posted
steven what experience and credentials do you have in the field of nutrition beyond Dr. Price's book? (Honestly curious) Are you a registered dietician, or a nutritional researcher yourself? If so, where have you published your research?
Do you believe in ongoing animal testing for nutritional purposes?
quote:Originally posted by steven: No, Banna, more than any hatracker. I suppose I could be wrong.
Although you almost certainly are wrong about that, the fact that you think "knowing the most about something" means it would be laughable that you could learn from such people is very sad.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Adam, why don't you read page 3 of that thread that I linked? Dagonee's behavior is just a sample of how Bob and others also acted in other threads.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Banna, I've studied nutrition and herbology for years, both Chinese and western. mainly Chinese, but I also am fairly widely read on nutrition.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Which is why his name isn't under "Topic Starter" on this one. Though it is a good idea to save his posts if you want to read them at any point in the future, I'd say.
edit -- whoops, this was in response to Adam's question about the previous threads. Stupid work distractions.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
It's kind of wierd. I grew up in the health-nut culture of Southern CA. Where I didn't even know I'd actually absorbed any of it. However here in Chicago, when I say something like chammomile tea being good for digestive issues because it has an effect on smooth muscle tissue, everyone here looks at me like I came from Mars.
quote: age is not a confounder. This is utter crap. Would someone tell her this?
I'm not telling her anything. Mostly because I know she is a medical doctor who has quite recently been doing massive amounts of research and helping to write, you know, papers and stuff. (I think the most recent was about nutrition and juvenile diabetes, but I don't trust my memory to be quite as accurate as it once was.)
Very entertaining thread, though. Kudos!
Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Do you actually feed your own animals (if you have any) a BARF diet?
I'm certainly not against them but personally can't invest the time or money required to give my animals BARF. Heck I would admit my own diet at this stage of my life is pretty abominable. On the other hand I'm likely not going to change it either.
posted
I see nothing on that thread to convince me you have a basic understanding of the science or the relatively simple intricacies of Price's research. You've grabbed a few headlines, so to speak, mashed them up together and made some utterly astonishing leaps to conclusions I can't follow after spending a lot of time trying to figure out how you got there.
and I'm saying this as respectfully as I can, maybe you should try reading Price again yourself. Because, from what I can tell, you don't understand him at all except for his conclusion about fat soluble vitamins.
And you really need to look into the scientific method and try to understand that while Price made some terrifically fascinating observations on his journies, his conclusions aren't scientific. His anecdotal supporting evidence is an interesting curiosity but again, not scientifically conclusive.
And the pictures aren't as compelling as you claim. Take away the captions and an unbiased, uninformed person in a blind study would be unable to see what Price claims in the pictures because the variations are so slight--you see what you want to see. Reading the captions and looking with an objective eye I was often thinking "what the heck is Price talking about?"
So far everything I read in three pages of that thread (and it took a long time) only served to convince me to lower my interest in Price significantly, mostly because of you, Steven.
Posts: 128 | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
Seriously, what about the pictures of the kid with Down's Syndrome in Chapter 19? What about the x-rays of that boy's palate? You don't have to be informed to see big differences in those pics.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
So now you're down to pointing out specific instances where pictures corroborate Price's claims?
Do you really not understand the difference between correlation and causation, and why's it Not Okay to go from the specific to the general?
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, JT. Don't read chapter 19. Most especially, don't look at the before and after pics of the boy with Down's syndrome and the x-rays of his face. It's the second boy with Down's. There are x-rays and before and after pics.
Olive, Sara told me I should take up the piccolo last year on a Dr. Price thread. It's on page 4 of the thread that Dag and I both linked at the top of this page. She thought i wasn't smart enough for dicussing medical issues intelligently.
She thought the piccolo was more my speed.
She also made a much more insulting version of the same post, then edited it, but not before I read the more insulting version. Not that I shouldn't take the high road here, anyway. But still.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay, setting aside the latter chapter pictures of archeaological remains and clinical subjects, I'm referring mainly to the vast majority of the pictures in the first fifteen chapters, not the obvious ones that disply full sets of teeth versus rotten mouths but the ones that supposedly talk about differences in palates and bone structure.
and in terms of the latter chapters, a figure in chapter fifteen is pretty indicative of Price's bias in selecting, captioning and using the pictures. the figure is a set of four pictures, three are of a boy, these pictures demonstrate nothing on their own. then a fourth picture below these is of the deformed skeleton of a monkey fed sweets.
posted
Banna, my dog doesn't get to eat what she kills. that's all mine.
I don't give plant foods to the dog very much if at all. I'm not the only one who feeds her. Other folks in my family do feed her.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
*is enveloped in flame* Edit: This was directed at Megan.
No mph. No.no. I don't want to be seen as approving of even the most targeted condescension. It's just that, while taking a superior tone is not mannerly under the best of circumstances, under certain circumstances it makes one look more foolish than it would otherwise.
Oh. You weren't serious, were you? *blush*
Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
How does your family react to your eating philosophies? I've known many vegetarians whose families weren't and heard the stories of the accompaining difficulties it can bring.
Posts: 11265 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
How about the fact that Price only found perfectly straight teeth in a few groups?
The Maori in New Zealand were known as the most powerful warriors in the South Pacific. They also were known to have best physiques and teeth. Price examined over 60 skulls of maori ancestors. Not one skull had a single misaligned tooth, or was missing the wisdom teeth. After the arrival of Westernized foods, the Maori had the same rate of cavities and crooked teeth as any other Westernized group.
