long post: Nourishing Traditions and related threads

[Guest guest]

hello all,

i haven't been able to keep up with email groups much lately, so i

just went through the past week or so of posts and stuck all my

replies in one email instead of sending a dozen separate emails about

similar stuff.

mike parker

@@@@@@@@@@@@@ Francesca:

Hi : What about the high calories involved in butter, oils, high

fat mld and fatty animal protein? If you're a CRONIE, one of your

main considerations is the # of calories in anything you eat.

@@@@@@@@@@@@

there are plenty of CRONies who eat fatty animal foods, such as

myself. fat calories get counted just like any other, and if the

number is low enough then it's CR. " Nourishing Traditions " style

eating doesn't lend itself to CR, but it's compatible with it, and it

damn sure is ON!!

mp

@@@@@@@@@@@@ Andy:

However, if the overarching goal is to extend one's lifespan so that

one can be functionally capable well into his/her 80's and 90's, from

all that I have read and studied, it seems that the CRON diet is the

only one that has persistent and consistent success with EVERY

species it was tested on.

@@@@@@@@@@@

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS " THE CRON DIET " .

I can't say how many times I've seen this mistake on the CR lists.

There are dozens of different theories about what " ON " is, hence

dozens of different " CRON diets " . The word " the " means contextually

determined existence and uniqueness, as in ONE AND ONLY ONE. It's

my impression that " CRON " is sometimes conflated with " the general

approach to CRON suggested by Roy Walford " .

mp

@@@@@@@@@@@@@ :

From what I can gather Fallon differs quite a lot from Atkin. She

does not reject grains or carbohydrates simply in the manner in which

we utilize them. Many of her recipes include potatoes, soaking

grains, and all high-carb vegetables. Her main point is dispelling

the myth that saturated fat is evil. Unlike Atkins she doesn't go

ahead and tell us that carbs are evil, simply that they should be

used like our ancestors used them in order to avoid anti nutrients

and increase enzyme activity.

@@@@@@@@@@@@@

very astute point. indeed, some of the traditional diets studied by

Weston Price that served as inspiration for Fallon's cross-cultural

synthesis were fairly high-carb, such as the traditional Gaelic diet

of seafood and lots of oats (soaked and/or fermented of course). the

idea is that you get most of your nutrition from a small percentage

of your diet (high-quality local fresh animal foods) and the rest is

caloric filler of moderate nutrient-density. lots of different

macronutrient ratios work for our species. nevertheless, Fallon does

generally advocate a medium to high fat diet.

mp

@@@@@@@@@@@@ Andy:

OK, so the answer is: free-range animals. Well, guess what? Those

animals, more like the ones our ancestors consumed, are substantially

LOWER in fat of all kinds, including sat fat. Thus, if we consume

them, we will probably be eating lower-fat (and sat fat) anyway. Just

something to chew on! (Hahaha!!!)

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

not quite. the organs of these lean gamey animals have plenty of fat

(certainly including sat fat), and these are what people ate first.

and there are lots of sources of fat in wild animal foods, from

insects to buffalo and everything in between. the lean portions can

just be discarded unless one is starving.

mp

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ Numi:

*****Yes, there are lots of unanswered questions out there (as you

just posed). From all that I have read/researched, I fall into the

Walford camp. Low sat fat, mild fat intake (no more than 20% cal) and

HIGH ingestion of low-density fruits and vegetables (which supply a

plethora of vitamins, minerals, and micro-nutrients) along with

moderate amounts of UNrefined whole grains (that require substantial

chewing: e.g., whole oat groats as opposed to oatmeal).

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

" no more than 20% cal " is not " mild " ; it is severely low. also,

animal foods supply a plethora of micronutrients too, and much more

than fruits and vegetables in fact.

mp

@@@@@@@@@@@@ :

The reason why modern animals contain saturated fat is because they

are now fed grains. That should tell us something. From what I've

read, it's true that saturated fat is a relatively new phenomenon.

Fallon doesn't base her arguments on ancient evolutionary themes but

more modern primitive societies.

