The China Study vs. Weston Price - Mothering Forums

Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#1 of 68 Old 05-12-2009, 01:15 AM - Thread Starter
 
crystalsun's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Humboldt, CA
Posts: 69
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
There is so much contradictory information out there about diet and health! I have been reading The China Study as well as a bunch of the Traditional Diet info online.....
The China Study by T. Collin Campbell is a collection of extremely extensive research about diet and nutrition and disease... and the findings of study after study show that a whole foods, plant based diet prevents and reverses diseases. Pretty amazing stuff.
The Traditional Diet folks, like Weston Price, claim that tons of animal protein and fat are the way to optimal health. I have read testimonials of cavities remineralizing. Also pretty amazing.
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!
crystalsun is offline  
#2 of 68 Old 05-12-2009, 01:58 AM
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Palm Desert, CA
Posts: 1,186
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I know what you mean about all the contradictory information. I have been researching tons of gut healing diets for my parasites and candida. The crazy thing is, all these diets have tons of people who have testimonials, so they all have worked for someone and it baffles me.

I guess what it comes down to is they were all whole foods diets, very little natural sugar even from fruit and honey and many diets did not even include those.

The other thing is I think faith plays part as well, if you really believe in something your body will too. I am fully convinced a vegan diet would be detrimental to my health. But a vegan may be fully convinced an omnivore diet would be detrimental to their health and unless their mind is convinced first otherwise I doubt their body will follow.

Happily married to DH for 6 years, in process to foster-adopt 3 children DD4, DS3 and DS2. We may be bringing half brother age 9 one day as well! We are not infertile, we just have decided that since there are precious children who need homes there is no need for us to have biological children.

nicolelynn is offline  
#3 of 68 Old 05-12-2009, 02:09 AM
 
godusjourney's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: So. Utah
Posts: 407
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
godusjourney is offline  
#4 of 68 Old 05-12-2009, 05:58 AM
 
NoTiGG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 325
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I think the answer is that both diets *can* be healthy... as in living without disease for a long time. But keep in mind that if you eat like people who eat predominantly eat mostly vegetables... your children and future generations will start to develop some of their characteristics .. at least IMO. For instance if you started eating vegetables only your kids .. or at least more of your future generation will be short.. than would be otherwise.
NoTiGG is offline  
#5 of 68 Old 05-12-2009, 08:31 AM
 
BetsyPage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: In a thicket
Posts: 1,382
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I don't know about the China Study... but there were a couple of references in Gary Taubes' book to studies that pointed to a high plant-based, low-meat/fat diet being healthy- thinking of a study of Italians and Japanese men... however in the case of the Italians it was a time of econominc stress and families couldn't afford as much meat etc as they wanted so it wasn't their normal way of eating. And the group of Japanese men added more meat etc over time and actually got healthier. (PLEASE don't quote me on the details, it's a big thick book and I can't quickly find what he wrote, it's just what I recall...)

Personally, after reading Nina Planck's books, I'm pretty convinvced that high-quality meat AND vegetables are great for you, but as she says "don't eat too much carbage."

An extrovert, married to my introverted dh since '01, mothering my girls C (2003) and G (2006).

 

Love homeschooling, reading, cooking (most of the time grain-free except for when I'm not ), lactivist, former and wanna-be cloth diaperer and baby-wearer...

BetsyPage is offline  
#6 of 68 Old 05-12-2009, 08:37 AM
 
mrsbernstein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 731
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I second Gary Taubes' book : Good Calories, Bad Calories. It is AMAZING! It shows how in several of the "veggie-only"-friendly studies...that information showing MEAT/Fat to be GOOD were actually disregarded or thrown-out!

Mrs B
mrsbernstein is online now  
#7 of 68 Old 05-12-2009, 08:39 AM
 
spartz's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 229
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by BetsyPage View Post

Personally, after reading Nina Planck's books, I'm pretty convinvced that high-quality meat AND vegetables are great for you, but as she says "don't eat too much carbage."
Is that supposed to be cabbage or garbage?
spartz is offline  
#8 of 68 Old 05-12-2009, 10:27 AM
 
mrsbernstein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 731
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I think she means "carb"-age.

