|
Originally Posted by FairyRae
 In "The Garden of Eating", the author does a comparison of the groups Weston Price studied and shows how the folks eating a meat/produce-heavy, no grain (but full of carb-rich veggies and fruits) diet had less tooth decay issues than those eating grains. The differences were small yet significant, and I found it interesting...
|
|
Originally Posted by snowbunny
If your disinclined to believe or wary of WAPF, then you should start with Price's original work Nutrition and Physical Degeneration, not NT. Also, the reason we do need these nutrient-dense foods in substantial quantities beyond a mere "presence" is because they were, traditionally, eaten in substantial quantities. We're not talking about just enough nutrient-dense foods to get by on the RDA; rather, the diets of peoples Price studies were substantially higher in these nutrients than in the Standard American Diet of Price's time and certainly higher than the Standard American Diet of our time.
With the exception of a handful of peoples studied in Nutrition and Physical Degeneration, the native diets were heavy in animal foods and high in fat. That's precisely why these foods play such an important role in the traditional foods movement. |
:|
Originally Posted by FairyRae
I've read over and over on allergy/food sensitivity forums that dairy (and gluten, for that matter) can be very hard to digest, and may not be best added into *everyone's* diet. We are all so unique, yk?! Also, for sensitive folks, the preparation (cultured vs. straight raw milk) can make a big difference... |
|
Originally Posted by crystalsun
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! |
| 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. |
:
) is considered toxic. So, eating isolated casein protein seems like it is not a good example of diets that include animal products, but I'm still just getting into the book, so I cannot offer an informed opinion until I'm through. Hopefully you other Mamas will keep discussing 
|
Originally Posted by hummingmom
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.
|
|
Originally Posted by savithny
I've been reading anthro/bio articles on various diets and dietary adaptations of different groups, and read a really interesting one the other day about the adaptation of different groups of Plains Indians. Groups that lived out on the plains lived largely off Bison, and the researchers were interested in the fact that those groups had such strong beliefs and taboos that they would nto eat fish, even when the fish were spawning in the streams they got their water from. Fishing is one of the easiest ways to get large amounts of good fat and protein -- yet high Plains groups would eat fat-depleted bison rather than rich fatty fish. It turns otu that there was so little fat in bison meat by the end of the winter that their stomachs were not adapted to the amount of fat in the fish, and eating fish would cause fat malabsorption syndrome and make them sick. Instead, those groups would combine their low-fat bison with stored carb foods --- dried berries and tubers that they dug up -- to ensure that they didn't die of "lean protein starvation."
Groups living at the edges of the plains would eat the fish -- but they did not rely as much on bison, but ate more different foods and also a lot of nuts, so their stomachs could handle the sudden surge of dietary fat when the spawning fish showed up in the spring. So even groups who were closely related and lived quite close together would have a very different diet with very different fat/protein/carb percentages -- but they were adapted very well to the lifestyle that they led. |
|
Originally Posted by crystalsun
Thanks for the heads up... I'm still new here and didnt realize I was going against the guidelines... I was just looking for information and I know that the Mothering mamas know what's up.
|
This place has me questioning all sorts of assumptions I had.
Follow Mothering