@@@@@@@@@@@@

even grazing animals have plenty of saturated fat. take a look at

the fat around the kidneys in a 100% grass-fed cow; it's pretty

solid saturated fat. yum yum. most animals naturally have a

balance of saturates and monounsaturates.

very good point too, , that Fallon doesn't talk about paleolithic

diets, just stuff in the past few hundred or thousand years that has

proven to work damn good for various populations. that's a key

difference, especially since she is not anti-grain, and grains are so

new to our species.

mp

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ :

What I really don't understand is that he advocates things like

Canola oil and Sesame seed oil over butter?? That seems like a

ludicrous proposition. He's basically fallen into the fat-phobia

trap. He even recommends buying no cholesterol cookies (god knows

what kind of junk is in there!). Not to mention powdered milk. 2 eggs

per week?? I also don't like the entire notion of over analyzing mega

meals. How about this: take some fish or meat, add a ton of

vegetables, olive oil/butter/flax oil, some fermented milk or whole

grains and then eat a piece of fruit every meal while snacking on a

few nuts and dried fruits? Seems a lot simpler to me. There's a

complete analysis about nutrients in each meal without taking into

account that:

1.) Many foods have phytic acids in them if not fermented

2.) Some foods disrupt absorption of vitamins and minerals. For

example, the B vitamins you're getting from non-meat sources are not

really as good.

3.) Vitamin and mineral interactions.

4.) You won't absorb any minerals/vitamins without sufficient fat

present!

@@@@@@@@@@@@@

great points ! (except I'm glad somebody else corrected the

overgeneralization about micronutrient absorption and fats--water-

soluble vitamins are not affected so much, " only " fat-soluble

vitamins, minerals, and many phytonutrients like carotenes, etc.)

yes, Walford overlooked some huge issues. I'll add gut bacteria and

fermented foods to the list of unforgiveable ommisions.

mp

@@@@@@@@@@@@@ :

> low cholesterol levels of a man who ate 24 eggs a

> day (6000mg of cholesterol) and was 88 and in good

> health.

Were the eggs raw, lightly cooked, or hard boiled? This degree to

which the yolk is cooked *greatly* alters the bioavailability of

cholesterol...

@@@@@@@@@@@@@

i've never heard about the effect of cooking on cholesterol

bioavailibity, but i think the main points here are 1) cholesterol is

not bad; 2) solid amounts of dietary cholesterol helps normalize

serum cholesterol (witness the Masai, et al, with their super high

dietary cholesterol levels and super low serum cholesterol levels);

3) the mechanism for cholesterol absorption in humans only allows a

certain amount at once, so past one or two eggs, any of the

additional cholesterol in that meal will pass out of the body,

regardless of what kind of cooking was involved.

i'm happy to say i eat a high-cholesterol diet! eggs, beef, milk,

shellfish, etc everyday!

mp

@@@@@@@@@@@@@ Numi:

Sounds like you're more a rebel type, cause Fallon is far more a

rebel than Walford is! So, you should focus now on more

traditional " hard science " and seriously check it against Fallon's

more radical ideas. Until you take the time to verify in a serious

way, you'll just be a rebel camper in Fallon's camp. JMHO. YMMV.

@@@@@@@@@@@@@

Fallon's ideas are extremely NON-radical. She's simply synthesizing

the common, everyday, traditional dietary practices of our species as

they've existed for thousands of years, the ordinary food of ordinary

people across the world, locally obtained plant and animal whole

foods prepared with care and love. On the other hand, Walford's

dietary advice has some fairly radical elements without historical

precedent. Both Fallon and Walford make ample use of " hard science "

(and keep in mind Fallon's co-author Enig IS a " hard "

scientist), but Fallon draws from a wider pool of data, including

history and anthropology, not just laboratory science.

mp

@@@@@@@@@@@@@ Suzanne:

***Yes, I'm curious about this. WHAT ABOUT the primitive societies

that the Weston Price camp is so fond of mentioning? Which ones,

specificially? How long do they live? What DO they die of? Does

Fallon specify? This argument sort of reminds me of all the zillions

of herbal remedies that are touted as having been used by the ancient

Chinese, as if ancient Chinese medicine was totally the cat's

pajamas.

