Foods to Avoid

[Pointedstick]

That doesn't mean WPF's studies and conclusions aren't contradicted by most other major studies [...]

Well, are studies persuasive, or aren't they? I've been under the impression you gave me in another thread that trading studies isn't really going to get us anywhere. If that's still the case, I think we need to be a bit more rigorous and actually look to refute the arguments ourselves with our own data rather than finding experts who claim to have done it themselves. "Experts" are frequently wrong, or subtly blinded by bias, or asking the wrong question to begin with. Witness the constant barrage of anti-gun studies that you and I both know are bogus for great evidence of this. If those deserve our skepticism and refutation with our own data, then so do those done by scientists and nutritionists.

[rocketdog]

@PS

Studies may or may not be persuasive on their own; it all depends on the criteria the study used.  The more a study is referenced in other studies, the more persuasive it becomes.  The more a study seems to corroborate and echo similar findings of previous researchers, the more persuasive still.  Most researchers would love to make a name for themselves by overturning well-established research, so the fact that it doesn't happen all too often should tell us something.

Like I said before, you have to look at the body of the research, not single out a study here and there.  If different researchers at different points in time studying different populations using different criteria under different circumstances all begin to point to a similar conclusion, I find that incredibly compelling.  For another study to come along and completely overturn a track record like that would be a gargantuan effort (not impossible mind you, but they would certainly have their work cut out for them.)

[edsanville]

And in the paleolithic era, humans often dined on megafauna (woolly mammoths, woolly rhinos, giraffes, hippos, etc) which would feed families for long periods — particularly when winter set in and no vegetables were even available. Humans were able to thrive in those conditions for over 2 million years — often migrating out of tropic zones to follow those animals over land bridges.

The estimated human global population 150,000 years ago was only c. 15,000 people.  I wouldn't exactly call that "thriving."  For most of prehistory, humans had a hard time finding any food at all.  Their life expectancy was low, and they died young from communicable diseases more often.  Under those conditions, of course chronic diseases of middle age would be rarer.

It's for those reasons that I personally find the "let's eat how primitive humans ate" reasoning to be unconvincing.  I'd feel better if I ate a little bit better than they did, nature be damned.

[edsanville]

By the way, I'm finding this thread to be quite interesting.  I'm not a vegetarian, but I only eat salmon, tuna, and turkey for meat.  The salmon and tuna are for the supposed omega-3 fatty acid benefits.  I eat a breakfast cereal mix with lots of whole grains and some flax seeds as well.  I use soy milk in my breakfast cereal because I'm severely lactose-intolerant.

I'm not sure if vegetarianism is healthier or not yet, but I would say I'm fairly convinced that dairy products are pretty unhealthy overall.  Most of the human race, including some of the longest-lived populations (like Japan, Okinawa especially), doesn't eat much dairy, if any at all.  Strange for some human populations to start (relatively recently) consuming the milk of another species.

I do eat a lot of broccoli, because I've never heard anyone say bad things about it.  Just curious, does anybody here think broccoli is bad for you?

[Gumby]

And in the paleolithic era, humans often dined on megafauna (woolly mammoths, woolly rhinos, giraffes, hippos, etc) which would feed families for long periods — particularly when winter set in and no vegetables were even available. Humans were able to thrive in those conditions for over 2 million years — often migrating out of tropic zones to follow those animals over land bridges.

The estimated human global population 150,000 years ago was only c. 15,000 people.

On the other hand, the fact that those 15,000 people managed to survive and procreate to create the most powerful and intelligent species on the planet is impressive in its own right.

I wouldn't exactly call that "thriving."  For most of prehistory, humans had a hard time finding any food at all.

Many dined on — and migrated with — megafauna. For instance, mammoths were methodically butchered and could feed a small tribe for weeks at a time.

ABC: Woolly Mammoth Apparently Butchered by Ancient Humans

And there were small game prey, practically everywhere. They soon learned how to hunt and feed their families. And let's not forget that plants do not grow year round in non-tropical zones. Meaning that regular consumption of meat and fat was essential for our species to survive. It was either that or starve.

Their life expectancy was low, and they died young from communicable diseases more often.  Under those conditions, of course chronic diseases of middle age would be rarer.

True. But, if we look at "ancestral diets" up until the 19th century, we see that people always ate plenty of fats and meat year round. If we look at cookbooks from over 100 years ago, we see lots of fat, bacon, lard, drippings, raw cream/butter and meats. Green vegetables were only eaten when available (seasonally) and only if they were drenched in raw cream or fats.

[align=center][/align]

[align=center][/align]
[align=center]Source: http://archive.org/stream/baptistladies ... 2/mode/2up[/align]

We've all been taught that the average lifespan before the 20th century was supposedly only 30 or 40 years of age. But, it turns out that's only true if you look at life expectancy at birth. Average adult lifespans have been around 65-70 years of age for at least a millennia. This is fairly easy to prove by looking at genealogical records and any family tree that goes back a few hundred years. My wife can trace her family back to 900 AD and, sure enough, the average age of death for her family tree was in the mid-to-late 60s — meaning there were many people in her family tree that lived into their 80s and 90s (and two of her known ancestors also lived past 100).

You would think that these meat/fat-eating ancestors would have had lots of heart disease and cancer. But, it turns out that there is scant evidence of these chronic diseases in the historical and medical literature before the 20th Century. What you do see is a tendency for the elderly to die of natural causes and easily preventable infections.

While correlation is not causation, it appears that heart disease and arteriosclerosis became more widespread in autopsies at the end of the 19th Century — right around the time that the production of sugar and vegetable oils started to become mainstream, thanks to mechanized production. At the time, doctors couldn't figure out why they were seeing a sharp increase in arteriosclerosis — particularly in relatively young people. By 1920, arteriosclerosis in autopsies and "heart attacks" became a common phenomenon. Up until then sugar and PUFA (Polyunsaturated fatty acids) consumption was relatively low, but that all changed during the Industrial Revolution.

