Weston A. Price Foundation

[Early]

Heretic, I think you must have me confused or conflated with somebody else. This is the only statement I posted regarding Price's claims being in disagreement with others': "What you call the Price 'opinion' is contrary to research-based facts that are almost universally accepted."

Research shows and the great majority of people believe thru observation that a cloudless sky is blue. Would you argue that point?

I was originally attracted to McDougall's books because, unlike many other diet writers at the time, he backed up every claim he made by citing clinical studies or similar authoritative sources. He claims were not anecdotal. Every chapter in his first book had 50, 60 or 70 clinical-study, research-or-the-like references at the end, each noted in the text. That made him credible and his conclusions persuasive.

Similarly, some of the Price foundation treatises I've read are well-referenced. I haven't examined every reference, but another forum member said she has and found that every reference supported vegan/vegetarian conclusions rather than Price's.

I find an odd tone in some of the Price foundation writing. It sometimes sounds a little wacko. It doesn't engender trust. It makes me suspicious of the writers' motives.

The American Cake Association says, "Eat three cakes a day."

You offered to post information about the Price foundation. You haven't done that. You seem to be spoiling for a fight. Offer your information and let's see what the forum members think of it.

Best to all,

Early

[Heretic]

Mrs. Doodlepunk, unfortunately I never had an opportunity to do the tests. The only scientific test I perform on myself regularly
in the last 9 years since I started it, is to look in the mirror every morning to make sure that my reflection is still there.

Early,

Yes I would like you to substantiate your claim that you quoted, about WAP. Just take one of those contentious issues that you had in mind when you formulated your critical opinion and state the exact reason why do you think that is contradicted by science, and quote a scientific study that shows that what WAP authors wrote may be incorrect. When you do that I will be able to expand from there. Otherwise it is virtually impossible to respond to your general accusation without writing a book on the subject. I cannot defend the defendant until a specific point/accusation is made!

Heretic

[Mrs. Doodlepunk]

Mrs. Doodlepunk, unfortunately I never had an opportunity to do the tests. The only scientific test I perform on myself regularly
in the last 9 years since I started it, is to look in the mirror every morning to make sure that my reflection is still there.

Early,

Yes I would like you to substantiate your claim that you quoted, about WAP. Just take one of those contentious issues that you had in mind when you formulated your critical opinion and state the exact reason why do you think that is contradicted by science, and quote a scientific study that shows that what WAP authors wrote may be incorrect. When you do that I will be able to expand from there. Otherwise it is virtually impossible to respond to your general accusation without writing a book on the subject. I cannot defend the defendant until a specific point/accusation is made!

Heretic

I don't understand why you are not telling us what your bloodwork results are. I thought that anyone concerned about their health would have these things done. I bet your cholesterol is around 300 if you really do eat what you wrote.

It looks to me like you are not serious minded about your own health.

It also seems like you are here just to pick fights, going by the tone of your posts.

[Early]

Heretic, this is what you offered to do:

"Would you like me to respond more on the subject of Weston A. Price Foundation and their ideas?"

Yes, I would. You made the offer. Now make good on it.

Best to all,

Early

[Heretic]

Early,

I will respond but on what specific topic? WAP program and goals are very wide. I am not going to write a general essay about WAP program, since it would take a book! I can only respond to some specific accusations of yours against WAP but you have got to spell them out first. What part of WAP program exactly do you disagree with, which is supposedly contradicted by science (references please)? Then I will look at it and will be more than happy to respond.

Heretic

------

Earl wrote:

What you call the Price "opinion" is contrary to research-based facts that are almost universally accepted. That calls the Price "opinion" into question and makes one wonder why they are promoting what sure seems to be propaganda. When that happens, it almost always means some entity is paying to have misinformation disseminated because doing so helps them financially.

[Early]

That's OK, Heretic, there's no need to write a book. A synopsis will do. Please focus on the Price foundation's mission, beliefs, funding, and whatever your connection is to them.

Best to all,

Early

[r-marie]

Well, I read all the posts and couldn't help but jump in.

As some of you know by now, I'm 65, take no medication, have no joint pain, no heart problems, am physically active - do yoga and running - never been overweight.

