I field this question constantly. I encourage people to join PPNF instead and throw their full support behind them. Keep going back to Nutrition and Physical Degeneration, not the WAPF.
I'm not into a cult of personality. ANY personality. I expect the advice to be solid, down to earth, and DOABLE for the average household. Most of the real food advice given out I shake my head at and wonder if these people have ever fed kids!
Another very interesting book about traditional diets is the "Jungle Effect" by Daphne Miller, MD.
http://drdaphne.com/wordpress/writing/books/jungleeffect/
I like the fact that she combines the wisdom of traditional diets with the latest nutrition research, and she also includes many interesting recipes that she picked up from her travels.
I am also a fan of Dr Mercola's work and his support of nutritional typing. I find that it explains very well why some people have excellent health with vegetarian diets (carb types, though he does not support vegan diets) while some others do great with high fat/high protein diets (protein types).
I'm a protein type myself that's why I'm interested in WPF work.
I'm so glad to see this thread! I read NT and hated it, and I think Sally Fallon is condescending and rude, not to mention conflating the evidence. I have been confused, because I believe in TF, but I didn't know there were other sources out there. I will be checking out some of these authors/links posted. Thanks!
Nobody mentioned Dr. Shanahan
I think she stresses too much the beauty aspect on how nutrition is affecting our look but it's any interesting reading. I'll order now Food rules, her other book
I think when there is alot of flak against what you believe in the hackles and one's offense side comes up. It seems over the years Sally has become more and more relaxed in her approach since her book was published in 1995. i.e WAPF 2010 press conference, podcasts on http://www.carbohydratescankill.com/the-podcast.
WAPF is not the bible. It is flawed just like everyone else and there will always be mistakes made and mistakes to be found as we all continue learning together.
Sometimes there are pits in the cherry pie, spit them out and dont let it stop you from enjoying the pie.
I much prefer to interpret Price's valuable work for myself and combine it with other modern nutrition knowledge, rather than rely on someone else's interpretation. I highly recommend reading Nutrition and Physical Degeneration directly, it's brilliant...
I totally agree with this. I checked out Nutrition and Physical Degeneration from the library and read it like a novel. It was fascinating and rang true to me at many points. My husband bought Nourishing Traditions from which we have both read bits and pieces. He really likes it, but I don't really. I don't know a whole lot about Sally Fallon, but I find many of the recipes to be extreme and I'm not convinced we would be better off health-wise. We are currently trying to find a happy medium.
Anyway, thanks everyone for the other resources. I am always looking to learn more!
p.s. sorry about the way I quoted this, I think I just figured out how I should have quoted the post by AJP
Hmmm, I'm confused now about the reason why we shouldn't trust anyting written by WAPF or Sally Fallon. Besides the first few points by the OP, what else have these people lied about? I have both NT and Price's work and reading them I have not found they contradict each other a whole lot. Fallon is just more of a sensational type writer, very entertaining. Price is more to the point. I do not find Price racist at all. He wrote in a time when eugenics was at its peak of fashionability, with all the terminology used at the time. While most other experts were claiming that eugenics had to do with genes alone, Price claimed that nutrition was the base for healthy reproduction, not racial traits. In some references that he makes that may come across as racist, he's speaking directly to these believers in eugenics. At least, it's what I have come to believe after doing a lot of research on this subject.
What sources tell us that the people of Okinawa do not eat fatty pork, and that they have never done so in the past either? I feel that in most cases, we never would know what the real truth is unless we went out there ourselves to find it with our own eyes. I've never checked out sources myself, as in reading entire research papers. Just kind of trusted that the authors did not twist the writings in papers quoted. Please give me some links to the sources you've found so I can double-check myself. While I assume all of you are writing from some place of certainty in knowing, it must go beyond just a gut instinct or simply trusting another authority more than WAPF or Fallon, for me to take it seriously.
And how do I know that PPNF tells more truth than lies?
Yes to many of the things posted here. I really think TF is one of the healthiest ways of eating, partly because of its emphasis on local, whole, unprocessed foods. However, I am not impressed with many of the things Sally Fallon says, including, but not limited to, the poor advice regarding breastfeeding. I also feel like there is so much more to TF than just a heavy meat-based diet, which is not the impression you get when you read the book. I'm also glad to see some other resources about this topic. Taedareth, I also like Jordin Rubin and TMD; it's a nice intro to TF as a lifestyle change.
