NT vs Garden of Eating

[gribbit]

I feel like I am getting confused with the info from these two.. It seems that one stresses that eating fat is a good thing and the other says it really isnt..( I do have to admit that I need to find the time to read these books more carefully). However, it seems that right when I find a philosophy that seems to make sense, like NT, something else comes along and I begin to second guess myself.. I am curious to hear other people's take on these two philosophies and what made you decide on one or the other. TIA.

michelle

[toraji]

I think they are more similar than different. They are both based on Dr. Price's research but GoE takes a more paleo approach.

With this thinking, GoE does not emphasize the use of grains and dairy as they are not what we evolved on. However, they do give recommendations for what types to use if you choose to partake. GoE makes a HUGE emphasis on produce.

I actually lean more towards GoE but I still find NT to be a valid resource. NT talks about organ meats which GoE does not even touch, but organ meats were very important in traditional cultures. NT also has the fermented foods that GoE lacks.

GoE does downplay the fats aspect, but I actually think it's a good point. I think that we don't live such active lives anymore like the traditional societies did (think washing all your own clothes by hand!). That being said, I do eat all the fat that comes from my stocks and I don't trim my meats. But I don't go out of my way to glop loads of coconut oil on my food either.

I think the best way to deal with conflicting information is to see what works best for your body and lifestyle, and use that. These books are just guidelines, and cannot possibly be better than your own intuition. I don't actually use many of the recipes in either book, but have just used them more as a reference.

[HerthElde]

I think when you take aspects of each book, you end up with a more complete picture of optimum nutrition. I don't fully agree with the stance of either book - (this might sound funny, but one of my biggest issues is actually the position they both take about alcohol. I can't remember exactly what it says but in Stephen Harrod Buhner's Sacred and Herbal Healing Beers, he talks about how alcoholic fermentations of one form or another have been used by most cultures since pretty much the dawn of time, because people don't make alcohol, it makes itself.)
The fats thing is kind of incomplete in both books, but if you take them both and split them down the middle I think it gives a more accurate representation of the truth (imo animal fats aren't bad and we shouldn't avoid them, but when they've been "tampered with" by feeding the animals inappropriate feed, like grains, they become unnatural). I don't like the way GoE is so technical with food, especially as I'm finally learning to fully trust my instincts and I know they are steering me the right way - as a nursing and pregnant woman, I need more fat now than I did pre-babies, and I'm sure I'll need less when I'm done having babies. So, while in GoE they say how to "know" if you're getting too much or too little fat, they still start at the everyone-being-equal-needs-this-much-based-on-weight point, which kind of bugs me because my fat needs vary tremendously based on season, location and time of life, kwim? Also, I do believe that now that I've found grassfed milk, it plays an important part in my diet - it plays big in my religious mythology and I feel a strong connection to using dairy.
But I love GoE's veggie "push" and the grain/legume part of their philosophy resonates quite strongly with me - maybe not going no-grain, but very very low grain is necessary for me to have enough energy - I think even in agricultural societies it would have been a ridiculous amount of work to eat as much grains as the Canadian and American health organizations recommend due to the intensity of labour to process the grains prior to machinery. I also really like their chapter on why organic matters, and totally identify with the environmental/population arguments.
Anyway, I digress, I find both interesting, and they sort of fill in gaps in each other, imo. They're kind of the same philosophy, but with the strong emphases in different places.