Mrs B
mrsbernstein is online now  
#9 of 68 Old 05-12-2009, 11:34 AM
 
Bri'sgirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 616
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Personally, if I couldn't eat meat or fat, I would die. But then, my ancestors were from northern Europe and had to eat a lot of fat in order to survive the winters.

Wife to Bri, mom to G (8), R (6), I (5). Expecting #4 - 8.16.11
Bri'sgirl is offline  
#10 of 68 Old 05-12-2009, 01:46 PM
 
bella_stranger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: sweet home, Chicago!
Posts: 214
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
my father in law and and sister in law are followers of the china study. they are pescetarians and do egg white omelets and what not. they guzzle gallons of soy milk. they eat carbs. lots of em.

as a result.... my fil (60) has a large stomach & obesity (the kind that shows you are at risk for heart disease). he was tested and diagnosed pre-type 2 diabetic.

my sil (29) has severe depression, acne, and sleep problems.

my mother in law eats a combination of the pescetarian meals her husband eats, with edition of meat and lots of "low fat" or "sugar free" processed foods. she has type 2 diabetes and is obese.

my other sil is healthy, but she is eating a traditional indian diet with her indian husband. lots of meat and hearty fats, but no pork.

my partner and i are on a meat and fat-heavy diet, low grains and processed foods... and after succumbing to vegetarianism a couple of years ago, are feeling so much healthier and energetic and in shape
bella_stranger is offline  
#11 of 68 Old 05-12-2009, 03:56 PM
 
BetsyPage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: In a thicket
Posts: 1,382
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrsbernstein View Post
I think she means "carb"-age.

Mrs B

Yep... she actually says carbage in her newest book... at first I thought it was a typo lol.

bella-stranger- my ILs eat low-fat everything, lots of carbs, raw veggies and "convenience food meats" (i.e. like frozen pot roast you heat up.) They are also overweight.

An extrovert, married to my introverted dh since '01, mothering my girls C (2003) and G (2006).

 

Love homeschooling, reading, cooking (most of the time grain-free except for when I'm not ), lactivist, former and wanna-be cloth diaperer and baby-wearer...

BetsyPage is offline  
#12 of 68 Old 05-12-2009, 04:09 PM
 
ema-adama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 2,387
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
http://www.amazon.com/China-Study-Co...rBy=addOneStar

This review stopped me from buying the book. In my mind it just does not make sense to completely not eat any dairy or meat - for me. I do have a couple of friends who are vegan and both are super healthy and very fit.

But I am sure there is not a one size fits all for every person on earth.

Megan, mama to her little boy (Feb2008) and introducing our little girl (Dec 2010)
ema-adama is offline  
#13 of 68 Old 05-12-2009, 05:35 PM
 
Metasequoia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: In the village
Posts: 5,676
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
I'm impressed that this thread is still here, lol.

Homeschoolin' Mama chicken3.gifto Dd1 2/3/00, Dd2 1/13/03, Ds1 3/11/06 & Ds2 11/18/10!!
Metasequoia is offline  
#14 of 68 Old 05-13-2009, 09:01 AM
 
spartz's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 229
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrsbernstein View Post
I think she means "carb"-age.

Mrs B
I get it now. Thanks for that. It's kind of cool, now that I get it!
spartz is offline  
#15 of 68 Old 05-13-2009, 12:06 PM
 
hummingmom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 400
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I replied to the OP in the veg. forum; just wanted to copy part of it here.

----

Quote:
Originally Posted by crystalsun View Post
The Traditional Diet folks, like Weston Price, claim that tons of animal protein and fat are the way to optimal health
Weston Price himself never said that. Based on his research, he did believe that some animal foods were necessary for optimal health, especially for mothers and children, due to the body's high need for minerals and fat-soluble vitamins. He especially recommended pastured dairy and seafood. But he also said that whole grains should be the cornerstone of the diet, and that lentils were an excellent food. He didn't recommend "tons of protein" of any kind, nor did he emphasize fats per se. See: Letter to his nieces and nephews

(...) BTW, I started a thread in the TF forum a while back on characteristics of healthy high-carbohydrate traditional diets (not specifically vegetarian), but nobody has replied. Maybe I should change the name. I think people take one look at "high carbohydrate" and run a mile.

