or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Natural Living › Nutrition and Good Eating › Traditional Foods › I can't bring myself to trust Sally Fallon anymore.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

I can't bring myself to trust Sally Fallon anymore. - Page 4

post #61 of 101

Sally Fallon's scary recipes in NT were enough to make me distrust her. lol.gif

post #62 of 101

Fascinating thread!

 

My science and nutrition knowledge is too patchy to really critique Fallon's work, but I have had a number of specific dietary ideas corroborated in other books, which makes me feel more confident in following them. Several nutrition books I've read recently have addressed the "fat is bad" thing, and mentioned that there is little to no correlation between dietary cholesterol and health issues. I just read a book on depression which was very pro-vitamin D; and another book about the evils of sugar; and another promoting fish oil; and so on, and so forth. It's neat when you recognise a pet "wacky" concept mentioned in passing in another book! They don't always entirely agree, of course. One book I read recently was pro-vitamin C, chicken stock and animal fats, but had the usual line about vitamins D and A being toxic, and a very very low RDA for them. Another book (about vaccines, mostly) was also pro-chicken broth and pro-meat, but anti-fat. Usually I find the "mainstream" opinions are mentioned in a kind of throwaway manner, compared to the "wacky" ones which the authors defend and explain; which always leads me to wonder if the authors just hadn't come across any alternatives to the party line at the time of writing the book, KWIM?

 

Nourishing Traditions definitely has an off-putting, militant tone. I haven't looked at it for months, because I've been pregnant... and I've actually been eating pretty well this pregnancy, by my standards at least, but I don't really need to read how whatever I didn't soak for dinner last night (or the fact that I haven't been downing a dozen egg yolks a day... or the fact that I didn't undergo a rigorous six-month preconception diet of oysters and raw meat appetisers... or the fact that my (whole, grass-fed) milk is pasteurised) is turning my grandchildren into withered cretins. It might be true, but I can only do what I can do; and I'd be more likely to return to the book for advice if it were lighter on the guilt.

 

I always wondered about her advice to feed BFed babies egg yolks from 4 months. What about the virgin gut, nothing-but-breastmilk-for-six-months thing?

post #63 of 101

For solid information on animal fats, particularly the cholesterol portion, I really enjoyed Cholesterol Myth by Uffe Ravnskov, a Swedish/Danish physician.

Sally Fallon is mostly a regurgitator, and yes, with a very militant voice. While Ravnskov is not a scientist himself, he has done an enormous amount of research of the available study material on cholesterol, as well as political proceedings that gave rise to the myth about its dangers.

 

I think many of us can be simply thankful for Fallon having opened our eyes to the world of traditional foods. When I first read it I don't think there were any other books out there like it. Except Price's work of course, but to the complete newbie, it's a little inaccessible.

post #64 of 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by kmamma View Post

However, having said what appears to be in defense of her writing, I have recently discovered something in NT that deserves, in my opinion way more attention than her misleading advice on breastfeeding or misquote of mortality rates, and that's her advice on whole grains. I have absoultely no idea why she claims that traditional people consumed their grains whole. I'm currently reading Ramiel Nagel's book Cure Tooth Decay, whose sources claim the opposite. Not only that, but aren't they the same sources which Sally had access to while writing NT?! Come to think of it, there's even a passage in her book describing a traditional millet souring process in which the grain is completely refined. If it weren't for the fact that consuming unprocessed grains is totally detrimental to a person's health, I'd have let it slide. Even while there are some old recipes using whole grains, there are a lot of truly traditional techniques in which bran and germ is removed. In the Swiss Alpes, the rye sourdough consumed was made with sifted flour, not the whole grain. Considering they had good dental and otherwise health, the refining of grains has nothing to do with bad nutrition.


