The China Study vs. Weston Price

[crystalsun]

There is so much contradictory information out there about diet and health! I have been reading The China Study as well as a bunch of the Traditional Diet info online.....
The China Study by T. Collin Campbell is a collection of extremely extensive research about diet and nutrition and disease... and the findings of study after study show that a whole foods, plant based diet prevents and reverses diseases. Pretty amazing stuff.
The Traditional Diet folks, like Weston Price, claim that tons of animal protein and fat are the way to optimal health. I have read testimonials of cavities remineralizing. Also pretty amazing.
I would love to hear a debate from each of these two points of view! Does any one know if there is such a thing?
Has anyone read The China Study as well as Traditional Diet info? I would love to hear thoughts about these two conflicting ideas....
TIA!

[nicolelynn]

I know what you mean about all the contradictory information. I have been researching tons of gut healing diets for my parasites and candida. The crazy thing is, all these diets have tons of people who have testimonials, so they all have worked for someone and it baffles me.

I guess what it comes down to is they were all whole foods diets, very little natural sugar even from fruit and honey and many diets did not even include those.

The other thing is I think faith plays part as well, if you really believe in something your body will too. I am fully convinced a vegan diet would be detrimental to my health. But a vegan may be fully convinced an omnivore diet would be detrimental to their health and unless their mind is convinced first otherwise I doubt their body will follow.

[godusjourney]

Here's a couple links for ya:

http://www.westonaprice.org/bookreviews/chinastudy.html

http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com/China-Study.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wxb7XPm_SxU

[NoTiGG]

I think the answer is that both diets *can* be healthy... as in living without disease for a long time. But keep in mind that if you eat like people who eat predominantly eat mostly vegetables... your children and future generations will start to develop some of their characteristics .. at least IMO. For instance if you started eating vegetables only your kids .. or at least more of your future generation will be short.. than would be otherwise.

[BetsyPage]

I don't know about the China Study... but there were a couple of references in Gary Taubes' book to studies that pointed to a high plant-based, low-meat/fat diet being healthy- thinking of a study of Italians and Japanese men... however in the case of the Italians it was a time of econominc stress and families couldn't afford as much meat etc as they wanted so it wasn't their normal way of eating. And the group of Japanese men added more meat etc over time and actually got healthier. (PLEASE don't quote me on the details, it's a big thick book and I can't quickly find what he wrote, it's just what I recall...)

Personally, after reading Nina Planck's books, I'm pretty convinvced that high-quality meat AND vegetables are great for you, but as she says "don't eat too much carbage."

[mrsbernstein]

I second Gary Taubes' book : Good Calories, Bad Calories. It is AMAZING! It shows how in several of the "veggie-only"-friendly studies...that information showing MEAT/Fat to be GOOD were actually disregarded or thrown-out!

Mrs B

[spartz]

Originally Posted by BetsyPage

Personally, after reading Nina Planck's books, I'm pretty convinvced that high-quality meat AND vegetables are great for you, but as she says "don't eat too much carbage."

Is that supposed to be cabbage or garbage?

[mrsbernstein]

I think she means "carb"-age.

Mrs B

[Bri'sgirl]

Personally, if I couldn't eat meat or fat, I would die. But then, my ancestors were from northern Europe and had to eat a lot of fat in order to survive the winters.

[bella_stranger]

my father in law and and sister in law are followers of the china study. they are pescetarians and do egg white omelets and what not. they guzzle gallons of soy milk. they eat carbs. lots of em.

as a result.... my fil (60) has a large stomach & obesity (the kind that shows you are at risk for heart disease). he was tested and diagnosed pre-type 2 diabetic.

my sil (29) has severe depression, acne, and sleep problems.

my mother in law eats a combination of the pescetarian meals her husband eats, with edition of meat and lots of "low fat" or "sugar free" processed foods. she has type 2 diabetes and is obese.

my other sil is healthy, but she is eating a traditional indian diet with her indian husband. lots of meat and hearty fats, but no pork.

my partner and i are on a meat and fat-heavy diet, low grains and processed foods... and after succumbing to vegetarianism a couple of years ago, are feeling so much healthier and energetic and in shape

[BetsyPage]

Originally Posted by mrsbernstein

I think she means "carb"-age.