-----

In reply to the current thread -- Although I'm dealing with multiple grain intolerances myself, I don't think that referring to whole grains as "carbage" fits with Price's theories and research. It's this sort of glib language that bothers me about a lot of TF writing. And, while I haven't read Nina Planck's book, it seems as if herself was referring to refined and processed sugars and starches. According to this summary, she tells her readers to "eat as many whole grains as you need."

(Personally, I'm starting to think that "high-grain + high-fat" is a bad combination -- i.e., it's okay to do one or the other, but doing both will likely mess you up. But that's a subject for another thread.)
hummingmom is offline  
#16 of 68 Old 05-13-2009, 12:23 PM
 
BetsyPage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: In a thicket
Posts: 1,382
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
And, while I haven't read Nina Planck's book, it seems as if herself was referring to refined and processed sugars and starches. According to this summary, she tells her readers to "eat as many whole grains as you need."

(Personally, I'm starting to think that "high-grain + high-fat" is a bad combination -- i.e., it's okay to do one or the other, but doing both will likely mess you up. But that's a subject for another thread.)
She *is* talking about processed sugars/starches and refined flours. She doesn't eat that herself I believe. But she does eat better bread etc but doesn't strike me as "rigid" on the grain issue at all. She eats TONS of vegetables and fish, and uses real fats, is what I have taken away from her books.

I agree with you on the "high-grain + high-fat" and would love to see a thread along those lines. It's something that I've known for a while, actually first ran across that thought here. But I am sugar sensitive (I now realize) so it was easy for me to add fat but not so easy to take away grains... which I am now doing and finally feeling better and losing weight.

An extrovert, married to my introverted dh since '01, mothering my girls C (2003) and G (2006).

 

Love homeschooling, reading, cooking (most of the time grain-free except for when I'm not ), lactivist, former and wanna-be cloth diaperer and baby-wearer...

BetsyPage is offline  
#17 of 68 Old 05-13-2009, 12:49 PM
 
ursusarctos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,498
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Oh this is interesting : I am also interested as these theories seem so conflicting. Though like a PP noted, they both focus on whole fresh foods, very little sugar, and lots of veggies.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ema-adama View Post
But I am sure there is not a one size fits all for every person on earth.
This! I think that there are many different body types depending on ancestry and personal make-up and what works for one will not be working for everyone.
I was raised vegetarian but discovered when I was a teenager that I feel a lot better and more energetic if I have red meat about once a week. I also do some fermented dairy (straight pasteurized homogenized milk makes me mucusy and I don't want to drink raw milk unless it's from my own cow), lots of organic eggs, real butter (organic and cultured when I can afford it), fish once or twice a week, and occasionally chicken. I try to avoid refined grains and sugar, and include as many veggies as I can as well as some fruit. The backbone of my diet is a variety of legumes. I am way healthier than I was on a soy-based veggie diet as a kid or when I was on a conventional diet as a teenager. I do think though that organic animal products are very important and if I only had access to conventional I probably wouldn't eat as much of them as I do. I try to choose my foods based on their freshness and unprocessedness - what would have been available 100 years ago. Cultures around the world have traditionally used all kinds of animal fats - seasonally, accompanied by lots of veggies (unless they were i.e. inuits), and shared amongst large family groups, of course, so it's not like they were gorging on them every day. Also the animals eaten had lived mostly outside and eaten naturally for their species type, not just gmo corn or soybeans or some such garbage, which imo makes for a completely different kind of meat than modern factory farming.
My parents are still mostly veggie and eat a lot of soy. I know it's not good for my mom (she's frail and has health issues that I think would be helped if she ate a more animal-based diet and cut out the soy) though my dad is in great health, so yeah, it totally depends on the person. My little brother is also veggie and eats lots of soy and is much healthier than I was as a kid - again, maybe his body works better without animal protein than mine does, or processes soy better or something.