I dont know if this may in part answer your questions here, but i was just reading Cordain's Paleo Diet and he was talking about the invention of steel roller grain mills and the impact that had on the glycemic index of ground grain. According to him it was due to the smaller uniform particles whereas before that milling was done w stone and sifting was necessary to remove any particle that was too big - which wasnt about the bran/germ so much as it was the crunchiness/more even cooking, stray rocks or whole unground grains. And while we think today of sifting as something done w a fine wire mesh, way back when they were more likely to use a tightly woven basket, which isnt nearly as discriminate as todays sifters.

I just read that a few minutes ago and this convo came to mind.
post #65 of 101

This is an interesting thread!  I bought NT about 8 years ago and still look at it from time to time.  The recipes almost never work for me and I have tried a variety of them.  The cooking times etc... are ridiculous.

I haven't really examined her science but everything everyone is saying makes sense.

 

Also, I don't feel like NT clearly says anywhere how you only need a little bit of fat or protein to equal the same amount of calories, quantity-wise, as a carb.  Does that make sense?  I wonder if everyone who increases their fat intake on a TF diet reduces their carb intake enough to not be overeating?  We eat all our dairy whole fat but we don't eat butter by the stick.

 

I found I could eat a lot of red meat while pregnant and the only time I could stomach liver was immediately post partum.  but too much fat and meat makes me feel unwell when I don't really need much.  So listening to my body (combined with a little research and some healthy inspirational sources) is my dietary mantra now.

 

thanks for bringing this up OP!

 

 

 

 

post #66 of 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by kmamma View Post



 



 

Possibly, considering tha age of the author of this article, he's not up to date on changing procedures. Interesting article, is there anything else that you would consider a false statement?

 



True, that he may be out of date, but I'm not sure that is an excuse if you are presenting "expert" opinion. The article was written in 2010 and this has not been practiced for at least the last 20 year (in the US- I don't know about other countries).

 

There are some other things that are not quite right, for example "Nickel" or "Chrome" crowns also have not been used for many years (although they do use stainless steel--but not the same as nickel or chrome). Furthermore, he says that he looked at a "blip" in the data for ALS, and associated it with a change in filling material. This is a really dangerous way to make an association between two events. You could probably find lots of other things that changed that year as well. Maybe a cosmetic company changed their lotion formulation or any number of random events.

 

And he presents a lot of things as his own insight into data, when it is actually pretty well accepted information and not "alternative" at all. For example, it is pretty standard that asepsis in root canals is imperitive, and probably impossible, so while he presents this as controversial, it really isn't.

 

I actually emailed about what he recommends to treat and then replace an abscessed tooth--it appears he advocates extraction of the tooth, but then does not want it replaced. He feels crowns are bad, bridges are bad, implants are bad. So if you fall and hit your front teeth, they die, need to be removed--are you supposed to go without front teeth? He didn't really give a good answer.

post #67 of 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by cristeen View Post




I dont know if this may in part answer your questions here, but i was just reading Cordain's Paleo Diet and he was talking about the invention of steel roller grain mills and the impact that had on the glycemic index of ground grain. According to him it was due to the smaller uniform particles whereas before that milling was done w stone and sifting was necessary to remove any particle that was too big - which wasnt about the bran/germ so much as it was the crunchiness/more even cooking, stray rocks or whole unground grains. And while we think today of sifting as something done w a fine wire mesh, way back when they were more likely to use a tightly woven basket, which isnt nearly as discriminate as todays sifters.

I just read that a few minutes ago and this convo came to mind.



Hmm, interesting theory. Nonetheless, in the stone grinding referred to in Nagel's book, most of the germ and bran was removed. Whether that was because it produced a more satisfying eating experience, is probably irrelevant since the end product still is a 'white flour' product. However, knowing what we do about traditional food prep methods, I can't imagine these people were unaware of the detrimental effect of eating certain plant parts, or incorrectly prepared plant foods. Devoting as much time and effort as they did throughout the entire grain process, from harvest, drying, ageing, sifting then fermenting for sometimes weeks, seems pointless if there was no benefit other than removing stones or similar things.