Mrs B

Yep... she actually says carbage in her newest book... at first I thought it was a typo lol.

bella-stranger- my ILs eat low-fat everything, lots of carbs, raw veggies and "convenience food meats" (i.e. like frozen pot roast you heat up.) They are also overweight.

[ema-adama]

http://www.amazon.com/China-Study-Co...rBy=addOneStar

This review stopped me from buying the book. In my mind it just does not make sense to completely not eat any dairy or meat - for me. I do have a couple of friends who are vegan and both are super healthy and very fit.

But I am sure there is not a one size fits all for every person on earth.

[Metasequoia]

I'm impressed that this thread is still here, lol.

[spartz]

Originally Posted by mrsbernstein

I think she means "carb"-age.

Mrs B

I get it now. Thanks for that. It's kind of cool, now that I get it!

[hummingmom]

I replied to the OP in the veg. forum; just wanted to copy part of it here.

----

Originally Posted by crystalsun

The Traditional Diet folks, like Weston Price, claim that tons of animal protein and fat are the way to optimal health

Weston Price himself never said that. Based on his research, he did believe that some animal foods were necessary for optimal health, especially for mothers and children, due to the body's high need for minerals and fat-soluble vitamins. He especially recommended pastured dairy and seafood. But he also said that whole grains should be the cornerstone of the diet, and that lentils were an excellent food. He didn't recommend "tons of protein" of any kind, nor did he emphasize fats per se. See: Letter to his nieces and nephews

(...) BTW, I started a thread in the TF forum a while back on characteristics of healthy high-carbohydrate traditional diets (not specifically vegetarian), but nobody has replied. Maybe I should change the name. I think people take one look at "high carbohydrate" and run a mile.

-----

In reply to the current thread -- Although I'm dealing with multiple grain intolerances myself, I don't think that referring to whole grains as "carbage" fits with Price's theories and research. It's this sort of glib language that bothers me about a lot of TF writing. And, while I haven't read Nina Planck's book, it seems as if herself was referring to refined and processed sugars and starches. According to this summary, she tells her readers to "eat as many whole grains as you need."

(Personally, I'm starting to think that "high-grain + high-fat" is a bad combination -- i.e., it's okay to do one or the other, but doing both will likely mess you up. But that's a subject for another thread.)

[BetsyPage]

And, while I haven't read Nina Planck's book, it seems as if herself was referring to refined and processed sugars and starches. According to this summary, she tells her readers to "eat as many whole grains as you need."

(Personally, I'm starting to think that "high-grain + high-fat" is a bad combination -- i.e., it's okay to do one or the other, but doing both will likely mess you up. But that's a subject for another thread.)

She *is* talking about processed sugars/starches and refined flours. She doesn't eat that herself I believe. But she does eat better bread etc but doesn't strike me as "rigid" on the grain issue at all. She eats TONS of vegetables and fish, and uses real fats, is what I have taken away from her books.

I agree with you on the "high-grain + high-fat" and would love to see a thread along those lines. It's something that I've known for a while, actually first ran across that thought here. But I am sugar sensitive (I now realize) so it was easy for me to add fat but not so easy to take away grains... which I am now doing and finally feeling better and losing weight.

[ursusarctos]

Oh this is interesting : I am also interested as these theories seem so conflicting. Though like a PP noted, they both focus on whole fresh foods, very little sugar, and lots of veggies.

Originally Posted by ema-adama

But I am sure there is not a one size fits all for every person on earth.

