questioning Weston Price Foundation

[Davide]

As you probably know WAPF is a nonprofit organization that
tries to promote the work of the dentist Weston Price and
his finding about dental health and native nutrition. The
foundation is mostly supported and funded by farmers and
food artigians

WAPF makes some bold statements that are not even supported by
Weston Price work itself. For example the diet WAPF suggest to
consume or the diet samples of the members of the foundation
are very different from the diet suggested by Price in
Nutrition and Physical Degeneration

Maybe their most important claims are that vegetable oils
caused heart disease and heart disease doesn't develop when
the fat consumed is saturated, that the highest the amount of
the animal food in the diet the better (they often call animal
food "super healthy" or other generic terms but fail to
recognize the importance of plant foods) and that our first
priority should be to consume fat soluble vitamin in
megadoses; eating huge amount of (on diet that can be as high
as 80% fat) fatty meat and saturated fat would allow us to get
megadoses of vitamin A, D and E

I try not to be dogmatic or ethical as far as my nutrition is
concerned and just want to do what's right and healthy for my
body. It is my objective impression, after reading all the
articles published in the WAPF website, that their arguments
tend to be based on selective literature quoting and tend to
embrace a small number of studies proving their points and
ignoring many other studies and evidences

As a researcher once said: "By picking and choosing individual
studies carefully enough, you can prove just about anything
you would like."

An important fact about health research is that conclusions
are not based on few one-sided evidences but on both evidence
pro and against a certain theory. The globality of the
evidence is therefore analyzed in order to get a larger and
more complex picture.

I think that such larger picture would never allow such
absolutes as those of WAPF or Pritikin to name another one.
The importance of acknowledging an emerging larger and more
complex picture from all the studies not just the ones one
likes also allows researchers not to remain jammed in black
and white thinking but aknowledging more shades

That being said I'd like to know if anti-WAPF in here have
educated and scientifically sounds proofs that WAPF argument
about heart disease, saturated fat, fat soluble vitamins and
an almost carnivorous diet are flawed and based on selective
literature picking

I think if this can be done it will be very interesting for
many that read this ng or in the future its archives. Many
people just keep for themselves their opinions, many just read
with disbelief the articles published in the WAPF website,
people that know their physiology and biochemistry and can
point out what is wrong with those conclusion but they never
get a chance to share their knowledge with others.

I think it's important to avoid subjective and zealous
comments like "it's nonsense" and "they're nuts" "it's just
common sense that ..." and base the debunking on science and
correct physiological principles instead. Many people on this
board are very educated and can explain with scientific
details what's wrong with certain theories. (I remember people
like J-Tanzman, Steve Harris and Runswimm that could provide
the finest and most complex scientific and physiological
details about an health topic)

Also I hope WAPF supporters won't reply as this is supposed to
be a thread for debunking (if possible, I'm not saying it is
...) the premises of WAPF diatery suggestions. There's no need
to provide the arguments to support them, since they're all in
the WAPF website for us to read.

Thanks Davide

[Mr. Natura]

Davide wrote:
> As you probably know WAPF is a nonprofit organization that
> tries to promote the work of the dentist Weston Price and
> his finding about dental health and native nutrition. The
> foundation is mostly supported and funded by farmers and
> food artigians
>
> WAPF makes some bold statements that are not even supported
> by Weston Price work itself. For example the diet WAPF
> suggest to consume or the diet samples of the members of the
> foundation are very different from the diet suggested by
> Price in Nutrition and Physical Degeneration

Funny that you should ask.

You cover a lot of ground, but I basically agree with
your position.

http://naturalhealthperspective.com/tutorials/weston-price.ht-
ml

Who says so? I do. Apparently, just about the only person on
this ng who knows what he is talking about.
--
John Gohde, Achieving good Nutrition is an Art, NOT a Science!

The nutrition of eating a healthy diet is a biological factor
of the mind-body connection. Now, weighing in at 20 web pages,
the Nutrition of a Healthy Diet is with more documentation and
sharper terminology than ever before.
http://naturalhealthperspective.com/food/

[capmack]

Your observations are accurate, they cherry pick research to
fit their agenda. Soy is an example, there is multiple faceted
research concerning it, much of it contrasting and even
contradicting and very much depends on the question the
researcher was asking. Instead of making a valid survey of the
whole of the research they pick that which fits the
conclusions they want to force. They are an example of a
lifestyle food cult.

In addition I might add that the original price "research" is
in the main grossly flawed which when steered by the current
pricies only distorts it all the more. The only valid
observation of his that remains is that when shifting to a
diet with higher refined sugar content tooth decay increases,
hardly original an observation even in his time.

