Originally Posted by Quickbeam
I have been meaning to ask this for some time and this thread seems as pertinent as any:
Would someone point me to some empirical evidence for the Weston/Price stuff? I'm not interested in anthropology here; I mean randomized, controlled studies that show this diet is healthy. Not trying to be snooty here, just really want to know what's the basis of the TF thing.
I've come to a point that I'm totally disgusted with the state of scientific studies in general, so if there have been any recent ones validating Price's findings I haven't noticed. I don't think anyone with the funding or the will is looking in this direction. Those with the will to look at it in an intellectually honest fashion do not have the funding for such an undertaking. I have no faith that the "randomized, controlled studies" that appear to validate any other dietary philosophy are accurate, because I've read about the actual data and analyses from dissenters of too many of those studies to think they approach the truth. The bias that is inevitably present is too strong, stemming from a variety of sources - funding, personal views of the researchers, societal, academic and professional pressure to toe the line, etc.. The China Study, for instance, seems to have been assembled with a very strong veg*n bias from the start, and the conclusions of the author based on only select data that supports that bias. That seems to be the norm these days.
For me, the basis of the "TF thing" is
anthropology, and it matters very little to me what modern so-called scientific studies say. IMO, true science has been kicked to the curb in most cases, especially when it comes to food. However, I think an active, more natural lifestyle goes hand-in-hand with being healthy, and fully accept that there is no one diet that's right for everyone. (I am also not of the super-high-fat/meat-at-every-meal/low-carb stripe.) Besides, there's too much individual variation in lifestyles and metabolic predisposition to define one "traditional" diet that could be studied in a controlled fashion. I recognize that a cubicle-dweller who works inside during most of the daylight hours under fluorescent lights will not have the same results with the same diet as someone with a more active, outdoor life.
If you want to read about what's wrong with a lot of the modern studies, Uffe Ravnskov is a good place to start.
Reading Price's actual work, Nutrition and Physical Degeneration
, rather than the WAPF's or anyone else's interpretation of it, is important to understanding it, IMO. It's fascinating to me, no matter that the writing style is a little bit archaic at this point.