Frustration with Food rant

[FarmerJamie]

I've read both, I own a second-hand copy of Nourishing Traditions, and I've read the online version of Dr. Price's book.

I'll just say that it is interesting to note who the "sponsors" of the Weston A Price Foundation (which has done no follow-up research since Weston Price's investigations in the 1930s) are, just as it is interesting to note the sponsors of any similar university nutrition study or research project.

Also, W A Price was a dentist, not a nutritionist nor a sociologist, in the 1930s. Science has come a LONG way since his time, and he did not have the scientific training or methods available to people today He describes his observations and concludes that it is only diet that has resulted in the differences he sees. He does not account for any other factors in the lives of the people he observed. Sally Fallon and the WAPF conclude, based solely on his work and a few other papers that were panned in their day, that ONE diet is good for everyone, and as far as I can tell Price never concluded that. And I have no idea where she gets some of her recipes from, because traditional foods in my heritage (Eastern European) are not made the way she advocates in her book--so if you are into traditional foods, you should make them the traditional way.

Always always always read books with your eyes wide open, see what else is out there on the subject, and come to your own conclusions--there has yet to be written a truly objective book on any subject known to man.

I understand where you are coming from, but I'm personally not convinced of the veracity of most "nutritional" studies either. Like its "safe" to add a gene to corn to build in an insecticide, yet there is no problem with it for human consumption.

There has been some news on the carbs front, too. Seems there are also new studies coming out indicating that the low-carb (cutting out bread and pasta) diets are truly better for you - so that yummy bread may not be the best choice.

Also, there wasn't a lot of formal training for a lot of science that went on in the early 1900's. Doesn't necessarily mean it was completely wrong, either.

 

[Zoldani]

Interesting thread you all got here.

I am of the opinion, that if my great-great grand parents ate it, than it is OK for me. With that being said, their diet was very limited to what was grown in the Italian Alps. No corn, no vegetable oils, no "tropical" foods. If it wasn't local it wasn't eaten. A lot of potatoes, beans, pasta and whatever livestock they kept. So if I can grow it, then I can eat it.

However, there is a lot of cancer in my family tree. They were stone masons, chimney sweeps, boat builder/painter and fabric mill workers, all exposed to serious carcinogens. Did that alone mess with MY DNA? I don't know but it is always in the back of my mind.

I will eat well, keep fit and hope for the best, I guess.

 

[Bettacreek]

I understand where you are coming from, but I'm personally not convinced of the veracity of most "nutritional" studies either. Like its "safe" to add a gene to corn to build in an insecticide, yet there is no problem with it for human consumption.

There has been some news on the carbs front, too. Seems there are also new studies coming out indicating that the low-carb (cutting out bread and pasta) diets are truly better for you - so that yummy bread may not be the best choice.

Also, there wasn't a lot of formal training for a lot of science that went on in the early 1900's. Doesn't necessarily mean it was completely wrong, either.

I agree! Who knows what effects gene tinkering will have?! I guess we'll find out when our grandchildren start seeing those messages on tv... "Have you or a loved one suffered such and such from eating GMO foods?! We can help!"

 

[moolie]

I understand where you are coming from, but I'm personally not convinced of the veracity of most "nutritional" studies either. Like its "safe" to add a gene to corn to build in an insecticide, yet there is no problem with it for human consumption.

There has been some news on the carbs front, too. Seems there are also new studies coming out indicating that the low-carb (cutting out bread and pasta) diets are truly better for you - so that yummy bread may not be the best choice.

Also, there wasn't a lot of formal training for a lot of science that went on in the early 1900's. Doesn't necessarily mean it was completely wrong, either.

Now I'm confused. When did other the viability of GMO as healthy food enter the discussion? I thought we were discussing the effect that reading Nourishing Traditions had on the OP and her desire to eat/feed her family healthy food?

That book is based almost completely on some assumptions made by a dentist in the 1930s, assumptions that it was food alone that changed the health of indigenous people groups. Assumptions made without sociological or medical training, let alone correct scientific methodology. And the author of the book has several axes to grind with the modern take on "healthy" eating, and her foundation is sponsored and funded by some very interesting groups who have their own lobby to think about.

You want to go into what European explorers and settlers did to indigenous peoples?

Let me tell you about foreign disease, alcohol, and habitat loss (reservations far from traditional lands) for starters. Food doesn't even enter into the discussion. And before you tell me I don't know what I'm talking about, I lived a large portion of my childhood as a minority white person in a native settlement on Haida Gwaii and saw it all first hand. My friends and neighbors had lovely teeth and lovely facial structure, thank you--they had a host of other problems brought to them by the explorers and pioneers. Let alone the other indigenous groups I have lived among in the Similkameen Valley, on northern Vancouver Island, and here in southern Alberta.

No one can tell me that the root of all health problems is food, just like no one can tell me that eating junk all your life will make you healthy--food is a link in the chain of well-being.

My German-speaking Russian and Ukrainian ancestors had pretty much nothing but carbs (potatoes, wheat, cabbage, beets, carrots, and very little meat/butter/milk etc.) and they all had lovely teeth and lived well into their mid to late 90s for generations, even during the starvation my family suffered during the Russian Revolution and WWII in. I have family tree records on both sides of my family that extend back to the 1750s and my family has an amazing history of longevity.

And that book is WRONG about my family's traditional foods, as I'm sure it is wrong about the traditional foods from other cultures. So if a book tells you that traditional food is the way to live a healthy life, but then tells you to make those traditional foods in an non-traditional manner, what is it really about?