Me treehugger.gif and DH caffix.gif and sweet baby DD heartbeat.gif born 08/2011.

ursusarctos is offline  
#18 of 68 Old 05-13-2009, 02:59 PM
 
hummingmom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 400
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by ursusarctos View Post
Oh this is interesting : I am also interested as these theories seem so conflicting. Though like a PP noted, they both focus on whole fresh foods, very little sugar, and lots of veggies.(...) Cultures around the world have traditionally used all kinds of animal fats - seasonally, accompanied by lots of veggies (unless they were i.e. inuits),
As it turns out, several of the healthy cultures that Price studied ate hardly any vegetables at all. This didn't just apply to those who lived in the Arctic, but to anyone who lived in places where it was hard to grow green stuff, e.g. due to rocky ground or poor soil. For instance, the Swiss mountain valley people ate mostly rye and dairy, with meat once a week, and very little in the way of vegetables. They let the cows eat the vegetation on their behalf. The Hebrideans of northern Scotland also ate minimal amounts of vegetables. They clearly got ample vitamins and minerals from their diet of seafood and oatmeal.

Vegetables can be part of a healthy diet, but they have their share of problems, just as with other foods (fruits, grains, dairy, etc.). In general, they're not a very efficient source of nutrients; they're mostly water and cellulose. Many people have trouble with large amounts of fiber, and with natural plant toxins such as salicylates. The mineral content of vegetables also varies widely depending on the quality of the soil, even among those that are organically grown. And some, such as carrots, have been bred to have far more sugar than they used to.

It really seems as if there's no one food, or even general class of foods, that's common to all healthy diets. Our bodies all have fairly similar requirements for nutrients, and each culture has found different ways of getting them from the foods that are locally available. There are many nutrients that we're aware of, and probably many more that haven't been identified yet. This is why the typical WAPF approach of "here are the rules for choosing nutrient-dense foods, now pick whatever foods you like" seems rather unwise to me.

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.

Along those lines, I agree with the author of Full Moon Feast that it's a real shame that so many of our bodies have been thrown out of equilibrium by modern agriculture and food processing, to the point that we can no longer eat properly prepared grains as our ancestors did for thousands of years. While I used to buy into the theories about Paleolithic vs. Neolithic diets, grains and dairy being inappropriate from an "evolutionary perspective," etc., the examples given by Price seem to run against that line of thinking. Even the Celtic Hebrideans -- whose ancestors couldn't have been farming that long in the great scheme of things -- seem to have done very well on oats, as part of an unrefined and nutrient-dense diet.
hummingmom is offline  
#19 of 68 Old 05-13-2009, 03:06 PM
 
Metasequoia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: In the village
Posts: 5,676
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by hummingmom View Post
As it turns out, several of the healthy cultures that Price studied ate hardly any vegetables at all. This didn't just apply to those who lived in the Arctic, but to anyone who lived in places where it was hard to grow green stuff, e.g. due to rocky ground or poor soil. For instance, the Swiss mountain valley people ate mostly rye and dairy, with meat once a week, and very little in the way of vegetables. The Hebrideans of northern Scotland also ate minimal amounts of vegetables. They clearly got ample vitamins and minerals from their diet of seafood and oatmeal.
They "ran it through a cow," as Tom Cowan likes to say.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hummingmom View Post
Vegetables can be part of a healthy diet, but they have their share of problems, just as with other foods (fruits, grains, dairy, etc.). In general, they're not a very efficient source of nutrients; they're mostly water and cellulose. Many people have trouble with large amounts of fiber, and with natural plant toxins such as salicylates. The mineral content of vegetables also varies widely depending on the quality of the soil, even among those that are organically grown. And some, such as carrots, have been bred to have far more sugar than they used to.

