but their diets contained other variables that

need to be accounted for before blaming grains on their tooth decay, such as

processed foods. Price explains, in fact, that this tooth decay is a result

of their lack of animal products in the diet, IIRC, rather than a factor of

grains being present in the diet.

Thus, we can't say that only Western Europeans can thrive on grain products

or that only two groups that Price studied experienced extraordinary health

on a grain-heavy diet.

I'm not arguing that everyone should include grains in their diet

whatsoever. Shoot, other than beer (which I can no longer drink other than

hard-to-come-by gluten-free beer) I don't consume much in the way of grains

myself. My argument is that Price's healthy primitives showed us that grains

*per se* are not evil. This makes sense to me, because most who argue that

grains *are* evil, totally disregard the number of variables that would make

any given grain product either healthful, neutral or harmful for any given

indivdual. IOW, they ignore many important qualifiers that beg to be

examined.

>

>I do have to commend Price for doing what he did. Even though he used the

>term primitives for his groups, I was able to see it was more

>descriptive of

>their lifestyle and it was not the same as the same time's

>consideration of

>Native American people.

Price's use of the word " primitive " had nothing to do with the use of the

term that has derogatory racist connotations. He spoke with great respect of

the awesome dietary wisdom of the so-called primitive peoples, incuding the

European groups he studied. His book is a testament to their superior wisdom

over that of modern peoples when it comes to nutritional wisdom.

Suze Fisher

Lapdog Design, Inc.

Web Design & Development

http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg

Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine

http://www.westonaprice.org

----------------------------

“The diet-heart idea (the idea that saturated fats and cholesterol cause

heart disease) is the greatest scientific deception of our times.” --

Mann, MD, former Professor of Medicine and Biochemistry at Vanderbilt

University, Tennessee; heart disease researcher.

The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics

<http://www.thincs.org>

----------------------------