Yes, I get very frustrated when people (wrongly) denigrate a TF diet because they assume it must be high protein. I've found several blog posts recently by different people who have said 'TF didn't work for me' but when you examine what they actually did, you see they combined TF with another idea like low-carb or high-protein and they didn't listen to their own body and so it wasn't a good experience for them. TF is about preparation methods and doesn't give a set percentages of carbs, proteins and fats for everyone.
I know many don't agree with me but I think Fallon's breastfeeding advice is solid, as far as nutrition goes. I wish more people were courageous enough to say what needs to be said. Quality of breastmilk will be affected by what a mother eats and there's no way around that. Most people within TF will agree that the meat and milk from animals eating a 'proper' diet has an entirely different nutrient composition than the products from factory farmed animals. Yes, it can be a downer to know that the milk you're giving your child may not be of the best quality, but in my life as a parent there have been so many moments like that, tearing me apart, I've eventually had to come to accept that being responsible for a child's health is really friggin hard. I still crave the truth though, regardless of how heavy it can make me feel when I'm not able to live up to those standards.
It's not her nutrition advice to nursing mothers that people knock. It's the casual attitude that equates raw milk formula as being equal to or superior to breastmilk from a well-nourished mother that bothers people so much. She also gives zero credence to any of the other developmental advantages to the act of breastfeeding- palate and jaw development, lower rates of cancer, bonding, etc....
I was removed as a Chapter Leader for daring to question Sally over this, as were others. My discussions with Sally over it have been public, and quite telling on her stance.
Thank you! You said it much better than I could. I do think that there is a lot of truth the argument that superior maternal nutrition=superior breastmilk for baby; however, just because a mama isn't "optimally nourished" is not a reason to discourage her from initiating BFing, IMO. If it were, most of us shouldn't nurse our babies! There is a lot more to breastfeeding than just nutrition. It bugs me that SF seems to think that her raw milk formula is just as good, if not better than, human milk, even human milk from a mama who isn't super well-nourished.
KA, I hear the same thing regarding the high-protein diet thing. It's frustrating, to say the least.
Quote:
It's not her nutrition advice to nursing mothers that people knock. It's the casual attitude that equates raw milk formula as being equal to or superior to breastmilk from a well-nourished mother that bothers people so much. She also gives zero credence to any of the other developmental advantages to the act of breastfeeding- palate and jaw development, lower rates of cancer, bonding, etc....
I was removed as a Chapter Leader for daring to question Sally over this, as were others. My discussions with Sally over it have been public, and quite telling on her stance.
Krankedyann--yes, I do know about your exhange with Sally Fallon and even though I don't have a problem with her breastfeeding advice myself, I commend you for your work and following what you believe in. It takes a lot of courage. Obviously I think it's horrible that you and others were excluded from the foundation as a result of it.
I can see where you're coming from but I didn't read her breastfeeding advice the same way. I understood her as saying that if a woman is unable to breastfeed, as in low supply, she should still feel confident that her baby is receiving good nourishment. I didn't take that to mean that her formula is actually better than breastmilk. I didn't look to her for exclusive breastfeeding advice however, as there is much more to it than what she offers in Nourishing Traditions.
I'm still very curious at checking out studies that contradict her nutritional advice, so if anyone has links, please post them!
Kmama, my objections aren't based solely on the material in the book. They're based off of reading her 'mom isn't superiorly nourished, get that baby on raw milk formula now' comments consistently on the chapter leader's list, conferences and speaking engagements, plus public conversations and e-mails with her after I became a chapter leader. It's not just what's in NT, as I only find minor fault with her info in NT, and most of that is involving allergens and solids, not breastfeeding.
Yes, I'm not impressed with what she's said about breastfeeding. Honestly, in NT she sounds pretty reasonable, but what I've read of her opinion on the topic outside of the book is not good. And silencing people who have valid criticisms is never okay in my book.
I know many don't agree with me but I think Fallon's breastfeeding advice is solid, as far as nutrition goes. I wish more people were courageous enough to say what needs to be said. Quality of breastmilk will be affected by what a mother eats and there's no way around that. Most people within TF will agree that the meat and milk from animals eating a 'proper' diet has an entirely different nutrient composition than the products from factory farmed animals. Yes, it can be a downer to know that the milk you're giving your child may not be of the best quality, but in my life as a parent there have been so many moments like that, tearing me apart, I've eventually had to come to accept that being responsible for a child's health is really friggin hard. I still crave the truth though, regardless of how heavy it can make me feel when I'm not able to live up to those standards.