I was a member of WAP a few years ago. I got started because of all the controversy about cholesterol and the then popular book "The cholesterol Myth" by Uffe Ravnskov, a Danish MD who took apart the famous Framingham study, page by page, and refuted most of its conclusions.
http://www.ravnskov.nu/cholesterol.htm

My cholesterol has been high for many years and what I read in the book and on WAP website gave me the confidence to ignore my own high cholesterol reading (around 250 but with HDL around 80). I grew up loving milk, cream, cheese, eggs BUT not excessively so, and also loved salads, beans, veggies, grains, fruit. I cooked and still do all my food from scratch - stay away from junk food and SOFT DRINKS. Personally I think soft drinks do as much or more damage to the human race than any other thing...but that's another story.

WAP is against lowfat anything because it is usually put together with fake ingredients which are worse. And they believe the fat is needed to utilize the fat soluble vitamins. They also advocate Codliver oil for the essential fattty acids and a healthy source of Vitamin A and D.

I stopped drinking milk about 15 years ago because I got concerned about the homogenization, and all that goes into producing milk these days. But I felt very confident in eating organic plain, full fat yogurt because I believed it was good for me.

WAP says - if cholesterol is too low it can cause problems.
My husband has always had low cholesterol (150) and had a massive STROKE 7 years ago. What better way to confirm their theory!!!

Then I came across Ruth Heidrich's website http://www.ruthheidrich.com/ and her story, which led me to Dr. McDougall and his program. It made sense to me and I thought I'd give it a try. His diet is not much different than what I had been eating and loved anyway but without animal products.

Unlike most of you I'm not a KEEPER. I have never had a weight problem in my life and have trouble keeping it on. So since starting this diet without some animal meat and/or fat I have gone from 93 lbs down to 88.8. (I'm 4ft11)

I am HUNGRY all the time and eating or thinking about what to eat next all the time...potatoes, sweet potatoes, rice, beans, salads, fruit, popcorn, etc. I am worried about loosing more weight because if I were to catch one of those things like the salmonella it would wipe me out - and I'm caretaker so it's important I stay healthy. I also do exercise (30 min run 3 times a day and 2 days at gym while my husband works out at bit).

So, considering that there is a metabolic theory (protein types, carbohydrat types and mixed) that some of us do better adding a little animal food which was true for me, I'm not sure if I can stay with this as purely as most of you do. I'm hanging on because my next test is coming up in August and I'm curious to see how much lower (if any) my cholesterol reading will be.

I'm enjoying this forum a lot and am giving this a real try - have cookbooks and 12-day program by Dr. McD.

Sorry this got to be so long. But this has been on my mind for a while.
Looking forward to your comments.

r-marie

[Melinda]

What's interesting to me is that I was hungry all the time when I started this - more like a feeling of being unsatisfied. However, that feeling went away, and now I'm just as satisfied after a no-fat vegan meal as I was before with a regular lacto-ovo veg meal. Now when I eat the least little bit of added fat, like some free oil or heaven forbid, a few french fries, I feel queasy the next day, even if I eat lightly.

[Heretic]

Re: geoffreylevens post

It may well be (the low fat "tail") . I also agree with your comment on the benefits of real natural food regardless if that is from plant or animals (that is also one of Weston A. Price foundation statement). The SAD is bad probably for more reasons than just mixing fat half and half with refined carbohydrates. I think it is way too high in sugar (sacharose and high fructose corn syrup) and the fats that they use are some of the worse: hydrogenated, or polyunsaturated vegetable oils. Jeff Novick also points out that SAD contains way too much salt, especially in the packaged food.

Regarding the adjustment: you are absolutely correct! The difference in the metabolic regimes are more profound than people realize, it takes at least 2 weeks to switch over from low fat to low carb and probably as long if not longer the other way around. Many diet studies got confused due to that factor.

Stan (Heretic)

[Lacey]

So, considering that there is a metabolic theory (protein types, carbohydrat types and mixed) that some of us do better adding a little animal food which was true for me.

As far as I have been able to tell there us not one drop of SCIENCE to support the notion that there are different metabolic types.

