Re: Nutrition & Dental Health: Page vs. Price

[Guest guest]

On 5/4/09, Tom Jeanne <tjeanne@...> wrote:

> Here are excerpts from today's post on Matt Stone's excellent blog, 180

> Degree Health. He challenges some of Price's theories and I think he's

> probably right on these counts.

>

> Tom

>

> http://180degreehealth.blogspot.com/2009/05/suckled-by-triceratops.html

I think he's exaggerating the conflict between Page's and Price's

ideas -- especially since he emphasizes Page considering calcium

absorption more important than intake, when Price emphasized

fat-soluble vitamins for their effect on calcium absorption and

metabolism -- but more importantly, he emphasizes anecdotal evidence,

whereas Price and Mellanby both demonstrated reversal of tooth decay

with diets emphasizing the inclusion of minerals and fat-soluble

vitamins in intervention trials, a much higher form of evidence.

Chris

[Guest guest]

> I think he's exaggerating the conflict between Page's and Price's

> ideas -- especially since he emphasizes Page considering calcium

> absorption more important than intake, when Price emphasized

> fat-soluble vitamins for their effect on calcium absorption and

> metabolism -- but more importantly, he emphasizes anecdotal evidence,

> whereas Price and Mellanby both demonstrated reversal of tooth decay

> with diets emphasizing the inclusion of minerals and fat-soluble

> vitamins in intervention trials, a much higher form of evidence.

Good points. What I liked was the way Matt contrasted Page's emphasis on

metabolic indicators such as blood glucose with Price's theory of nutrient

displacement in a highly refined diet. Although the standard American diet is

bad, I do not feel that the lower levels of certain vitamins and other

micronutrients alone can explain the terrible health problems facing many

Americans today. Not a scientific statement of course, but what I've been

reading lately really suggests this conclusion (e.g. recent research on

fructose, refined carbs, low-carb diets, Taubes).

I think Price's emphasis on micronutrients ignored important issues related to

macronutrients. We all agree that refined sugar leads to physical degeneration,

but Price didn't know the details of fructose metabolism and the finer points of

hormonal regulation. (If I'm mischaracterizing Price's work, please correct me.)

Tom

[Guest guest]

THANKS for the link! What a wealth of information!

It will take days to read all of this!

Thanks again

-- In , " Tom Jeanne " <tjeanne@...> wrote:

>

>

>

> > I think he's exaggerating the conflict between Page's and Price's

> > ideas -- especially since he emphasizes Page considering calcium

> > absorption more important than intake, when Price emphasized

> > fat-soluble vitamins for their effect on calcium absorption and

> > metabolism -- but more importantly, he emphasizes anecdotal evidence,

> > whereas Price and Mellanby both demonstrated reversal of tooth decay

> > with diets emphasizing the inclusion of minerals and fat-soluble

> > vitamins in intervention trials, a much higher form of evidence.

>

> Good points. What I liked was the way Matt contrasted Page's emphasis on

metabolic indicators such as blood glucose with Price's theory of nutrient

displacement in a highly refined diet. Although the standard American diet is

bad, I do not feel that the lower levels of certain vitamins and other

micronutrients alone can explain the terrible health problems facing many

Americans today. Not a scientific statement of course, but what I've been

reading lately really suggests this conclusion (e.g. recent research on

fructose, refined carbs, low-carb diets, Taubes).

>

> I think Price's emphasis on micronutrients ignored important issues related to

macronutrients. We all agree that refined sugar leads to physical degeneration,

but Price didn't know the details of fructose metabolism and the finer points of

hormonal regulation. (If I'm mischaracterizing Price's work, please correct me.)

>

> Tom

>

[Guest guest]

Tom,

> Good points. What I liked was the way Matt contrasted Page's emphasis on

> metabolic indicators such as blood glucose with Price's theory of nutrient

> displacement in a highly refined diet. Although the standard American diet

> is bad, I do not feel that the lower levels of certain vitamins and other

> micronutrients alone can explain the terrible health problems facing many

> Americans today. Not a scientific statement of course, but what I've been

> reading lately really suggests this conclusion (e.g. recent research on

> fructose, refined carbs, low-carb diets, Taubes).

>

> I think Price's emphasis on micronutrients ignored important issues related

> to macronutrients. We all agree that refined sugar leads to physical

> degeneration, but Price didn't know the details of fructose metabolism and

> the finer points of hormonal regulation. (If I'm mischaracterizing Price's

> work, please correct me.)

Oh, Page certainly adds to Price, but I think that is mostly because

Price had more limited information. Price did discuss metabolism and

endocrine function to a limited degree.

Refined carbs differ from unrefined carbs -- which were abundant in

Price's therapeutic diet and in many of the primitive diets he studied

-- in their micronutrient composition, not their macronutrient

composition. So I'm not sure it is fair to indict Price at this point

for focusing too much on micronutrients. What little research has

been done has shown that honey fructose does not have the same thing

as refined ructose.

Chris

[Guest guest]

> Oh, Page certainly adds to Price, but I think that is mostly because

> Price had more limited information. Price did discuss metabolism and

> endocrine function to a limited degree.

>

> Refined carbs differ from unrefined carbs -- which were abundant in

> Price's therapeutic diet and in many of the primitive diets he studied

> -- in their micronutrient composition, not their macronutrient

> composition. So I'm not sure it is fair to indict Price at this point

> for focusing too much on micronutrients. What little research has

> been done has shown that honey fructose does not have the same thing

> as refined ructose.

Good point; it's easy to forget that my understanding of Price's work and ideas

is filtered through the interpretations of many others. I need to reread NAPD.

I was very intrigued by the paper I saw that found a difference between honey

and refined fructose (J. Busserolles et al., 2002); is that the one you've seen?

It sounded like the beneficial effects of honey on gut flora might explain at

least part of the difference. However, the rats fed starch fared better than

either the honey or fructose rats in many respects (lower plasma TGs, higher

plasma vitamin E, lower plasma nitrates, lower body weight, and lower plasma

glucose). So the paper supports the idea that fructose per se is detrimental

above a certain level.

Tom