You might be tempted to argue that arteriosclerosis wasn't on doctor's radars until the early 20th century. But, that's not true. Dissections and anatomy have been closely studied for a very long time. There was a definite shift in arteriosclerosis at the end of the 19th century.

Here's a preface from a book, published in 1908, about Arteriosclerosis:

[align=center][/align]
[align=center][/align]
[align=center][/align]
[align=center][/align]
[align=center][/align]
[align=center]Source: http://books.google.com/books?id=mL4NAA ... &q&f=false[/align]

And little did anyone know that heart attacks would soon see a dramatic rise after 1920. Remember, heart disease and heart attacks don't just afflict the elderly. They often afflict middle-aged adults. So, it's abundantly clear that arteriosclerosis was increasing rapidly after 1900.

Notice how the author observed the strong "universal habit" of people staying active and exercising, despite the rise in arteriosclerosis.

The historical evidence does not suggest that eating large quantities of saturated fats leads to heart disease. If anything, we might conclude the opposite, since heart disease increased while people cut back on saturated fats as they increased their PUFA consumption.

And I think it's worth keeping in mind that "modern" medicine has not extended adult lifespans very much. On average, we only live about 7 years longer than our adult ancestors — and now we have far more "chronic" diseases.

[BearBones]

On average, we only live about 7 years longer than our adult ancestors — and now we have far more "chronic" diseases.

Skeptical but open minded. You have posted in past, I believe, but can you provide incontrovertible evidence of this?

[Gumby]

On average, we only live about 7 years longer than our adult ancestors — and now we have far more "chronic" diseases.

Skeptical but open minded. You have posted in past, I believe, but can you provide incontrovertible evidence of this?

It is incontrovertible that adult lifespans have not increased significantly over the past 500 years. For instance, even if we look at the lives of the well-documented Founding Fathers (in this case, the 1787 delegates), we see the following life spans were recorded:

Founding Fathers: Longevity and family life

For their era, the 1787 delegates (like the 1776 signers) were average in terms of life spans. Their average age at death was about 67. The first to die was Houston in 1788; the last was Madison in 1836.

Secretary Charles Thomson lived to the age of 94. Johnson died at 92. John Adams lived to the age of 90. A few—Franklin, Jefferson, Madison, Williamson, and Wythe—lived into their eighties. Either 15 or 16 (depending on Fitzsimons's exact age) died in their seventies, 20 or 21 in their sixties, eight in their fifties, and five only in their forties. Three (Alexander Hamilton, Richard Dobbs Spaight and Button Gwinnett) were killed in duels.

Most of the delegates married and raised children. Sherman fathered the largest family: 15 children by two wives. At least nine (Bassett, Brearly, Johnson, Mason, Paterson, Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, Sherman, Wilson, and Wythe) married more than once. Four (Baldwin, Gilman, Jenifer, and Alexander Martin) were lifelong bachelors. Many of the delegates also had children conceived illegitimately

[align=center][/align]


Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Founding_F ... amily_life

Many of the Founding Fathers died from various causes — many of which would now be preventable. Heart disease was rare back then.

Furthermore, chronic disease has been increasing every year even over the past few decades — all while governments have officially been recommending "low fat" diets. The 2010 Global Burden of Disease study showed that while people are living longer, they are getting sicker and living with more chronic diseases.

And once again, Dr. Weston Price's work (which by the way, has nothing to do with the Weston A. Price Foundation, which was founded decades later) is the best documented evidence of high-fat diet ancestral populations that were free of chronic disease:

http://www.w8md.com/nutrition_vs_physic ... _price.pdf

I will continue to find more "evidence" for you, but I must admit that it is a challenge to find "evidence" of something that didn't happen very often. The fact that it's difficult to find evidence of chronic disease 200 or 500 years ago is the evidence.

[BearBones]

It is incontrovertible that adult lifespans have not increased significantly over the past 500 years. For instance, even if we look at the lives of the well-documented Founding Fathers (in this case, the 1787 delegates), we see the following life spans were recorded:

Don't buy it. Lots of bias here. Generally well off families, etc. And most of the otherwise would-be "founding fathers" that died of chronic disease before peak career did not really get to found anything now did they? Would need meticulous demographic data to prove this, and would need to normalize for differences in childhood mortality and mortality in later years due to accident, murder and war.

Some folks have tried to sort this out here, and it does not support your assertion:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy

I will continue to find more "evidence" for you, but I must admit that it is a challenge to find "evidence" of something that didn't happen very often. The fact that it's difficult to find evidence of chronic disease 200 or 500 years ago is the evidence.

Again, lots of bias here not the least being poor records, poor science, etc. Sophisticated knowledge of pathophysiology and maintenance of meticulous records on mortality for a large proportion of the population is a recent phenomenon.

[BearBones]

The fact that it's difficult to find evidence of chronic disease 200 or 500 years ago is the evidence.

Hmm. Could it be because we do not have many bodies to autopsy? We have at least one (from 3350 and 3100 B.C.), and he had atherosclerosis, bad teeth, and gallstones:

http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2 ... -mess.html

[Gumby]

Don't buy it. Lots of bias here. Generally well off families, etc.

Sorry BearBones. The Brown analysis of the 1787 delegates clearly explained that their lifespans were "average" for the time...

For their era, the 1787 delegates (like the 1776 signers) were average in terms of life spans.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Founding_F ... amily_life

Some folks have tried to sort this out here, and it does not support your assertion:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy

Clearly you didn't read it very carefully because that Wikipedia article just proves my point.