 

When grain is ground using not so efficient milling equipment, the bran comes out in larger flakes. According to Nagel's source, a whole 25% of the milled flour was removed through sifting. When analyzing mineral content, there was no significant difference between the Swiss's flour and white flour.

 

Interesting point about the sifter baskets. Considering the Swiss removed a whole quarter of the flour while sifting, their prep tools must have been pretty efficient. Not sure what they used.

post #68 of 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smokering View Post
I always wondered about her advice to feed BFed babies egg yolks from 4 months. What about the virgin gut, nothing-but-breastmilk-for-six-months thing?


The short answer to this is that Sally gives zero creedance to any of it.  My public conversations with her on it were quite... bang-head-on-wall over it all.  She gives zero creedence to any benefit to breastfeeding, such as palate development, bonding,etc.... and only looks at the nutritional aspects.

 

A lot of her infant feeding advice isn't based on research or even what Price observed but in her own experience, and the standard line or advice was that kids started solids early when her children were young.

post #69 of 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ammaarah View Post

Sally Fallon's scary recipes in NT were enough to make me distrust her. lol.gif



nod.gif so true. I found most of her recipes to be way off and some flat out bad.

 

post #70 of 101

Fascinating lurk.gif

post #71 of 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by krankedyann View Post




The short answer to this is that Sally gives zero creedance to any of it.  My public conversations with her on it were quite... bang-head-on-wall over it all.  She gives zero creedence to any benefit to breastfeeding, such as palate development, bonding,etc.... and only looks at the nutritional aspects.

 

A lot of her infant feeding advice isn't based on research or even what Price observed but in her own experience, and the standard line or advice was that kids started solids early when her children were young.



 

yeahthat.gif

post #72 of 101

So what did Price come up with in regards to infant feeding? I don't remember reading anything about it in his book. I have read elsewhere though about infant feeding in traditional societies. Seems to be a lot of variation, depending on whether the groups subsist on hunting/gathering or agriculture. Four months is definitely not early in comparison.

Waiting till six months is a good rule of thumb for babies in our culture to avoid allergies. I don't think food allergies were very common in traditional groups however, most likely unheard of.

post #73 of 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by laohaire View Post

I love TF but I am not a fan of Sally Fallon. I too believe she doesn't seem compelled to stick with the truth, just with whatever sounds good.

 

But more than anything, I'm irritated she took Weston Price's name for her agenda.



 

ITA.  many, many threads exist on this very topic going back years.  I'd not recommend her book for much of anything.  It's just terribly flawed and full of bad science.

post #74 of 101

I don't think it's fair to lay all the blame for NT's "militant" attitude at Sally's feet. The book is co-written by Dr. Mary Enig, and I wonder if some of that attitude might come from her, as she suffered some professional blackballing due to her activism as a graduate student back in the 1970s trying to expose the dangers of hydrogenated oils (yes, the food manufacturers knew all about it and fought to keep it from the public as long as possible).

 

It's all spelled out in the article "The Oiling of America," which was also written by both of them like NT was. The following paragraph starts to go into her experiences as a researcher going up against the Food Giants, so from this point on it's all about that drama:

 

 

 

Quote:
When Mary Enig, a graduate student at the University of Maryland, read the McGovern committee report, she was puzzled. Enig was familiar with Kummerow’s research and she knew that the con`sumption of animal fats in America was not on the increase—quite the contrary, use of animal fats had been declining steadily since the turn of the century.

 

 

 

A USDA official told her and her group of researchers that if they pursued this work with trans-fats, they'd never get any money! People in high positions with food manufacturers' lobbying groups like the National Association of Margarine Manufacturers bad-mouthed her research findings about the alarming amounts of trans-fats in packaged foods, and reassured government agencies that the amount the average American was eating was far too low to be of concern. Of course that was a big fat lie.