It really seems as if there's no one food, or even general class of foods, that's common to all healthy diets. Our bodies all have fairly similar requirements for nutrients, and each culture has found different ways of getting them from the foods that are locally available. There are many nutrients that we're aware of, and probably many more that haven't been identified yet. This is why the typical WAPF approach of "here are the rules for choosing nutrient-dense foods, now pick whatever foods you like" seems rather unwise to me.

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.

Along those lines, I agree with the author of Full Moon Feast that it's a real shame that so many of our bodies have been thrown out of equilibrium by modern agriculture and food processing, to the point that we can no longer eat properly prepared grains as our ancestors did for thousands of years. While I used to buy into the theories about Paleolithic vs. Neolithic diets, grains and dairy being inappropriate from an "evolutionary perspective," etc., the examples given by Price seem to run against that line of thinking. Even the Celtic Hebrideans -- whose ancestors couldn't have been farming that long in the great scheme of things -- seem to have done very well on oats, as part of an unrefined and nutrient-dense diet.
Excellent post, excellent.

I also thoroughly enjoyed Full Moon Feast, beautiful book.

Homeschoolin' Mama chicken3.gifto Dd1 2/3/00, Dd2 1/13/03, Ds1 3/11/06 & Ds2 11/18/10!!
Metasequoia is offline  
#20 of 68 Old 05-13-2009, 03:53 PM
 
1littlebit's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 4,189
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
for me personally i have learned that i do not do well one a vegetarian diet.. in fact i do best on a diet high in fat and protein. i feel my best when i eat a good amount of dairy and meat (particularly red meat) i have recently removed gluten from my diet and it was one of the best things i ever did. my mom and my brother are trying to do it now as well and they seem to be showing some improvement too. (my little brother was covered head to tow in eczema and they kept telling him it was dairy)

i would not get enough fat or protein in a vegetarian diet. i dont think i digest plants as well as other people or something. i can eat freaking vegetables and beans all day and still be hungry five minutes later. my best friend does best eating mostly vegetarian with the occasional fish or chicken... red meat makes her ill
1littlebit is offline  
#21 of 68 Old 05-13-2009, 03:55 PM
 
1littlebit's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 4,189
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
o btw i dont think the book and the china study made the most ethical choices when it comes to interpreting the research. sort of like fallon with NT ... it was sort of based on the research but with a biased twist.
1littlebit is offline  
#22 of 68 Old 05-13-2009, 03:59 PM
 
ursusarctos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,498
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Hummingmom, thank you for your informative post. The opinion I expressed was certainly not based on a deep investigation of world diets, just tidbits I have picked up in various places, so I am not surprised to be contradicted. I did have a few questions though...

Quote:
Originally Posted by hummingmom View Post
As it turns out, several of the healthy cultures that Price studied ate hardly any vegetables at all. This didn't just apply to those who lived in the Arctic, but to anyone who lived in places where it was hard to grow green stuff, e.g. due to rocky ground or poor soil. For instance, the Swiss mountain valley people ate mostly rye and dairy, with meat once a week, and very little in the way of vegetables. They let the cows eat the vegetation on their behalf. The Hebrideans of northern Scotland also ate minimal amounts of vegetables. They clearly got ample vitamins and minerals from their diet of seafood and oatmeal.
Hm, interesting. I always assumed that where rye would grow, so would cabbage, turnips, etc. For example the traditional Finnish diet (Finnish soil is poor and rocky as well) included lots of dairy, root veggies, cabbage, heavy on the rye/barley/oats, small fatty fish from inland lakes or the sea depending on location, some wild greens in season (like nettles), berries in season, and limited meat. Though the veggies weren't generally what we think of as veggies (mostly turnips or potatoes ) they were certainly an important part of the diet (cooked, not raw). Though living on a mountain would certainly mean limited growing space, I'm just really skeptical that there wouldn't have been at least gardens with a few hardy veggies... And feeding cows only hay all winter (as there would be no green grass then) would produce less milk, right? Though I really have no basis for my skepticism but my own assumptions, I admit.
Didn't the Scottish coastal diet include seaweed as well? That would qualify as a vegetable in my book. I have also read of nettles being important in the Scottish diet and as a source of fiber for cloth.
I do certainly believe though that wild-caught/wild-fed animal products (like game and pastured cow milk) are bound to be far more nutritious and nourishing than modern farmed meat and that it would be far easier to get a complete range of nutrients from them than conventional meat and dairy.