Life expectancy is often confused with life span to the point that they are nearly synonyms; when people hear 'life expectancy was 35 years' they often interpret this as meaning that people of that time or place had short life spans.[74] One such example can be seen in the In Search of... episode "The Man Who Would Not Die" (About Count of St. Germain) where it is stated "Evidence recently discovered in the British Museum indicates that St. Germain may have well been the long lost third son of Rákóczi born in Transylvania in 1694. If he died in Germany in 1784, he lived 90 years. The average life expectancy in the 18th century was 35 years. Fifty was a ripe old age. Ninety... was forever."

This ignores the fact that the life expectancy generally quoted is the at birth number which is an average that includes all the babies that die before their first year of life as well as people that die from disease and war. The genetics of humans and rate of aging were no different in preindustrial societies than today, but people frequently died young because of untreatable diseases, accidents, and malnutrition. Many women did not survive childbirth, and individuals who reached old age were likely to succumb quickly to health problems.

It can be argued that it is better to compare life expectancies of the period after adulthood to get a better handle on life span.[75] Even during childhood, life expectancy can take a huge jump as seen in the Roman Life Expectancy table at the University of Texas where at birth the life expectancy was 25 but at the age of 5 it jumped to 48. Studies like Plymouth Plantation; "Dead at Forty" and Life Expectancy by Age, 1850–2004 similarly show a dramatic increase in life expectancy once adulthood was reached.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expec ... _life_span

This is exactly what I've been saying, BearBones. You just proved my point for me.

See also...

http://web.archive.org/web/200707130833 ... -at-40.php

There are several common pieces of misinformation/mistaken beliefs about people in the past: that they were all "much shorter in those days", that they died at a much earlier age (and therefore reached old age much earlier as well), married at a very early age, had very large families, and the leading cause of death for women was childbirth. The myth that people died young is addressed below...

...The common idea is that people reached old age much earlier age than today, generally some time in the mid-30s. This is based on a misunderstanding of the term "average life expectancy at birth."

... Average life expectancy was significantly higher in 17th-century New England than for either England or the Chesapeake region. Average life expectancy at 21 for colonists born in Andover was 64.2 for men and 61.6 for women. For their counterparts in Plymouth Colony, the ages were 69.2 for men and 62.4 for women.

Life expectancy in the Plymouth Colony


Age
21
30
40
50

60
70
80


Men
69.2

70.0
71.2
73.7
76.3
79.9
85.1



Women
62.4
64.7
69.7
73.4

76.8
80.7
86.7



Source: http://web.archive.org/web/200707130833 ... -at-40.php

If you lived long enough to marry and have kids (i.e. all of your ancestors), you likely lived, on average, to your mid-to-late 60s. The facts are the facts.

[Gumby]

The fact that it's difficult to find evidence of chronic disease 200 or 500 years ago is the evidence.

Hmm. Could it be because we do not have many bodies to autopsy? We have at least one (from 3350 and 3100 B.C.), and he had atherosclerosis, bad teeth, and gallstones:

http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2 ... -mess.html

Ötzi is an interesting one. He was an early agriculturalist and ate a lot of grain (his belly was full of it). If you're curious, read these analyses for an interesting paleo perspective...

http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2 ... -part.html
http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2 ... rt_17.html
http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2 ... rt_24.html
http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2 ... onary.html

I never said that arteriosclerosis didn't exist. I just said that it became much more apparent in younger bodies they were autopsying in the late 1800s — a very noticeable increase. Some arteriosclerosis is likely a natural phenomenon as we age and Ötzi had a genetic predisposition for it.

[Gumby]

I've been looking into this more, as even I haven't been fully satisfied with the observation that heart disease was "rare" before 1900 and heart attacks were rare before 1920.

Gary Taubes — who, mind you, advocates a high fat diet and has meticulously shown where the erroneous "low fat" dogma came from — explains that there are two perspectives on the perceived "epidemic" of heart disease that appeared during the 20th century.

Dr. Paul Dudley White — often credited as the "founder of preventive cardiology" and later Eisenhower's Presidential physician after his heart attack — believed that heart disease was a new phenomenon:

The belief that coronary heart disease was rare before the 1920s is based on the accounts of physicians like William Osler, who wrote in 1910 that he spent a decade at Montreal General Hospital without seeing a single case. In his 1971 memoirs, White remarked that of the first 100 papers he published, only two were on coronary heart disease. “If it had been common I would certainly have been aware of it, and would have published more than two papers on the subject.”? But even White originally considered the disease “part and parcel of the process of growing old,”? which is what he wrote in his 1929 textbook Heart Disease, while also noting that “it also cripples and kills often in the prime of life and sometimes even in youth.”? So the salient question is whether the increasing awareness of the disease beginning in the 1920s coincided with the budding of an epidemic or simply better technology for diagnosis.
Source: Gary Taubes: Good Calories, Bad Calories

Interestingly, Dr. White was never fully convinced that dietary fat was responsible for heart disease:

“See here, I began my practice as a cardiologist in 1921 and I never saw an MI (heart attack) patent until 1928. Back in the MI free days before 1920, the fats were butter and lard and I think that we would all benefit from the kind of diet that we had at a time when no one had ever heard the word corn oil.”?

Source: http://www.50pluslife.com/2010/03/31/bu ... -margarine…/

Anyway, Taubes believes that the so-called "epidemic" of heart disease during the 20th century was fairly manufactured. He takes your points, BareBones, that the diagnostics and knowledge to test for heart disease did not exist before the early 1900s and the classifications for heart disease changed to include various kinds of heart disease widened as the issue caught the public eye. He says that by the 1950s, doctors were trying to raise awareness for "heart disease" and the media started calling it our "#1 killer" and so on. And once CHD became more commonplace, death records were more likely to receive that conclusion.

Taubes also argues that more people were living longer — since people weren't dying of as many infectious diseases. However, it appears that he is simply talking about raw at birth population numbers (not adult lifespan trends). In other words, the population had more raw number of elderly people — despite the fact that adult (over 21) lifespans hadn't really increased very much. As we know from colonial population records (as I showed in the previous post) people who were old enough to marry typically lived into their mid to late 60s on average. So, you would think that heart problems would have been extremely prevalent in early elderly populations, but I don't necessarily see that as being the case.