@@@@@@@@@@@@@

You can read Price's magnificent classic " Nutrition and Physical

Degeneration " to learn the details of their health. Bear in mind

that neither Price nor Fallon concern themselves with longevity, but

rather health and happiness, so we cannot draw any conclusions about

longevity from their work. I would very much like more data about

this issue as it relates to traditional societies, but I haven't come

across much yet. Personally, I'm hooked on CR for the possibility of

longevity, and hooked on traditional foods for preventing what will

kill me (or diminish my quality of life).

mp

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ Suzanne:

***Absolutely. Try it. I'm inclined to wait awhile longer to hear how

you raw milk entrepeneurs fare on the stuff! I recall my grandmother

telling me horror stories of people getting sick on raw milk before

pasteurization became common practice. But she walked 15 miles to

school everyday in the snow, which probably caused some dementia.

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

you don't have to wait any longer: millions of people have fared

quite well on raw milk for a few thousand years now. check out

chapter two of " Nutrition and Physical Degeneration " on the isolated

Swiss valley populations.

mp

@@@@@@@@@@@@@

I think what most disturbs me about the communications that emanate

from the Sally Fallon- Enig camp is the " tone " of their writings.

It is highly aggressive, almost pugalistic (e.g., they refer to the

traditional perspective as " diet dictocrats " ). And that leads me to

suspect that their position is as much based on emotionality as it is

on " science. " (Like they have a chip on one, or both, shoulders.) ~

Andy

@@@@@@@@@@@

keep in mind that they are reacting to massive public information

scandals (i.e. crisco/margarine is good, low fat is good, cholesterol

is bad, sat fat is bad, etc) that have robbed millions of people of

health and life, and have compromised the integrity of foreign

cultures who have had these ideologies imposed on them. i think

that's plenty enough to get emotional about, and somebody should get

emotional about it. anyone who reads through Ravnskov, Enig,

Fallon, Price, etc will not question the quality of the science.

it's damn solid, and it includes a huge body of evidence generally

ignored in mainstream nutritional discourse: history.

mp

@@@@@@@@@@ :

Yup, you could starve even with an unlimited supply of extremely lean

protein, but that's not because you can't absorb " any " vitamins or

minerals, as was asserted. You just can't get the fat-soluble ones

like vit E, etcetera. You'd also die of scurvy long before you died

of anything else.

@@@@@@@@@@@

you wouldn't die of scurvy if you ate the adrenal glands of some of

the wild animals you caught, since they are richer in vit C than just

about any plant food this side of camu camu, acerola, etc, and there

are other organs with adequate amounts of vit C too.

mp

@@@@@@@@@@@ :

Documented cases of transmission of infectious organisms have

occurred due to the ingestion of unpasteurized milk. Obviously,

whatever sanitary precautions were taken in those cases were not

sufficient. Perhaps there may be a safe way to provide unpasteurized

milk, but I wouldn't feel safe doing so. As I have stated, I'd rather

just not drink milk at all. I don't see a compelling reason to drink

it.

@@@@@@@@@@

while it's absolutely correct there are plenty of cases of infectious

organisms being transmitted from raw milk, they are due to unsanitary

conditions, not anything intrinsic to milk. sanitary precautions

were not very sophisticated before the 20th century, excepting

isolated small societies that were able to maintain the integrity of

their accumulated wisdom regarding materials and methods. if the

animal that provides the milk is healthy and it is handled cleanly,

then raw milk is extremely safe. there are huge numbers of people in

america and elsewhere consuming raw milk on a regular basis with

absolutely no problems, which is powerful evidence. speaking for

myself, i've consumed raw milk daily for the past eight months with

not the slightest problem, and in the course of various experiments

i've left it sitting out at room temp for several weeks.