Quote:
Vegetables can be part of a healthy diet, but they have their share of problems, just as with other foods (fruits, grains, dairy, etc.). In general, they're not a very efficient source of nutrients; they're mostly water and cellulose. Many people have trouble with large amounts of fiber, and with natural plant toxins such as salicylates. The mineral content of vegetables also varies widely depending on the quality of the soil, even among those that are organically grown. And some, such as carrots, have been bred to have far more sugar than they used to.
As far as I have understood, veggies are important not only for their vitamin and mineral content (which, while not necessarily huge, can be enough to hold off diseases in a grain-based diet, most famously scurvy), but for their phytochemicals, which are potently anti-disease. Not that our ancestors would have known that, but when I eat vegetables I'm not just thinking of the vitamin content. Veggies also add variety to an otherwise tedious diet, and even people on subsistence diets surely appreciated a few extra tastes to round things out.
That said, as far as I have read (which is not that far as I mentioned earlier so feel free to correct me) veggies in Europe and much of Asia have generally been eaten cooked or fermented, not raw, and in China and India for example are still rarely eaten raw. This would probably help with digesting the fiber and naturally occurring toxins found in some plants. Also, veggies were seasonal just like most traditional foods, so it's not like anyone would be eating green salads or berries or whatever all year round for example.
And there are obviously cultures that eat very little to no vegetables and survive just fine, though I have always thought those were generally very far north and/or nomadic and it's difficult for me to accept that non-nomadic agrarian people wouldn't at least take advantage of wild greens and berries in season

Quote:
It really seems as if there's no one food, or even general class of foods, that's common to all healthy diets. Our bodies all have fairly similar requirements for nutrients, and each culture has found different ways of getting them from the foods that are locally available. There are many nutrients that we're aware of, and probably many more that haven't been identified yet. This is why the typical WAPF approach of "here are the rules for choosing nutrient-dense foods, now pick whatever foods you like" seems rather unwise to me.
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.
Along those lines, I agree with the author of Full Moon Feast that it's a real shame that so many of our bodies have been thrown out of equilibrium by modern agriculture and food processing, to the point that we can no longer eat properly prepared grains as our ancestors did for thousands of years. While I used to buy into the theories about Paleolithic vs. Neolithic diets, grains and dairy being inappropriate from an "evolutionary perspective," etc., the examples given by Price seem to run against that line of thinking. Even the Celtic Hebrideans -- whose ancestors couldn't have been farming that long in the great scheme of things -- seem to have done very well on oats, as part of an unrefined and nutrient-dense diet.
I totally agree with this! And I definitely think that the most important factor in any healthy diet is the unrefined, fresh, high quality of the food chosen.

Me treehugger.gif and DH caffix.gif and sweet baby DD heartbeat.gif born 08/2011.

ursusarctos is offline  
#23 of 68 Old 05-13-2009, 04:13 PM
 
1littlebit's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 4,189
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by ursusarctos View Post
I totally agree with this! And I definitely think that the most important factor in any healthy diet is the unrefined, fresh, high quality of the food chosen.
this!! but ill be darned if it isnt the most expensive way to eat. they really charge a lot for actual food
1littlebit is offline  
#24 of 68 Old 05-13-2009, 05:23 PM
 
savithny's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 1,820
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by ursusarctos View Post
Hm, interesting. I always assumed that where rye would grow, so would cabbage, turnips, etc. For example the traditional Finnish diet (Finnish soil is poor and rocky as well) included lots of dairy, root veggies, cabbage, heavy on the rye/barley/oats, small fatty fish from inland lakes or the sea depending on location, some wild greens in season (like nettles), berries in season, and limited meat. Though the veggies weren't generally what we think of as veggies (mostly turnips or potatoes ) they were certainly an important part of the diet (cooked, not raw). Though living on a mountain would certainly mean limited growing space, I'm just really skeptical that there wouldn't have been at least gardens with a few hardy veggies... And feeding cows only hay all winter (as there would be no green grass then) would produce less milk, right? Though I really have no basis for my skepticism but my own assumptions, I admit.
Didn't the Scottish coastal diet include seaweed as well? That would qualify as a vegetable in my book. I have also read of nettles being important in the Scottish diet and as a source of fiber for cloth.