I'm willing to admit that, perhaps Taubes is right. Perhaps we've always had a good amount of heart disease whether we were eating high fat or low fat.

I suppose it really doesn't matter because what Taubes makes abundantly clear is that there is absolutely no evidence that "low fat" diets protect against heart disease. And he shows good evidence of why high-fat diets are actually quite healthy.

Certainly arteriosclerosis was prevalent in the exhumed bodies and mummies of early grain-eating agriculturalists. This actually makes sense since humans were just beginning their adjustment to grains in the early Neolithic period. From my own research I would say that the observation of heart disease and arteriosclerosis before 1900 wasn't nearly as prevalent as it was after the Industrial Revolution and the 20th century. Apoplexy (i.e. sudden death) was a common cause of death before doctors could determine what those deaths were from. But, I still don't have the impression that apoplexy was a leading cause of elderly death back then. And even the elderly seemed to succumb to a variety of diseases.

"Heart attacks" seem to not be a prevalent phenomenon in the historical record before 1920, but they did happen. And, Dr. White, one of the world's most prominent cardiologists (see above) claims that he never saw a heart attack patient until almost a decade after starting his practice in 1921. Supposedly Dr. White was dissuaded from becoming a cardiologist at the time because there weren't enough cardiology patients to make a good living off of. So, my sense is that the truth lies somewhere in the middle... Perhaps some arteriosclerosis has always been a natural part of aging — at least since the dawn of the Neolithic period — and clearly the observation of heart disease increased during the early 1900s.

Still, I'm left wondering why doctors were clearly observing more arteriosclerosis in younger bodies during the late 1800s? And why did Dr. White — one of the world's most prominent cardiologists — not see a heart attack patient until 1928, seven years after he opened his practice? To me, it correlates with (though not necessarily caused by) the introduction of mechanized sugar/grain production followed by the introduction of industrial seed oils (i.e. mechanized vegetable oil production).

We will never know the truth, but either way it doesn't seem to effect any of the Ancestral Health theories — since Taubes is effectively a member of the "high fat" Ancestral Health community and he argues that there was probably no real 20th century heart disease "epidemic" in the first place.

[BearBones]

Don't mean to "post and run," Gumby. Not ignoring you; will study your rebuttals when I get the chance this week. Thanks for putting the time into this!

[Gumby]

I did look into them, and they're a dangerous group with ties to the dairy and beef industry.

Uh no. They don't have "ties to the dairy and beef industry." The foundation actively supports organic and biodynamic farming, pasture-feeding of livestock and community-supported farms. In other words, they support local family-owned and community-owned farms. Most sane people consider those to be worthy farming practices.

If anything the foundation opposes the dairy and beef industries — since those industries rely on confinement and factory environments that they oppose.

They give out plenty of other bad advice, not just bad diet advice.  Did you know they promote the bogus placebo treatment known as "homeopathy"?

http://www.westonaprice.org/homeopathy/

I don't know very much about homeopathy. And there is certainly a lot of evidence to debunk homeopathy — which isn't surprising since it was formed during a time of great scientific confusion and snake-oil salesmanship. But, my sense is that there is probably some legitimacy to some of it. For instance, if I do a quick search of PubMed, it seems that there is some evidence to support some of its herbs/remedies...

PubMed: Homeopathic ear drops as an adjunct to standard therapy in children with acute otitis media

PubMed: Early udder inflammation in dairy cows treated by a homeopathic medicine (Dolisovet(®)): a prospective observational pilot study

PubMed: Homeopathic treatment of premenstrual syndrome: a case series

Hard to imagine that the cows in the study, above, are improving from a "placebo" effect, but what do I know?

Or that they put childrens' lives in danger by irresponsibly advocating that parents consider not vaccinating their children?

http://www.westonaprice.org/childrens-h ... med-choice

I don't personally agree with that aspect of their recommendations (my child is fully vaccinated). But, having said that, everyone is allowed to make their own decisions. And the truth is that there are probably some risks to vaccinating. Chris Kresser — who has chosen not to vaccinate his kids — explains the logic of that choice:

Someday I will [write a series of articles on the subject]. It will be the most difficult, time-consuming, polarizing and controversial series I’ll ever write – which is probably why it hasn’t been written yet. Here’s the other thing: I don’t believe it’s possible to reach a place of “certainty”?, or anything near it, by reading the literature. Thus the decision whether to vaccinate or not, or which vaccinations to use, is highly personal and subjective and dependent on factors well outside of scientific evidence. For us, the crucial question is this: would we rather take the exceedingly small chance of our child dying from an acute infection, or the much larger chance of permanently impairing our child’s immune system and predisposing him/her to autoimmune disease? Since both my wife and I have autoimmune diseases and can track their onset to soon after we received vaccinations as adults (for third-world travel in my case, for emigration to the U.S. in Elanne’s case), we’re admittedly biased toward the former.

Source: http://chriskresser.com/the-healthy-ske ... episode-12

Personally, I prefer to vaccinate — particularly since it prevents epidemics — but I think it's good to occasionally question the status quo.

Stay Away from "Holistic" and "Biological" Dentists

It's a poorly written article. Interestingly, much of holistic dentistry is based on the research of Sir Edward Mellanby, GBE, KCB, MD, FRCP, FRS. Mellanby discovered Vitamin D — was one of the world's most respected physicians of his time — and was knighted by the Queen in 1937 for his discoveries:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Mellanby

Mellanby was able to show that proper nutrition could be used to "heal" cavities, via a process known as remineralization.

http://bit.ly/K1Tz46

Mellanby believed that tooth decay could be eradicated in the 20th Century from dietary changes alone — a diet which required reducing the consumption of cereal grains and increasing the amount of nutrient-dense foods that are rich in fat-soluble vitamins — which is only found in animal meat/dairy/fat.