This! I think that there are many different body types depending on ancestry and personal make-up and what works for one will not be working for everyone.
I was raised vegetarian but discovered when I was a teenager that I feel a lot better and more energetic if I have red meat about once a week. I also do some fermented dairy (straight pasteurized homogenized milk makes me mucusy and I don't want to drink raw milk unless it's from my own cow), lots of organic eggs, real butter (organic and cultured when I can afford it), fish once or twice a week, and occasionally chicken. I try to avoid refined grains and sugar, and include as many veggies as I can as well as some fruit. The backbone of my diet is a variety of legumes. I am way healthier than I was on a soy-based veggie diet as a kid or when I was on a conventional diet as a teenager. I do think though that organic animal products are very important and if I only had access to conventional I probably wouldn't eat as much of them as I do. I try to choose my foods based on their freshness and unprocessedness - what would have been available 100 years ago. Cultures around the world have traditionally used all kinds of animal fats - seasonally, accompanied by lots of veggies (unless they were i.e. inuits), and shared amongst large family groups, of course, so it's not like they were gorging on them every day. Also the animals eaten had lived mostly outside and eaten naturally for their species type, not just gmo corn or soybeans or some such garbage, which imo makes for a completely different kind of meat than modern factory farming.
My parents are still mostly veggie and eat a lot of soy. I know it's not good for my mom (she's frail and has health issues that I think would be helped if she ate a more animal-based diet and cut out the soy) though my dad is in great health, so yeah, it totally depends on the person. My little brother is also veggie and eats lots of soy and is much healthier than I was as a kid - again, maybe his body works better without animal protein than mine does, or processes soy better or something.

[hummingmom]

Originally Posted by ursusarctos

Oh this is interesting : I am also interested as these theories seem so conflicting. Though like a PP noted, they both focus on whole fresh foods, very little sugar, and lots of veggies.(...) Cultures around the world have traditionally used all kinds of animal fats - seasonally, accompanied by lots of veggies (unless they were i.e. inuits),

As it turns out, several of the healthy cultures that Price studied ate hardly any vegetables at all. This didn't just apply to those who lived in the Arctic, but to anyone who lived in places where it was hard to grow green stuff, e.g. due to rocky ground or poor soil. For instance, the Swiss mountain valley people ate mostly rye and dairy, with meat once a week, and very little in the way of vegetables. They let the cows eat the vegetation on their behalf. The Hebrideans of northern Scotland also ate minimal amounts of vegetables. They clearly got ample vitamins and minerals from their diet of seafood and oatmeal.

Vegetables can be part of a healthy diet, but they have their share of problems, just as with other foods (fruits, grains, dairy, etc.). In general, they're not a very efficient source of nutrients; they're mostly water and cellulose. Many people have trouble with large amounts of fiber, and with natural plant toxins such as salicylates. The mineral content of vegetables also varies widely depending on the quality of the soil, even among those that are organically grown. And some, such as carrots, have been bred to have far more sugar than they used to.

It really seems as if there's no one food, or even general class of foods, that's common to all healthy diets. Our bodies all have fairly similar requirements for nutrients, and each culture has found different ways of getting them from the foods that are locally available. There are many nutrients that we're aware of, and probably many more that haven't been identified yet. This is why the typical WAPF approach of "here are the rules for choosing nutrient-dense foods, now pick whatever foods you like" seems rather unwise to me.

IMO, it makes the most sense to choose one traditional way of eating (either from a specific country, or a more general category such as coastal Asian, European agrarian, hunter-gatherer, etc.), learn as much about it as you can, and then prepare most of your meals along those lines, while applying Price's guidelines for maximizing nutrient density. It doesn't necessarily have to be the diet of your own ancestors; Stefansson did well on the meat-based diet he learned from the Inuit, and, conversely, so did Native American children who were put on a "white man's diet" that was based on raw milk and whole grains. Still, there's a lot to be said for cultural connectedness.