All I'm saying in this thread is to examine all sources of information, use common sense, and don't stress about food.

 

[FarmerJamie]

Also, W A Price was a dentist, not a nutritionist nor a sociologist, in the 1930s. Science has come a LONG way since his time, and he did not have the scientific training or methods available to people today ....

I mentioned GMO's because "learned" "scientists" are telling us they are safe and good for our use and consumption. There were a lot of intelligent scientific types making advances long before some university created an "advanced studies" program.

Galileo originally trained as a physician. You don't need a fancy degree to make observations and put forth a sound theory.

The "what happened to indigenous people" argument again, reinforces the point. The study was based on cultures untouched by the "modern" world.

 

[moolie]

Also, W A Price was a dentist, not a nutritionist nor a sociologist, in the 1930s. Science has come a LONG way since his time, and he did not have the scientific training or methods available to people today ....

I mentioned GMO's because "learned" "scientists" are telling us they are safe and good for our use and consumption. There were a lot of intelligent scientific types making advances long before some university created an "advanced studies" program.

Galileo originally trained as a physician. You don't need a fancy degree to make observations and put forth a sound theory.

The "what happened to indigenous people" argument again, reinforces the point. The study was based on cultures untouched by the "modern" world.

Nice red herrings Jamie

Did you read Nutrition and Physical Degeneration? None of the people groups studied were in any way "untouched" by western influence, especially by the 1930s, most had contact with Europeans for over 100 years prior to Dr. Price's "study". Specifically the "Eskimos" [sic] and North American "Indians" [sic], both of which I have personal experience with--as well as most of the locations/reservations listed which are in no way "isolated" from western society. Can you tell me why in the photos, if everyone studied was "untouched" by the modern world, they are all wearing current western clothing for the time? (Aside from some groups like the Masai who still don't wear western dress, but who had met Europeans centuries before Dr. Price's study.)

Getting back to Nourishing Traditions, there is absolutely nothing "traditional" about the food preparation methods in that book, well other than the names of the dishes.

To anyone reading along in this thread, read both Dr. Price's "study" as well as Sally Fallon's book if you want, believe what you want, eat what you want. But do so with an open mind and some background on both books.

Jamie, I like you (or at least the "you" that you put across online) and I enjoy reading your posts here. You're a fair-minded guy as far as I can tell, and I wonder why this is the hill you seem to want to die on. We disagree, that's allowed in life. Neither of us will convince the other of anything that either of us don't believe in. I'm happy to keep going if you like?

I have read both books, albeit a while ago, but quite in depth in fact. I know a LOT about the traditional foods of my ancestors as well as the traditional foods of north west coastal and interior first nations groups here in western Canada. I couldn't personally subsist on first nations native foods--I don't even like a lot of them (although some are very yummy), but I'd do great on traditional Eastern European traditional foods, and I incorporate many of them into my home cooking. That's the point of food heritage, that's what "comfort" food is, and there probably are some health benefits to ethnic groups keeping to their own traditional foods.

I also know that people today can't eat all the same foods, especially in the same amounts, as people did in the past--regardless of whose heritage they belong to. Modern people don't WORK like they did in the past, most westerners sit at a desk or computer all day long. That's not what the human body was designed to do. Food is not the only measure of health, and Dr. Price did not in any way take that into consideration--pollution, activity levels, communicable diseases, alcohol abuse, introduced species (both plant and animal, including insects)... so many things get into our lives without us even knowing.

Think about it--one of the most common plants in North America today is the dandelion. A non-native, invasive weed from Europe. Do you know how that plant has affected the ecosystems that it has invaded? No one does. And no one, not a 1930s dentist, and not you nor I, has any idea what effect any one food has on a system as complex as the human body. Yes, refined sugar is the bad guy, as is "dead" white flour--we all get that. There's just been a study released about how eggs are bad for people again. People are always trying to find "magic bullets" for good health, there aren't any. Living a balanced life is the best anyone can do, because it's certain that stressing over the little things causes at the very least an unhappy life if not a shorter one.

And telling people to make kvass or sauerkraut with whey is just wrong. Speeding up a natural process like lactic fermentation is akin to the GMO foods you keep bringing up, it's unnatural and wrong and I refuse to do it.

 

[FarmerJamie]

Yep, we are free to disagree. I do take offense to your comment about "is this a hill you want to die on".

The original discussion was centered on wheat and do I really need to ferment the grains? I believe its healthier, so we disagree, no big deal.

What I will fight against is the unspoken "what's the big deal, I only ate one ho-ho instead of two twinkies" type-relativism when it comes to diet choices.

 

[moolie]

Don't even know what a "ho-ho" is, and I've never seen or tried a twinkie, although I've heard of them.

And if someone else wants to eat either of them, or anything else, it's not my affair. We each make our own choices in life, educated or otherwise. I've had some training in cooking methods and food science and know how things generally work, just been reading through it again and that book contains tons of inconsistencies and contradictions, as well as plain bad advice regarding food preparation--especially as regards traditional foods.

(And I believe the OP questioned how that book should fit into choosing and cooking healthy foods, not merely the health benefits of fermenting grains, but she is welcome to correct me if I read her post incorrectly.)

 

[rty007]

OUR eastern European foods are THE best, of course my Polish dishes are closest to my heart, but all of em are great and there is no discussion about it.

 

[FarmerChick]

Moolie

here is a HoHo. they are yummy. ate those and quite a few Ding Dongs in my life I just had to show you a pick of a ho ho.