But, I suppose if you don't want people to know that you can heal cavities with nutrient-dense food than you can call him a "quack". Few people — including most Western dentists — know that Mellanby discovered that cavities could be healed from diet alone. His discoveries suggest that fat-soluble vitamins from animal food — as well as a reduction of improperly prepared grains — are a necessity for proper dental health.

If some rich source of vitamin D be added, such as cod-liver oil or egg-yolk, the structure of the teeth will be greatly improved, while the addition of oils such as olive or arachis oil leaves the teeth as badly formed as when the basal diet only is given. Not only are the defects in the dentine and enamel obvious on microscopic examination, but external examinations reveals the surface enamel also to be badly formed...

These results show that the incidence of dental caries can be greatly reduced by feeding children on diets rich in vitamin D. Since, however, the animal experiments had shown that there was another side to the problem of teeth calcification and reaction, namely, that cereals interfere with the processes, it seemed likely that, if a diet could be made not only rich in vitamin D but at the same time be deprived of cereals, the teeth of children eating such a diet might offer still greater resistance to caries...

Although Diet 8 contained no bread, porridge or other cereals, it included a moderate amount of carbohydrates, for plenty of milk, jam, sugar, potatoes and vegetables were eaten by this group of children...It is of interest to note that these results are in harmony with those of Boyd and Drain who found that caries in the teeth of children on diabetic diets (devoid of cereal) did not spread or develop.

The hardening of carious areas that takes place in the teeth of children fed on diets of high calcifying value indicates the arrest of the active process and may result in "healing" of the infected area.

Source: http://bit.ly/K1Tz46

Mind you, these experiments on children and dogs were done before Vitamin D was available as a supplement, so a "diet rich in Vitamin D" had to include lots of animal fats — since Vitamin D is a fat-soluble vitamin and was only bio-available from animal fats, such as raw milk, cream, butter, lard or cod-liver oil. In his paper he also showed that Vitamin A worked synergistically with Vitamin D in dental health. "True" vitamin A (i.e. Retinol) is only found in animal foods. (Vegetables only contain "carotenoids" which the body must convert into Retinol — and humans, in particular vegetarians, are notoriously bad at this conversion process).

Interestingly, Melanby's experiments match up perfectly with Dr. Weston A. Price's observations (remember, Dr. Price was a dentist, and again, WAPF was created decades later and has nothing to do with his original work). Here's the kinds of dental health he found in native populations who ate fatty foods and no improperly prepared grains.

[align=center][/align]

Here is what he found in Africans eating a traditional diet:

[align=center][/align]


And here's what he saw in the same tribes whose parents and children migrated to civilization and began eating modern grain-based foods:

[align=center][/align]
[align=center][/align]
[align=center]Source: http://www.w8md.com/nutrition_vs_physic ... _price.pdf[/align]

Price, Mellanby and Pottinger all independently observed that animals and individuals with poor diets genetically passed on their poor dental health to their offspring. In other words, the modern diet was somehow negatively shaping the genes of offspring.

By the way, some more recent studies suggest that vegetarians tend to have poor dental health — seems to be from a deficiency of fat-soluble vitamins that are necessary for proper tooth enamel and the high acidity of raw foods:

http://rawfoodsos.com/2010/01/24/dental ... et-part-1/

The Weston A Price Foundation: Half Right and therefore Dangerous

Yikes, you think that T. Colin Campbell's "The China Study" is an example of good science? His book has been pretty well debunked.

The Misinformation of Barry Groves and Weston Price

Deadly Dietary Myths: Premature death is too high a price to pay for bad advice!

Nutritional Facts and Fiction: Fanciful folklore is no match for modern science!

Fuhrman is a smart guy, but he doesn't seem to understand that animal meat — when it's properly raised — is very different from factory-farmed meat. And I have a hard time taking seriously anyone who doesn't understand that distinction. His recommendations to limit meat consumption could only make sense if one only had access to factory-farmed meat.

When Paleos and WAPF recommend meat consumption, they aren't referring to factory-farmed meat. Once you understand that grass-fed meat and butter are good sources of Conjugated linoleic acids (CLA), long-chain Omega-3s, fat-soluble vitamins (A, D, E, K1, K2) and beneficial dietary cholesterol, it becomes clear that for Fuhrman's recommendations are too simplistic and misguided.

That doesn't mean WPF's studies and conclusions aren't contradicted by most other major studies; they are

What do you mean by "WPF's studies"? 99% of the studies they reference are published studies have nothing to do with their foundation. Are you saying that any study they reference isn't legitimate? Talk about bias... That kind of narrow-minded attitude doesn't advance our understanding of anything.

[Gumby]

If different researchers at different points in time studying different populations using different criteria under different circumstances all begin to point to a similar conclusion, I find that incredibly compelling.  For another study to come along and completely overturn a track record like that would be a gargantuan effort (not impossible mind you, but they would certainly have their work cut out for them.)

Rocketdog, the scientific literature is nowhere near as cut and dry as you make if sound. What you don't seem to realize is...

The biomedical database PubMed contains more than 22 million articles, and a million new papers are added each year. A typical scientist reads at most a thousand papers per year. No matter how long a scientist's career, it's impossible to read more than 0.1 percent of the literature. Most of this reading has to be in the scientist's specialty.

Source: The Perfect Health Diet, Chapter 1

So, the only reason that you perceive that there is some kind of consensus in the medical literature about fats, cholesterol, olive oil, etc. is because you are only hearing about the studies that are promoted by PR firms. In other words, the makers of specific products (pharmaceuticals, vegetable oils, low fat salad dressings, olive oil-producing nations, soy milk manufacturers, nut/seed producers, low sodium processed food, etc.) have spent a lot of money to get their own funded studies onto the front pages of all major media outlets, via PR firms. You'll notice that these high-profile scientific headlines appear in every mainstream media outlet on the same day — something that takes a highly coordinated effort.