[Heretic]

Geoffrey,

Even an all natural organic etc diet with mixed animal fat (medium fat = 35-45% calories) and a lot of carbohydrates (even if low GI) would cause problems for people with metabolic syndrome, pre-diabetes, middle aged or older. My grandad diet of heart attack aged 65 in 1936 eating all natural food (they didn't sell junk food in Poland in the 1930-ties). This is a so-called "forbidden zone" (medium fat medium carb diet) when you would eat enough fat to use it as the main body fuel but still too much carbohydrates for body's own good. For us (I am 52) a mixed fat-carb eating is out of question, even organic. It is very true when you remarked that such a diet confuses the body (however, young people don't seem to have any problems with that).

For us, the choice seems to be either below 30% fat and high carb as for most people on this forum, or above ~60% (absolute minimum is 50%) fat and low carb (by low carb I mean ~50g of pure glucose equivalent per day). The older one gets the more critical that becomes, in my and other people experiences.

Stan (Heretic)

[Steve]

Most of us are in the 10% fat from calories area. That is no added butter, fat, oils, annimal products etc. Just good old grains legumes tubers rice and veggies, mostly starchy stuff. Read the material. By the way the difference between 10% and 30% is the difference between this program and something unsuccessful. If you do not get to 10% you never tried what we are doing. By the way we are not encouraged to eat lots of nuts and avocado in case that is your next tangent, try Furhmans website for that. Read the material. I may occaisionally jump in this thread to correct inaccurate statments such as "For us, the choice seems to be either below 30% fat and high carb as for most people on this forum" -- WRONG.
Sorry if this shocks you Stan, but I somehow doubt it.[/u]

[Heretic]

Most of us are in the 10% fat from calories area. That is no added butter, fat, oils, animal products etc. Just good old grains legumes tubers rice and veggies, mostly starchy stuff. Read the material. By the way the difference between 10% and 30% is the difference between this program and something unsuccessful. If you do not get to 10% you never tried what we are doing. By the way we are not encouraged to eat lots of nuts and avocado in case that is your next tangent, try Furhmans website for that. Read the material. I may occaisionally jump in this thread to correct inaccurate statments such as "For us, the choice seems to be either below 30% fat and high carb as for most people on this forum" -- WRONG.

re: 10%

None of your gurus ever tried a 20% or a 30% fat diet with animal fat (not vegetable oils). Therefore it may be premature to postulate that 10% fat is the way to go. What your leaders have found is this:

1. 10% fat vegetarian diet works better than the standard American diet (SAD) for people with coronary heart disease.

2. SAD (even reduced fat SAD a la AHA) leads to a gradual worsening of the coronary heart disease for people who are already diagnosed with it.

Since most fat (about 2/3, and the total is about 40% of calories) in the SAD is in form of polyunsaturated vegetable oils, artificially hydrogenated fats (mostly corn oil) or artificially solidified fats (interestrified PUFA from veg oils) thus you cannot draw any conclusion on whether your diet with additional 20% of natural animal fat added would or would not work better (or worse) than a 10% fat diet. Neither Dr. Ornish, nor Dr. McDougall have done (or published) such a test. As far as I know.

Re: By the way the difference between 10% and 30% is the difference between this program and something unsuccessful.

A success or failure depends in my humble opinion on what exactly that 30% fat consists of.

Re: By the way we are not encouraged to eat lots of nuts and avocado...

I agree with that! I wouldn't myself eat too much of those either. Those are mostly polyunsaturated fats which in my opinion should not constitute the majority of fat consumed (for various reason - imbalace towards omega-6, causing free radical damage, immunosuppression etc). Most of the fat I consume are natural saturated and monounsaturated fat, from all kinds of sources, not limited to animal/dairy fat. Coconuts and palm oil fats are good fats too - as in chocolate. I love chocolate it is a good high fat food and I eat it often. Olives are not too bad either. PUFA constitute only a minority of fat I eat, probably a few % max. Typically with mayo, canned fish or with nuts (eaten as small snacks).

Re: "For us, the choice seems to be either below 30% fat and high carb as for most people on this forum" -- WRONG.

No. This is correct! What I described as "below 30% fat" does include your 10% diet!

Stan (Heretic)

[Steve]

Most people on this board are in the 10% fat as a percentage of calories area, not 30%. Or they are contemplating the program that leads to the 10% value. I am not refferring to other boards.

Just correcting your inaccurate, or to be kinder, misleading statement.

Steve

[Heretic]

Re: Just correcting your inaccurate, or to be kinder, misleading statement.

Less than 30% means anything between 0% and 30%.

Stan (Heretic)