Along those lines, I agree with the author of Full Moon Feast that it's a real shame that so many of our bodies have been thrown out of equilibrium by modern agriculture and food processing, to the point that we can no longer eat properly prepared grains as our ancestors did for thousands of years. While I used to buy into the theories about Paleolithic vs. Neolithic diets, grains and dairy being inappropriate from an "evolutionary perspective," etc., the examples given by Price seem to run against that line of thinking. Even the Celtic Hebrideans -- whose ancestors couldn't have been farming that long in the great scheme of things -- seem to have done very well on oats, as part of an unrefined and nutrient-dense diet.

[Metasequoia]

Originally Posted by hummingmom

As it turns out, several of the healthy cultures that Price studied ate hardly any vegetables at all. This didn't just apply to those who lived in the Arctic, but to anyone who lived in places where it was hard to grow green stuff, e.g. due to rocky ground or poor soil. For instance, the Swiss mountain valley people ate mostly rye and dairy, with meat once a week, and very little in the way of vegetables. The Hebrideans of northern Scotland also ate minimal amounts of vegetables. They clearly got ample vitamins and minerals from their diet of seafood and oatmeal.

They "ran it through a cow," as Tom Cowan likes to say.

Originally Posted by hummingmom

Vegetables can be part of a healthy diet, but they have their share of problems, just as with other foods (fruits, grains, dairy, etc.). In general, they're not a very efficient source of nutrients; they're mostly water and cellulose. Many people have trouble with large amounts of fiber, and with natural plant toxins such as salicylates. The mineral content of vegetables also varies widely depending on the quality of the soil, even among those that are organically grown. And some, such as carrots, have been bred to have far more sugar than they used to.

It really seems as if there's no one food, or even general class of foods, that's common to all healthy diets. Our bodies all have fairly similar requirements for nutrients, and each culture has found different ways of getting them from the foods that are locally available. There are many nutrients that we're aware of, and probably many more that haven't been identified yet. This is why the typical WAPF approach of "here are the rules for choosing nutrient-dense foods, now pick whatever foods you like" seems rather unwise to me.

IMO, it makes the most sense to choose one traditional way of eating (either from a specific country, or a more general category such as coastal Asian, European agrarian, hunter-gatherer, etc.), learn as much about it as you can, and then prepare most of your meals along those lines, while applying Price's guidelines for maximizing nutrient density. It doesn't necessarily have to be the diet of your own ancestors; Stefansson did well on the meat-based diet he learned from the Inuit, and, conversely, so did Native American children who were put on a "white man's diet" that was based on raw milk and whole grains. Still, there's a lot to be said for cultural connectedness.

Along those lines, I agree with the author of Full Moon Feast that it's a real shame that so many of our bodies have been thrown out of equilibrium by modern agriculture and food processing, to the point that we can no longer eat properly prepared grains as our ancestors did for thousands of years. While I used to buy into the theories about Paleolithic vs. Neolithic diets, grains and dairy being inappropriate from an "evolutionary perspective," etc., the examples given by Price seem to run against that line of thinking. Even the Celtic Hebrideans -- whose ancestors couldn't have been farming that long in the great scheme of things -- seem to have done very well on oats, as part of an unrefined and nutrient-dense diet.

Excellent post, excellent.

I also thoroughly enjoyed Full Moon Feast, beautiful book.

[1littlebit]

for me personally i have learned that i do not do well one a vegetarian diet.. in fact i do best on a diet high in fat and protein. i feel my best when i eat a good amount of dairy and meat (particularly red meat) i have recently removed gluten from my diet and it was one of the best things i ever did. my mom and my brother are trying to do it now as well and they seem to be showing some improvement too. (my little brother was covered head to tow in eczema and they kept telling him it was dairy)

i would not get enough fat or protein in a vegetarian diet. i dont think i digest plants as well as other people or something. i can eat freaking vegetables and beans all day and still be hungry five minutes later. my best friend does best eating mostly vegetarian with the occasional fish or chicken... red meat makes her ill