Unfortunately, what most people don't realize is that there is almost no consensus on anything in the scientific literature, when it comes to human nutrition. In particular the "conclusions" of most researchers rarely matches up with their own data  — which is convenient for the funding source, since few people ever read beyond the abstracts. So, everyone cherry-picks the articles that support their own causes. And the media just prints whatever the corporate PR firms tell them to print — with almost no analysis whatsoever. It's a fairly simple process and it makes a lot of money — we are talking about billions of dollars.

So, why do "Paleos" and ancestral dieters think that they have an advantage? Because they try to interpret data in a way that doesn't conflict with human evolution. Jaminet explains:

This is where the evolutionary perspective comes in. We know that healthy people and animals are more likely to survive the vicissitudes of life and have children and grandchildren. This means evolution selects for healthful behaviors — including healthful eating.

If we're looking for a human diet that evolution guarantees is healthful, the place to start is with the diets of the Paleolithic. The Paleolithic was a long — 2.6 million years — that Paleolithic man became highly optimized for the Stone Age environment. In the last 10,000 years, mutations have become much more common due to population growth, but most beneficial mutations have not had time to become widespread. The historical era has been a period of genetic diversification and emerging but incomplete adaptation to modern life. That means if we want an environment, diet, and lifestyle that will be healthful for all of us, we have to look to the Paleolithic.

Source: The Perfect Health Diet, Chapter 1

Make sense?

If you're going to interpret and cherry-pick data from the +22 million papers in PubMed — none of which form any consensus, mind you — you ought to make sure that your data and your own conclusions can explain how our species, and our internal organs, evolved to reach the top of the food chain on a meat/fat/starch/plant-based diet over 2.6 million years.

[rocketdog]

I'm not sure if vegetarianism is healthier or not yet, but I would say I'm fairly convinced that dairy products are pretty unhealthy overall.  Most of the human race, including some of the longest-lived populations (like Japan, Okinawa especially), doesn't eat much dairy, if any at all.  Strange for some human populations to start (relatively recently) consuming the milk of another species.

Another interesting tidbit is that if you rank the countries based on their dairy intake, you'll see a strong correlation to the incidence of osteoporosis.  That is to say, the higher the per capita dairy intake of a country, the higher its rate of osteoporosis and vice versa. 

One possible connection is that countries with high dairy intake also have high animal protein intake overall, which tends to acidify the blood and leach calcium out of the bones. 

Countries ranked by milk consumption:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_c ... per_capita

Countries ranked by incidence of osteoporosis:
http://archive.sciencewatch.com/ana/st/osteo2/nations/

[Benko]

One possible connection is that countries with high dairy intake also have high animal protein intake overall, which tends to acidify the blood and leach calcium out of the bones.

The theory that meat causes net loss of calcium from bones has been disproven.

[rocketdog]

The estimated human global population 150,000 years ago was only c. 15,000 people.

70,000 years ago it may have been as small as 2,000:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2975862.stm

On the other hand, the fact that those 15,000 people managed to survive and procreate to create the most powerful and intelligent species on the planet is impressive in its own right.

Essentially we got lucky.  Things could have very easily gone another way. 

Many dined on — and migrated with — megafauna. For instance, mammoths were methodically butchered and could feed a small tribe for weeks at a time.

Mmmm... nothing says "dinner's ready!" quite like rotting weeks-old mammoth meat!

But, if we look at "ancestral diets" up until the 19th century, we see that people always ate plenty of fats and meat year round. If we look at cookbooks from over 100 years ago, we see lots of fat, bacon, lard, drippings, raw cream/butter and meats. Green vegetables were only eaten when available (seasonally) and only if they were drenched in raw cream or fats.

Leonardo Da Vinci lived to be 87 in the 16th century, and he was a vegetarian his entire adult life. 

You might be tempted to argue that arteriosclerosis wasn't on doctor's radars until the early 20th century. But, that's not true. Dissections and anatomy have been closely studied for a very long time. There was a definite shift in arteriosclerosis at the end of the 19th century.

Nope.  Leonardo Da Vinci was probably the first person to identify atherosclerosis over 500 years ago:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2804084/

The historical evidence does not suggest that eating large quantities of saturated fats leads to heart disease. If anything, we might conclude the opposite, since heart disease increased while people cut back on saturated fats as they increased their PUFA consumption.

Go get 'em tiger!  Gorge yourself on those saturated fats.  I wish you well with that.

[Gumby]

Another interesting tidbit is that if you rank the countries based on their dairy intake, you'll see a strong correlation to the incidence of osteoporosis.  That is to say, the higher the per capita dairy intake of a country, the higher its rate of osteoporosis and vice versa. 

One possible connection is that countries with high dairy intake also have high animal protein intake overall, which tends to acidify the blood and leach calcium out of the bones. 

Countries ranked by milk consumption:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_c ... per_capita

Countries ranked by incidence of osteoporosis:
http://archive.sciencewatch.com/ana/st/osteo2/nations/

Way to oversimplify osteoporosis down to "milk" (and pasteurized/denatured at that). Osteoporosis is a complex problem usually caused by hormone imbalance, abnormal glucose levels (dysglycemia), EFA imbalance and inflammation. But, with your logic, I suppose you must think that eating lots and lots of goitrogenic kale will prevent osteoporosis (hint: in won't).

Many dined on — and migrated with — megafauna. For instance, mammoths were methodically butchered and could feed a small tribe for weeks at a time.

Mmmm... nothing says "dinner's ready!" quite like rotting weeks-old mammoth meat!

More ignorance. It wasn't rotting. We know this because they are still finding perfectly well-preserved half-eaten mammoth meat as the permafrost is melting. They lived in cold climates. Indigenous cultures who live at high latitudes still practice this burial/preservation technique today.