As far as I have understood, veggies are important not only for their vitamin and mineral content (which, while not necessarily huge, can be enough to hold off diseases in a grain-based diet, most famously scurvy), but for their phytochemicals, which are potently anti-disease. Not that our ancestors would have known that, but when I eat vegetables I'm not just thinking of the vitamin content. Veggies also add variety to an otherwise tedious diet, and even people on subsistence diets surely appreciated a few extra tastes to round things out.
That said, as far as I have read (which is not that far as I mentioned earlier so feel free to correct me) veggies in Europe and much of Asia have generally been eaten cooked, not raw, and in China and India for example are still rarely eaten raw. This would probably help with digesting the fiber and naturally occurring toxins found in some plants. Also, veggies were seasonal just like most traditional foods, so it's not like anyone would be eating green salads or berries or whatever all year round for example.
And there are obviously cultures that eat very little to no vegetables and survive just fine, though I have always thought those were generally very far north and/or nomadic and it's difficult for me to accept that non-nomadic agrarian people wouldn't at least take advantage of wild greens and berries in season
I think greens and herbs are pretty widely eaten. Not in the quantities we might think of today, and very seasonally. Further, I think many of them were even craved... think about the coming of spring and the first green shoots. Think about the way people have looked for those shoots for millenia. Think about how poeple across the world domesticated greens - plants got domesticated not because a fully meat-eating people said "hey, lets try growing plants to eat like the antelope do!" but because people were eating them and carrying them long distances and inadvertently selecting for certain characteristics. Think of all the "weeds" in this country that are here because someone thought they were valuable enough to bring here as food -- dandelions, garlic mustard... they were "pot herbs," things to throw in the pot with your meat to make it savory and add nutrition. Look at the nutritional content of basil, which we think of as an herb, but pesto has incredible levels of nutrition. People by the sea went looking for seaweed. People in stony areas ate lichens and mosses and ferns.

I know for myself at this time of year, after a hard winter, when the first spring greens hit the farmer's market my mouth actually waters noticeably thinking about fresh asparagus, tender baby spinach, butter lettuce so crisp and yet thin that you feel it pop like a little bubble in your mouth....

savithny, 42 year old moderate mom to DS Primo (age 12) and DD Secunda (age 9).

savithny is offline  
#25 of 68 Old 05-15-2009, 05:21 PM - Thread Starter
 
crystalsun's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Humboldt, CA
Posts: 69
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Thanks for all the replies mamas... esp godusjourney for the links.

I am starting to realize the core of both of these nutritional perspectives is the same foundation: WHOLE FOODS
...The rest seems less important somehow....
crystalsun is offline  
#26 of 68 Old 05-15-2009, 06:41 PM
 
MyLilPwny's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: California
Posts: 816
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by crystalsun View Post
Thanks for all the replies mamas... esp godusjourney for the links.

I am starting to realize the core of both of these nutritional perspectives is the same foundation: WHOLE FOODS
...The rest seems less important somehow....
Fat-soluble vitamins, such as Vitamin A, are found exclusively in animal fats-- they are just as important as whole foods. Non-animal sources of "vitamin A" are not really vitamin A--they are really beta carotene and you have to hope that your body can convert beta carotene into vitamin A--many people cannot make the conversion.

You can do a "whole foods" diet and be lacking in essential nutrients---like fat-soluble vitamins--if you're avoiding animal fats.

Traditional & nutrient-dense foods/Weston A. Price Foundation advocate, Reiki II practitioner, EFT practitioner, past life & life between lives Hypnotherapist practitioner. Home birth with DD 2007 = never vaccinated, breastfed 3 years

MyLilPwny is offline  
#27 of 68 Old 05-17-2009, 10:15 PM - Thread Starter
 
crystalsun's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Humboldt, CA
Posts: 69
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
So I think my latest plan is to eat only whole foods, mostly vegan, but supplement my diet with some very select, high quality nutrient dense animal foods....