 

She had really been put through the ringer by her experiences of just trying to be an honest researcher and showing her findings to those who should care about them, and do something about them for the good of the American public, so I wouldn't blame her one bit if she were bitter, angry AND militant about the whole ordeal. 

 

post #75 of 101

to be fair, I think it's both.  But Sally Fallon is solely responsible for what SHE lectures about.  But I do see and agree with your point. 

post #76 of 101

Chicharronita--I fully see your point. With all that the government does to keep people in ill health, there is definitely a place and time for being 'loud' or militant. It got my attention, yet I'm not all militant about the way I eat. I don't see the big deal about it. But everyone's different.

 

I'm just miffed about the whole-grains-are-fine-if-fermented advise. Just today I came across a description of traditional cornbread making while researching for a school project on portuguese food culture. The sentence 'Afterwards the flour had to be well sifted' stood out to me. Another little piece of evidence I can add to the repertoire;).

post #77 of 101

I dont like her views on breastfeeding.

post #78 of 101

Funny to find this tread. Just yesterday I pulled out my copy of NT because I wanted a refresher on making crispy almonds. I have never found the book to be helpful for any other recipe, and it's gathering dust. I often wonder why I don't toss it.  I guess it makes me remember when I came to TF so many years ago.

 

We are pretty common sense TF.  We fall off the wagon for a while, get back on for a longer while, etc.  A little bit of a cycle.  But, hands down, grass fed, raw, whole milk has been a huge benefit to my family.  I just don't put a lot of stock in much of what's in NT.

post #79 of 101

The best thing I've read in this thread is that the recipes in NT are terrible. I'm glad I'm not the only one who has had problems! I thought I was a very good cook until I tried her recipes! I ruined a nice grass fed organic roast cooking it for sooooo bloody long as per SF's instructions. Never again!

 

I'm still sooo confused about whether to soak or not soak. I don't think I'll ever switch to no grains or white flour.... can't see it happening and I severely doubt that it's healthier... but the phytic acid and blah blah blah... I'm confused about.

 

I've switched (recently) from a lacto-ovo vegetarian diet to TF and it's all rather intimidating. I don't feel better/healther. In fact I feel kinda gross. Maybe it's a mental meat block?? Not sure. I do like meat, but it seems like I have trouble digesting it. Maybe I need more fermented foods?

 

I only bought NT a couple of months ago, but I also find a lot of the info to be misleading. But, still, some good advice. Kinda PO that it's not as much of a eye-opening life-changing resource as it was cracked up to be.... lots of questions....

post #80 of 101

My take on that is everyone has different nutritional needs and ultimately you should listen to your own body and its reactions to foods. If a dietary change is making you feel worse, it may just not be what is right for your body.
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by VeggieLovinMama View Post

The best thing I've read in this thread is that the recipes in NT are terrible. I'm glad I'm not the only one who has had problems! I thought I was a very good cook until I tried her recipes! I ruined a nice grass fed organic roast cooking it for sooooo bloody long as per SF's instructions. Never again!

 

I'm still sooo confused about whether to soak or not soak. I don't think I'll ever switch to no grains or white flour.... can't see it happening and I severely doubt that it's healthier... but the phytic acid and blah blah blah... I'm confused about.

 

I've switched (recently) from a lacto-ovo vegetarian diet to TF and it's all rather intimidating. I don't feel better/healther. In fact I feel kinda gross. Maybe it's a mental meat block?? Not sure. I do like meat, but it seems like I have trouble digesting it. Maybe I need more fermented foods?

 

I only bought NT a couple of months ago, but I also find a lot of the info to be misleading. But, still, some good advice. Kinda PO that it's not as much of a eye-opening life-changing resource as it was cracked up to be.... lots of questions....



 

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Traditional Foods
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Natural Living › Nutrition and Good Eating › Traditional Foods › I can't bring myself to trust Sally Fallon anymore.