And if it wasn't cold enough, the burial technique would ferment and pickle the carcass — enhancing its digestibility:

http://goingferal.wordpress.com/2009/06 ... ed-rabbit/

This shows us that meat was available, and preservable, all winter long — when plants were only available seasonally.

You might be tempted to argue that arteriosclerosis wasn't on doctor's radars until the early 20th century. But, that's not true. Dissections and anatomy have been closely studied for a very long time. There was a definite shift in arteriosclerosis at the end of the 19th century.

Nope.  Leonardo Da Vinci was probably the first person to identify atherosclerosis over 500 years ago:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2804084/

Gee, thanks. You just proved my point. I said that people have known about arteriosclerosis for a very long time (apparently 500 years). My point was that doctors noticed, towards the end of the 19th century, that younger bodies were getting arteriosclerosis. Da Vinci would have likely only noticed it in older bodies — which makes perfect sense — since it is likely a natural part of aging.

The historical evidence does not suggest that eating large quantities of saturated fats leads to heart disease. If anything, we might conclude the opposite, since heart disease increased while people cut back on saturated fats as they increased their PUFA consumption.

Go get 'em tiger!  Gorge yourself on those saturated fats.  I wish you well with that.

And I wish you well on your malnourishing diet.

[rocketdog]

Another interesting tidbit is that if you rank the countries based on their dairy intake, you'll see a strong correlation to the incidence of osteoporosis.  That is to say, the higher the per capita dairy intake of a country, the higher its rate of osteoporosis and vice versa. 

One possible connection is that countries with high dairy intake also have high animal protein intake overall, which tends to acidify the blood and leach calcium out of the bones. 

Countries ranked by milk consumption:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_c ... per_capita

Countries ranked by incidence of osteoporosis:
http://archive.sciencewatch.com/ana/st/osteo2/nations/

Way to oversimplify osteoporosis down to "milk" (and pasteurized/denatured at that). Osteoporosis is a complex problem usually caused by hormone imbalance, abnormal glucose levels (dysglycemia), EFA imbalance and inflammation. But, with your logic, I suppose you must think that eating lots and lots of goitrogenic kale will prevent osteoporosis (hint: in won't).

Kale?!  What makes you think I eat a lot of Kale?  I only had it for the first time a couple of years ago when our CSA grew some and we got it at distribution.  It's actually very tasty when made into Kale chips:

http://allrecipes.com/recipe/baked-kale-chips/

Sure is suspicious that the countries with the highest dairy intake are also the ones with the highest rates of osteoporosis.  Just sayin'.

I haven't had a drop of milk in over 20 years.  The only dairy I get is from small quantities of cheese (Feta on my salads, cheddar on my veggies burgers, etc.)  When I broke a toe a few years ago and had my foot X-rayed, the Podiatrist mentioned (unprompted) that my bone density was "excellent". 

That's because calcium originates in plants, not animals.  Eat plants containing calcium and get some weight-bearing exercise, and osteoporosis will never be an issue for you (assuming you don't have some kind of hormonal imbalance or something).  After all... where were our ancestors getting all their calcium back before they domesticated ruminants?  That's right: plants.

The historical evidence does not suggest that eating large quantities of saturated fats leads to heart disease. If anything, we might conclude the opposite, since heart disease increased while people cut back on saturated fats as they increased their PUFA consumption.

Go get 'em tiger!  Gorge yourself on those saturated fats.  I wish you well with that.

And I wish you well on your malnourishing diet.

Next time you're in Western NY, let me know and I'll treat you to a nice juicy veggie burger. 

[Pointedstick]

That's because calcium originates in plants, not animals.  Eat plants containing calcium and get some weight-bearing exercise, and osteoporosis will never be an issue for you (assuming you don't have some kind of hormonal imbalance or something).  After all... where were our ancestors getting all their calcium back before they domesticated ruminants?  That's right: plants.

Like many things I hear from vegetarians, that sounds like an excellent argument in favor of plant consumption, but not actually against animal consumption.

[Gumby]

Kale?!  What makes you think I eat a lot of Kale?

Because it's a top plant source of calcium. You seem to be really into calcium for some reason.

Sure is suspicious that the countries with the highest dairy intake are also the ones with the highest rates of osteoporosis.  Just sayin'.

Well, once again, you've oversimplified the issue to support a bunch of myths. If you had been paying attention, you would have learned that Mellanby showed decades ago that grain consumption (and low vitamin d) tends to contribute to calcium absorption problems. So, it's more complex than you realize. Just looking at how much milk a population drinks is a pretty dumb way to come to a conclusion about anything.

Adequate levels of fat soluble vitamins A, D, and K2 reduces the amount of calcium an adult needs to maintain bone health.

And for the upteenth time, pasteurized milk has relatively low bioavailability of minerals and nutrients. It needs to be raw dairy if you want to absorb most of the calcium.

I haven't had a drop of milk in over 20 years.  The only dairy I get is from small quantities of cheese (Feta on my salads, cheddar on my veggies burgers, etc.)  When I broke a toe a few years ago and had my foot X-rayed, the Podiatrist mentioned (unprompted) that my bone density was "excellent".

Raw cheese is one of the richest forms of calcium on the planet. Parmesan cheese has 1376mg of calcium per 100g serving — a single Tablespoon of Parmesan cheese has 68.8mg of calcium. Grass-fed dairy is a good source of Vitamin K2 — which prevents your arteries from calcifying themselves (better watch out for that if you're getting too much calcium from all those plants).

That's because calcium originates in plants, not animals.

Plants have calcium. Animals eat lots of plants. Animals get calcium. Bone broths have lots of calcium, magnesium, phosphorus, silicon, sulphur, trace minerals, chondroitin sulphates, glucosamine, and gelatin.