I was thinking:
fermented CLO
High vitamin butter oil
occasional local organic grassfed goat milk
occasional organic grassfed cheeses

Does this list of animal foods provide all the fat soluble vitamins (a, d, and k, right?) that my family would need?

I would love to hear any thoughts about this.
Thanks!
crystalsun is offline  
#28 of 68 Old 05-17-2009, 10:22 PM
 
holyhelianthus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: the Southern California desert
Posts: 11,082
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by crystalsun View Post
Thanks for all the replies mamas... esp godusjourney for the links.

I am starting to realize the core of both of these nutritional perspectives is the same foundation: WHOLE FOODS
...The rest seems less important somehow....
Exactly! I replied to your thread on the Veg*n board and linked you to a discussion that was had last year about TF meeting Veg*nism. It is a great thread

Maggie, blissfully married mama of 5 little ladies on my own little path. homeschool.gif gd.gifRainbow.gif
holyhelianthus is offline  
#29 of 68 Old 05-17-2009, 10:32 PM
 
snowbunny's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: The Mountains
Posts: 1,593
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by crystalsun View Post
So I think my latest plan is to eat only whole foods, mostly vegan, but supplement my diet with some very select, high quality nutrient dense animal foods....

I was thinking:
fermented CLO
High vitamin butter oil
occasional local organic grassfed goat milk
occasional organic grassfed cheeses

Does this list of animal foods provide all the fat soluble vitamins (a, d, and k, right?) that my family would need?

I would love to hear any thoughts about this.
Thanks!
By all means, if you feel it's right for your family - you should do it; however, I think you're also missing out on some other nutrient-dense foods like liver and fish. There's a lot of value to be had in meat.

The fat soluble vitamins also include vitamin E (missing from your list above).
Liver, fresh tuna, fresh cream and butter are good sources of vitamin A. Raw seafood like mackerel, oysters and others are a really good source of vitamin D and is very hard to find in vegetable foods (mushrooms have vitamin D in very, very small quantities). Vitamin E can be found in nuts and seeds as well as salmon roe. Leafy greens - eaten with fat to make it more easily absorbed - and HVBO are good sources of vitamin K.

I read China Study right about the time I was thinking about converting from a vegan diet to a TF one, and I was VERY disappointed in it. The China Study never really addressed the native diet of the rural Chinese. It seemed to me that the only real case he was able to make was against casein--and that was the consumption of casein in relative isolation. There was no differentiation between A1 and A2 beta casein in the China Study (I realize that research on A1/A2 beta casein is relatively new so maybe that's why it was excluded). The China Study's recommendations just seemed to be extrapolated from inadequate research both clinically and anthropologically.

I blog traditional foods and Weston A Price at Nourished Kitchen. See my healthy recipes.
snowbunny is offline  
#30 of 68 Old 05-17-2009, 11:33 PM - Thread Starter
 
crystalsun's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Humboldt, CA
Posts: 69
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by snowbunny View Post
I think you're also missing out on some other nutrient-dense foods like liver and fish. There's a lot of value to be had in meat.

The fat soluble vitamins also include vitamin E (missing from your list above).
Liver, fresh tuna, fresh cream and butter are good sources of vitamin A. Raw seafood like mackerel, oysters and others are a really good source of vitamin D and is very hard to find in vegetable foods (mushrooms have vitamin D in very, very small quantities). Vitamin E can be found in nuts and seeds as well as salmon roe. Leafy greens - eaten with fat to make it more easily absorbed - and HVBO are good sources of vitamin K.
So, with my list I would have A, E, and K covered... what about D? You said seafood, but what about the dairy I described?
does anyone have a great list of foods and vitamin/mineral content?
crystalsun is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Drag and Drop File Upload
Drag files here to attach!
Upload Progress: 0
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Mothering Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off