i have to admit the " no form of milk is good " viewpoint has a strong

logic, but then again, there are societies (like the isolated Swiss

mountain villages, the Masai in Africa, etc) where people have

thrived on milk, and as a species we are opportunistic omnivores, so

if something works then it works. milk can be an incredibly high

quality food, so if you have the right source and the right genes,

then there's no reason to forego it. again, there's no need to

drink milk, but there's also no a priori reason not to drink it

either. in general, there's no one particular food that's essential

for our species. we thrive in diverse environments with diverse

diets. in practice, however, i'm mostly forced to agree with

the " forget milk in general " viewpoint because i think it's much

better to not drink any at all then to drink the stuff available

commercially. i've personally taken a vow never again to consume

any dairy products that are pasteurized, homogenized, fortified, or

from animals that didn't graze on pasture. if i can't obtain

something that meets these standards, i will simply avail myself of

the hundreds of other food available to our species.

mp

@@@@@@@@@@ Andy in response to :

> When you consider that we've been told to go ahead and eat 11 >

portions of white bread along with some mazola oil I'd take my >

chances with the opposite point of view.

*****You've certainly got a point about past advice of our

governmental " watchdogs. " But you practice " moderation, " so why the

need to go to the other end of the spectrum? Perhaps the " middle way "

is more ... mmmm ... moderate?

@@@@@@@@@@@

I don't think there's anything immoderate about 's viewpoint.

Fallon is not the " other end of the spectrum " ; she represents the

traditional, time-tested, middle way of human food habits.

The " mega high volume of veggies, extreme low-fat " approach of some

CRONies, on the other hand, is a pretty extreme approach without

historical precedent, so maybe you (Andy) are viewing your own

practices as " moderate " only because you are using a 20th century

frame of reference in which thousands of years of human tradition

have been displaced.

mp

@@@@@@@@@

I don't practice moderation in vegetable oils or refined grains in

the same way that I don't moderately smoke.

For me, half this calorie restriction talk is intellectually

stimulating. I'm sure I worry about it far, far less than most people

here.

-

@@@@@@@@@

great post ! two really BIG points put quite concisely. i'm

often annoyed by the common assumption, which appears both internal

and external to the CR community, that one might be worrying too much

about food to the point of that being a problem in itself. i'm

quite fanatical about my dietary practices (spending a lot of time

obtaining things from the best sources, weighing, calculating, etc),

but i ENJOY the whole process and it is definitely INTELLECTUALLY

STIMULATING, not worrisome.

mp

@@@@@@@@@@ :

Yeah, I'll have to check it out. Meanwhile, I'm still avoiding milk.

Some more food for thought links below:

<http://www.notmilk.com/kradjian.html>

<http://www.notmilk.com/>

@@@@@@@@@@@

that website is a bit of a joke, very eye-opening for people, and

convincing until they learn more facts and begin to distinguish

between intrinsic and extrinsic problems with milk. once you factor

out genes, gastrointestinal disorders, and the quality of the source,

the only thing left on that website is a few morsels of crude

misinformation. nevertheless, i think the anti-milk propaganda has a

positive effect overall, because most people would be better off

never touching milk again and eating kale instead. a great website

on the topic of raw milk is <www.realmilk.com>. it is the work of

Sally Fallon, and it gives a lot of interesting facts about the raw

milk safety issue.

mp

@@@@@@@@@@

I will not comment on the saturated fats issue until I read Sally

Fallon's book. Quid pro quo, I HIGHLY suggest you read Beyond the 120

Year Diet by Walford. I'm sorry you keep referring to the Anti- Aging

Plan. The Anti-Aging Plan is more of a dumbed-down version of CRON

for the general public.

-cronmouse

@@@@@@@@@

i second that. AAP was not a worthwhile purchase for me; i read it

once and never picked it up again because i had already read BT120YD

and i had no interest in the recipes. BT120YD is a great book that

changed my life! for the record, though, i think the nutritional

perspective in the Fallon/Enig book is far more sophisticated than

Walford's, something i've discussed in posts a few months ago.

mp