Furthermore, many cultures who have low incidence of osteoporosis have low calcium intakes — indicating that other factors are involved with calcium absorption:

CMAJ: Adaptation of Inuit children to a low-calcium diet

Many non-Western cultures – who don't have access to plants year round — get their calcium from bones, skin and fish heads:

http://www.cmaj.ca/content/168/9/1141.full.pdf
https://www.itk.ca/sites/default/files/ ... ldlife.pdf

Interestingly lactose intolerance decreases bone density and increases incidence of bone fractures:

http://pmid.us/14753735
http://www.thebonejournal.com/article/S ... 5/abstract

Eat plants containing calcium and get some weight-bearing exercise

Good advice. I already do that.

[rocketdog]

That's because calcium originates in plants, not animals.  Eat plants containing calcium and get some weight-bearing exercise, and osteoporosis will never be an issue for you (assuming you don't have some kind of hormonal imbalance or something).  After all... where were our ancestors getting all their calcium back before they domesticated ruminants?  That's right: plants.

Like many things I hear from vegetarians, that sounds like an excellent argument in favor of plant consumption, but not actually against animal consumption.

The argument against excessive consumption of animal products is that excess protein acidifies the blood, which leaches calcium from bones (because calcium is a base, which is why calcium is a major ingredient in antacid tablets). 

[Pointedstick]

The argument against excessive consumption of animal products is that excess protein acidifies the blood, which leaches calcium from bones (because calcium is a base, which is why calcium is a major ingredient in antacid tablets). 

But again that's not really an argument against ANIMAL products, just consumption of excessive protein in general. Unless there's something especially acidic about animal protein, you could wind up in that situation as a vegetarian, too. I mean, cheese is full of protein. Nuts are full of protein. Beans are full of protein. And plant proteins are much less bioavailable than animal proteins since they're bound up in cellulose.

[rocketdog]

Kale?!  What makes you think I eat a lot of Kale?

Because it's a top plant source of calcium. You seem to be really into calcium for some reason.

I only brought up calcium because of the dairy discussion, and because when people find out you're a vegetarian they always have 2 questions:  "Where do you get your protein?" and "Where do you get your calcium?". 

Kale is fairly high in calcium, but there are many better plant sources:

Tofu
Collards
Molasses
Spinach
Soybeans
Turnip greens
Cowpeas
White beans
Black-eyed peas
Baked beans

But the granddaddy of them all, with nearly 5x more calcium ounce-for-ounce compared to milk is... drumroll please...

Sesame Seeds!

Yes, 1 tablespoon of sesame seeds has 88mg of calcium.  That means it only takes 3 rounded tablespoons of sesame seeds to provide as much calcium as an 8-ounce glass of milk.  Tahini, anyone? 

Sure is suspicious that the countries with the highest dairy intake are also the ones with the highest rates of osteoporosis.  Just sayin'.

Well, once again, you've oversimplified the issue to support a bunch of myths. If you had been paying attention, you would have learned that Mellanby showed decades ago that grain consumption (and low vitamin d) tends to contribute to calcium absorption problems. So, it's more complex than you realize. Just looking at how much milk a population drinks is a pretty dumb way to come to a conclusion about anything.

And yet milk is adequately fortified with vitamin D (unless it's raw, of course), so we can disregard Mellanby on that point.  And to assume that nations drinking the most milk are also consuming the most grain which is causing all their calcium absorption problems is a pretty dumb way to come to a conclusion about anything.

Adequate levels of fat soluble vitamins A, D, and K2 reduces the amount of calcium an adult needs to maintain bone health.

Which are all included in fortified milk, so your point is...?

And for the upteenth time, pasteurized milk has relatively low bioavailability of minerals and nutrients. It needs to be raw dairy if you want to absorb most of the calcium.

Then please explain why the National Dairy Council and FDA both recommend drinking pasteurized milk and against drinking raw milk:

Some consumers believe that specific dairy products such as organic milk and raw (unpasteurized) milk are healthier options than regular milk and pasteurized milk, respectively. These myths stem in part from failure to understand modern conventional dairy farming practices and the health importance of milk pasteurization.

See: http://www.nationaldairycouncil.org/Sit ... est783.pdf

The 2005 Dietary Guidelines for Americans recommend that consumers avoid raw (unpasteurized) milk or any products made from unpasteurized milk.  Although proponents of drinking raw milk often claim that raw milk is more nutritious than pasteurized milk, research has shown that there is no significant difference in the nutritional value of pasteurized and unpasteurized milk.

See:
http://www.nationaldairycouncil.org/Sit ... tSheet.pdf

Despite the claims of raw milk advocates, the FDA and other public health agencies maintain that there are no known significant nutritional differences between unpasteurized and pasteurized milk and that pasteruized milk provides all the nutrients found naturally in raw milk. According to the FDA, the benefits of destroying harmful bacteria far outweigh any potential health benefits claimed by raw milk advocates.

See:
http://www.ext.colostate.edu/safefood/n ... n2s04.html

I haven't had a drop of milk in over 20 years.  The only dairy I get is from small quantities of cheese (Feta on my salads, cheddar on my veggies burgers, etc.)  When I broke a toe a few years ago and had my foot X-rayed, the Podiatrist mentioned (unprompted) that my bone density was "excellent".

Raw cheese is one of the richest forms of calcium on the planet. Parmesan cheese has 1376mg of calcium per 100g serving — a single Tablespoon of Parmesan cheese has 68.8mg of calcium.

Sesame seeds still win with 88mg per tablespoon.

That's because calcium originates in plants, not animals.

Plants have calcium. Animals eat lots of plants. Animals get calcium.

Which is exactly how it works with humans, too.  So why not cut out the middle-man and get your calcium directly from the source: plants.

Eat plants containing calcium and get some weight-bearing exercise

Good advice. I already do that.

Hurray!  We agree on something!  Aw, come over here ya big lug and lets hug it out.