I don't think anyone here disputes the fact that what a woman eats effects her breast milk. The problem with her advice is that she promotes artificial formula over breast milk.
I find a lot of it too dogmatic and too hysterical for me (Sally Fallon and her ilk). I actually can't bring myself to really read it through. There are some kernels of interesting ideas and good suggestions in there, but it seems to be a really limited approach.
I think I was the only one here who didn't read her book. I received it yesterday.
I didn't have the time to read it carefully but what I read it enough for me to say there are other good reasons not to trust her.
Please, do not follow her advice to cool a stock in the refrigerator! It is a DANGEROUS practice. Storing warm food in the refrigerator makes the temperature inside rise to level that are not safe.
This is especially important for stocks, which are the perfect culture medium for bacteria. The right way is to full a sink with cold water and ice and deep the pot in the sink. Stock should cool down as fast as possible. Also the recommendation to cook a fish stock for that long is ridiculous in my opinion. Fish sock needs a very short cooking time. I know my stocks...I have a professional culinary training from the French Culinary Insitute in NYC. My chef used to tell us that cooking a fish stock for longer than 20 minutes takes away the spark and freshness of the stock. You can make it more flavourful by reducing it after straining it. Overall if the water ratio in a stock is too high to start with, no matter how long you reduce afterwards is not going to be as tasty. Cooking time depends also on the size of the bones you are using, I would not cook a stock for 72 hours.
I'm curious to see how many of these faults I'll be able to find. I don't know much on fermentations and sprouting though.
About the genuineness or her statements on what other people eat in other parts of the world, I found her ideas, as many other American authors, full of preconceptions. I live in Monaco, the street in the back of my building is already France. People talk a lot about the French paradox. Let me tell you that it's very hard to find chicken carcasses here or bones for stock (except the marrow, which French really love) broth cubes are used by everybody; the butter section in the supermarket close to my house it's smaller than the butter substitutes. But French do eat still very differently than Americans. I also was born and grew up in a small town in the South of Italy, Apulia. There is still people looking for wild herbs, I can say that I grew up eating a pretty "traditional" diet. Was my diet or my father diet by that matter the so famous mediterranean diet? Not anymore. Recipes has been changed to fit to the new dogma also there. My grandmother used only lard and extra virgin olive oil for cooking. Lard for meat and bean dishes, extra virgin olive oil for vegetables and deep frying (yes!), that was available at that time for people in my area.
As for everything nobody holds the truth.
There are many authors out there who are worth reading, they are not professed on "traditional diets" in the same sense of this board but they are pretty traditional to me.
I just LOVE, Fat , by chef Jennifer McLagan and adore also everything written by Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall
Maybe I should start own blog on "traditional" italian food.
Please, do not follow her advice to cool a stock in the refrigerator! It is a DANGEROUS practice. Storing warm food in the refrigerator makes the temperature inside rise to level that are not safe.
Slightly OT - This is an ongoing debate in my household. I cannot understand the mechanism you're referring to here - how could refrigerating warm food cause the interior temperature to rise? All the reputable sources I've been able to find online say it's fine to put warm food in a refrigerator, but I hear it everywhere and my dh is constantly telling me this. Can you explain further?
Slightly OT - This is an ongoing debate in my household. I cannot understand the mechanism you're referring to here - how could refrigerating warm food cause the interior temperature to rise? All the reputable sources I've been able to find online say it's fine to put warm food in a refrigerator, but I hear it everywhere and my dh is constantly telling me this. Can you explain further?
this is the general rule of thumb about stocks at least ( I don't know about the temp in fridge thing) chill them FAST...Actually with all soups...I myself have never done this...Lazy I know but I pop the whole thing in the fridge or stick it outside if it is really cold. No one has died here...If you work in a restaurant as I have though they will insist upon it...
All my stocks just go into the fridge. Then again I am not super paranoid about cross contamination in general from stuff like eggs and meat to other stuff. I haven't ever had an issue so I guess it is just me being lazy but I think there is a lot of hype around not spreading germs ever.
Follow Mothering