posted
Steven, my question was more along the following lines: given that you're not a pregnant woman, and your own skeleton is already fully formed, what do you stand to gain at this point from eating raw food?
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hey, I'll take that essay challenge thing. I need some writing practice and could also use the cash (I'll go for the $100 if you're still offering, though $50 would suffice). I'll need the book though. Any chance of you mailing it to me? And make it fast, I only got approximately two weeks left before I blow this popsicle stand and start hikin!. Though heck, if you mail me the book maybe I could read it while hiking the Appalachian Trail, draw some interesting conclusions there, and get back to you in around 6 months.
Posts: 4 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't hate the truth, but rather my capitalistic self can't resist an opportunity to make a few bucks. Posts: 484 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
pH--pottenger did, as well as a couple of other reseachers. One showed that rats who had their pituitary gland damaged or removed had the classic pattern of narrow skull and underdeveloped upper and lowr jaws. The other showed that adult tuberculosis patients were much more likely to havw the deep, narrow chest characteristic of Africans of all ages and infants of all racial groups. In other words, the narrow, deep skeleton is an underdeveloped, immature skeleton, and is clearly associated with the inability to fight off infections such as TB.
Destineer--I'm not telling you how to prepare your food. Experiment on your own and find the answer. Try eating nothing but highly grilled food for 3 or 4 weeks, then eat the same stuff raw or lightly steamed for 3 or 4 weeks. it depends on the person, some people have such strong health that they'll barely notice a difference. I personally have more physical stamina when I eat mostly raw or lightly cooked, and that's pretty much true for everyone I have talked to.
Beyond that, most raw foodists I know always experience 2 things:
1. They are much less likely to sunburn, given the same amount of sun exposure (remember that the same UV light that causes sunburn also produces Vitamin D).
2. They don't get the swelling, redness, or itching associated with mosquito bites. After it bites, that's it.
Both of these benefits have been clearly and independently noted by dozens of raw foodists that I have known.
Bob Scopatz and King of Men are first on the list to read the book.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
We still have to come to an agreement on the conditions under which I will read & review Price's book.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:pH--pottenger did, as well as a couple of other reseachers. One showed that rats who had their pituitary gland damaged or removed had the classic pattern of narrow skull and underdeveloped upper and lowr jaws. The other showed that adult tuberculosis patients were much more likely to havw the deep, narrow chest characteristic of Africans of all ages and infants of all racial groups. In other words, the narrow, deep skeleton is an underdeveloped, immature skeleton, and is clearly associated with the inability to fight off infections such as TB.
1. It's a rat. 2. They already have tuberculosis. It's possible that the skeleton formation was caused by some other factor. And seriously, I think the group of people who actually gets infected with TB nowadays is pretty select. 3. Can you provide links with more details on these "studies?"
1. yeah, it's a rat. how do you think most drug trials start out? Human subjects?
2. resistance to infection is resistance, to a certain degree. Dr. price didn't look at ribcages, he looked at teeth, skulls, and cheekbones. he found in most tubercculosis asylums he visited that the rate of either cheekbone deformation or crooked teeth, or both simultaneously, was in the high 90% range. They nearly all had either flat checkbones, an undersized upper or lower jaw, or 2 or all three of those.
3. Those studies were conducted in the 1930's. I could dig the references out from Dr. price's book.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
See, the problem is that you start with an argument, then leap to the conclusion. There's a crucial step you're missing, called 'evidence'.
quote:In other words, the narrow, deep skeleton is an underdeveloped, immature skeleton, and is clearly associated with the inability to fight off infections such as TB.
posted
Evidence? How about the fact that babies are all born with narrow ribcages that widen as they get older, without the same % of increase in depth of the ribcage? how about Pottenger's independent observation of the unusually narrow, deep skeletons of his cats on the lower-quality diets? how about the two other studiesd I mentioned? 4 total, including price's, all point to this.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
steven, you need to read The Mismeasure of Man by Stephen Jay Gould. It's not specifically about diet, but it is about the odd and mostly discredited ideas around the turn of the prior century regarding the search for some way to measure bodies to show that one race is superior to another.
One of the key findings is that most of this research was basically reverse engineered and the data collection was terribly skewed (subconsciously, we hope).
All of this stuff has fallen out of vogue because: 1) The correlations between measurements of physical features and desired mental or other "attributes" usually falls apart upon closer examination...
[brief tangent] There is one body part correlation that does in fact hold true over repeated observations. It is the well known rule "Big nose, little hose." But other than that, none of the correlative things work out well at all. [/tangent]
2. The definitions of what is "best" in terms of mental or physical "capacities" is often subjectively measured to the point of meaninglessness.
We've already seen, for instance that you concentrate on Price's "healthy natives" conclusions without ever taking into account the selection pressures on those populations. It could very well be that in native populations living as Price said, that every single weak individual died before he got there. As a result, perhaps, only the truly healthy were available for him to look at.