Price never said a native diet caused straight teeth. He noted clearly that most groups he studied had a few crooked teeth, or a cavity or two. His point was that the native dietary wisdom was far superior.
it's not like these groups ate nothing but organ meats, fish eggs, and shellfish. those were simply foods prized by basically every group he found, for exactly the same stated reasons in each group: to ensure good reproduction, healthy children, and good health. They all mentioned these foods, and all gave the same reasons why. that's worth noting.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Incidentally I hate fish and shelfish. The smell of fish cooking literally nauseates me. If I could figure out a way to make it so I wasn't nauseated at the smell of fish I would. I grew up next to the ocean, and around seafood. I don't know what is wrong with me in that regard.
so why did Price only selectively mention the Maori skulls? Why not all thirteen cultures instead of two or three? Probably because he didn't have the data, probably because of cultural taboo.
Can you understand that a better way to study this scientifically would include more data? That a better method wouldn't specifically look for only one data point (cavities) and would have a much larger sample size?
Can you understand that Price's statistic isn't proof of anything?
Price made a small anecdotal observation that related to what he was researching. You're treating that like it's a definitive piece of scientific proof.
Banna -- food poisoning from seafood as a child? I have a friend who got food poisoning from mushrooms when she was tiny and she's uncontrollably nauseated by them.
Posts: 128 | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Adam, have you ever heard of Dr. Francis Pottenger? I also take it you didn't bother to note the studies on farm animals, particularly the ones on hogs, that Price summarizes, albeit briefly.
Here is the basic thrust: Hogs without access to sufficient feed were able to reproduce, but their offspring were clearly defective, or even born dead. All offspring, pretty much the same. The same goes for other animal studies, including Price's own work with rats. The differences in different people's bone structure quality and crookedness of teeth on the same diet is not as great as you think it is. Plenty of animal studies indicate differently.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
nope they couldn't make me eat fish as a baby...
The only thing remotely fishlike that I would touch was fishsticks.
AJ (I have lots of weird food issues, including an actual allergy to capcasin at fairly low concentrations)
Posts: 11265 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Pottenger's cat study was all about taurine deficiencies though. And it was his work that led them to figure it out. Once the taurine thing was straightened out the two feeding groups became essentially the same.
posted
steven, I'm not saying that insults against your intelligence are warrented or accepable, but the reason it comes to statements like that is that you continue (even now) to ignore all the well-thought-out comments/concerns various other posters have with Dr. Price's mis-use/lack-of-use of the scientific method (which can tend to look like lack of intelligence).
Few, if any, here are flat out saying that Price was wrong. Most are simply saying that many of his claims are not solidly founded (even if they are correct) and that his studies cannot be used as the be-all-end-all of nutrition discussions.
In fact, few of us are trying to teach you anything about nutrition as well, though we are trying to teach you about the scientific method and proper use of statistical data.
posted
Grimace....I have nothing to say. Thanks for making a thread devoted to me. Scottneb was real good about that as well.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
that it could be simply one or two amino acids that were deficient from the diet that caused the problems, rather than anything else.
Yes, most native diets generally had some way to provide humans with all the essential amino acids. But beyond that, I don't know that you can say much. People got scurvy on boats because no one knew what amino acids were then either.
AJ
(and caviar smells nasty and fishy too... all it is is eating baby fish)
Posts: 11265 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, and native americans knew how to prevent scurvy by eating stomach linings and the adrenals from the top of the kidney.
Banna, do you think it's wise to ignore native dietary wisdom in the hopes that every single nutritional factor will be isolated within your lifetime?
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I know of Pottenger, yes, not as much as Price, but I'm familiar with the cat studies. I remember the anecdote about the hog study. It's remarkable that malnutrition results in health problems, it was brilliant of Pottenger to confirm that with yet another study.
Posts: 128 | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that we have mostly figured out what was good about the native diets and lifestyles.
Lots of excercise all the essential amino acids, lowfat (or if it was higher fat there were normally exercise compensations) and high fiber.
AJ
so yeah I think we have basically figured it out and I think Pottinger's studies helped us do so.
As for as organ meat, I don't generally like it either if you mean liver and the like. I do take a daily vitamin supplement however, eat salads, fresh fruits (and organic fruit drinks) and watch my calorie content.
posted
High fiber, maybe. It depends. Some groups ate nothing but meat, milk, and blood. Some ate mostly plants. The strict meat-eaters, i.e., the Eskimo and Masai, had excellent teeth and health, compared to the mostly vegetarian groups.
Low-fat, no. The eskimos got probably 70% of their calories from fat.
posted
Blech. I wish I weren't so organ-phobic. Our whole society is organ-phobic, and I have been wondering why that is. We associate organs with disease and violence?
Steven, I've been wondering, did any of Price's studies suggest that organ meat is still very much worth eating lightly cooked, or is raw eating essential to get the benefits? While I might learn to stomach cooked organ meat, I just don't know if I could ever get used to raw organ meat. *shudder* Steven, do you eat raw organ meat?
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
(incidentally I tend to go for the more expensive "organic" fruit drinks because I think they taste better than the sweetened stuff and no truly overriding nutritional concern, other than that I do intake fruit servings daily)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Cry]](graemlins/cry.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