This kind of bias in spot observational studies is a technical problem that can't be overcome without a lot of careful, longitudinal study over generations, and preferably over several populations over several generations.
It is one of the more obvious flaws in the work that you've described so far. It's not unique to Price, it was a symptom of the lack of maturity in "science" and one of the few but tangible downsides I can think of to the tradition of "amateur scientific inquiry" in that era.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
bob, if you take a look at pottenger's work, you'll clearly see that ALL the cats on the poorer diets had serious skeletal problems, and NONE of the cats on the best diet had ANY skeletal problems.
Price found family after family where the younger children, born after their parents switched to a Western diet, had much worse skeletal structure than their older siblings. There are at least a dozen pictures in his book of such families.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
steven, unless I see actual numbers concerning these rats, I'm not going to give any rat study much credence.
I mean, if you pay attention to rats, everything causes cancer. But they feed the rats the human equivalent of atrocious, incredible amounts of whatever substance it is.
posted
pH--I'll take a look at it today while I'm at work. I keep a copy of "nutrition..." at my desk for when I'm bored and Solitaire has gotten stale.
KoM's book and check are on the way. I predict that Price's work will be old hat and boring here in 6-8 months. All your base will belong to Weston! Not really. He knew squat about correct baking techniques for bread, and he managed to visit Hawaii, Fiji, and Vanuatu without ever finding out the amazing tooth-regenerating powers of coconut and coconut oil. I think he had already largely given up on plant products at that point, anyway, though. He was looking for a "diet for/of the ages" rather than just going on his trip and having a good time. However, Pottenger's work, as well as others, proves that skeletal structure does depend on diet.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hector Mortimer, McGill University, in Montreal. He found that rats who had their pituitary glands removed showed the exact pattern that Dr. Price's work found--underdeveloped upper and lower jaw, and narrowed nose and nostrils.
G. Levine and A.W. Rose of the Evans Memorial for Clinical Research and Neuroendocrine research found similar patterns in their studies of humans skulls and the disease states that went along with various types of skull malformations.
There have been numerous studies showing birth defects of all types in cows and pigs, including the "bulldog face" defect where the middle third of the calf's face is underdeveloped in exactly the same way as faces of the natives that Dr. Price studied. There are a large number of these studies cited in Dr. Price's book. Most of them deal with experiments to determine the effects of partial or full vitamin A, D, or E deficiency on cow, pig, or rat fetal development.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Price quotes several other studies that show conclusively that nutrition is the main factor in birth defects of all types. He also quotes a Danish study on Eskimos in Greenland that documents major teeth problems among Eskimos that abandon their traditional diet.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Of course, the traditional diet of Inuit (*not* "Eskimos" in Greenland) also contains no refined sugar whatsoever, so those Inuit moving to a Western diet are bound to have dental caries galore, especially since those who are still *on* a traditional diet in the first place (in order to abandon it, they must be on it) are not those likely to have access to any dental care.
Don't get me wrong. I have no doubt that the Danish study is correct. Inuit abandoning their traditional diet are bound to have an elevated number of teeth problems. I do, however, wonder at Price's precise selection of perhaps out-of-context quotations from this study, and his use of it to prove points not intended by the Danish scientists.
Posts: 624 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
Common sense, (not a study), says that any one who dramatically changes their diet from one to which they have become accostomed is going to have health problems. A person accustomed to a lot of oxygen will feel light headed at a high altitude, and vice versa.
The same could be seen over a generation, especially if the food switched to is unhealthy- as is described in the initial article linked to in this thread- because if I stop eating my healthy stews and things and suddenly eat a macdonalds hamburger with a single slice of lettuce every day under the assuption it's just as healthy, I should not be surprised when I start to get a bit greasy about the gills.
Not, however, to exclude the possibility of slightly (given the short period of time of development) differing requirements over large distances within the human species. But seriously, the same goes from person to person even within the same family so it practically nullifies any wide-ranging "special needs" that a particular group living in a particular area might have.
This Dr. Price of whom we are talking is one of these people in the world who contributes very little of use. Basing his work or fairly common sense principals and calling it science because he did a couple of studies, he makes a lot of money by drawing long conclusions from short evidence and then writing a book about it. We should all be so clever.
Worse, he seems to be attempting to draw lines between people- through food, of all things. Anyone who lives in a community with a variety of backgrounds can see with their own eyes that no such deep gastronomical divisions exist.
When it comes down to food, eating well is eating well. Everyone has their individual, continent-spanning foody quirks. And dear God why are we arguing about this?
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
My husband's grandfather lived on (mainly) corndogs and Snickers bars for the last forty years of his life. Oh, and coffee. He refused to drink water that hadn't been filtered through the delicious brown granules of life-affirming kickitude.
Granddaddy lived to be 91 years old, only the last two of which did he live with assistance (perfectly ambulatory, but not allowed to drive--the stories I could tell!).
We should all live to be 91, should we begin our diet of Snickers and corndogs at year 51!
(edited to fix my ambivalent "Snickers" capitalization)
Posts: 1545 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