[Tc]

capmack@shipper.com wrote:
> Your observations are accurate, they cherry pick research to
> fit their agenda. Soy is an example, there is multiple
> faceted research concerning it, much of it contrasting and
> even contradicting and very much depends on the question the
> researcher was asking. Instead of making a valid survey of
> the whole of the research they pick that which fits the
> conclusions they want to force. They are an example of a
> lifestyle food cult.
>
> In addition I might add that the original price "research"
> is in the main grossly flawed which when steered by the
> current pricies only distorts it all the more. The only
> valid observation of his that remains is that when shifting
> to a diet with higher refined sugar content tooth decay
> increases, hardly original an observation even in his time.

Selecting the best, un-baised, non-industry-marketting,
studies is not cherry picking. It is due diligence. Soy is a
great example of the kind of crap science there is out there
that needs to be ignored for its sheer marketting bent.

Prices observations goes way beyond sugar and teeth. Read it
and find out.

TC

[capmack]

"Selecting the best, un-baised, non-industry-marketting,
studies is not cherry picking. It is due diligence. Soy is a
great example of the kind of crap science there is out there
that needs to be ignored for its sheer marketting bent."

So you assert but fail to show specific support for each and
every study which doesn't agree with the pricees. The quality
of the science not who may have contributed support is the
final determination untle and except when specific fraud can
be shown. I must confess however seeing black helicopters
circling around almost every school of agriculture at major
universites.

"Prices observations goes way beyond sugar and teeth. Read it
and find out."

I read his book, that reading was the basis for my observation
of the gross flaws in his "research". That he spoke of other
things is irrelevant, based on evaluation of the techniques
and results and analysis. His other notions can safely be
tossed based on the science alone, as I suggest above is the
only measure of its validity.

[Tc]

capmack@shipper.com wrote:
> "Selecting the best, un-baised, non-industry-marketting,
> studies is not cherry picking. It is due diligence. Soy is a
> great example of the kind of crap science there is out there
> that needs to be ignored for its sheer marketting bent."
>
> So you assert but fail to show specific support for each and
> every study which doesn't agree with the pricees. The
> quality of the science not who may have contributed support
> is the final determination untle and except when specific
> fraud can be shown. I must confess however seeing black
> helicopters circling around almost every school of
> agriculture at major universites.

You guys will not let go of the conspiracy theorist accusation
response angle will you?

Look, there is no mystery in that industry pays certain
researchers to investigate certain specific questions. And if
the results do not agree woth their goals, the studies are
stopped and/or not published. And any studies funded by
industry in this manner is suspect. Like it or not.

The soy industry studies are perfect examples of this
science/marketting.

You can resolve this conspiracy issue right here and now. Show
me one study, only one, that found something positive about
soy that isn't industry funded or where an author is not paid
by the soy industry in some way. Show me one completely
independent study that shows something positive about soy.

>
> "Prices observations goes way beyond sugar and teeth. Read
> it and find out."
>
> I read his book, that reading was the basis for my
> observation of the gross flaws in his "research". That he
> spoke of other things is irrelevant, based on evaluation of
> the techniques and results and analysis. His other notions
> can safely be tossed based on the science alone, as I
> suggest above is the only measure of its validity.

Explain the biggest "gross flaw" in his research, or the top
three. You keep saying that you reject it, but you do not
specify exactly what point(s) you reject. Or what you base
your rejection on. You are just generally throwing
generallizations at it. No specifics.

Look, this is a science group. How about making specific
quantifiable statements to back your assertions, or at least
give us a url that makes valid detailed points against Price
that you agree with.

You make a lot of noise, but nothing coherently specific is
being communicated.

TC

[Davide]

The discussion is evolving to what I didn't want it to evolve
in It's not wonder that people are confused I don't think we
should indulge in zealous and unscientific discussion Things
like epidemiological, anecdotal and ad hominem arguments
should be ignored and avoided

I think nutrition should focus on the physiological and
organical well documented mechanisms behind a certain theory

So are there any well documented physiological, biochemical
and organic mechanism that, explained in a complex way as
they're supposed to be, can debunk the premises of WAPF about
amount of animal fat in one's diet, importance of retinol from
animal fat, saturated fat over poly and mono?

A big failure of nutrition is trying to explain things in
simple terms in order to attrack more readers and
sympathizers. There's nothing simple in body functions and
metabolism and all mechanisms involved in metabolizing foods
are complex. So it's time to make them complex as this "making
it lay terms" is also a convenient way to hidden one's lack of
knowledge and understanding. It's easy to promote hazy
theories when one doesn't want or can't be specific. If it
weren't for this nonense "let's make it simple and lay term"
so many quacks wouldn't have had a chance to have their works
published and be taken seriously

[monty1945]

QUOTE: As a researcher once said: "By picking and choosing
individual studies carefully enough, you can prove just about
anything you would like."

An important fact about health research is that conclusions
are not based on few one-sided evidences but on both evidence
pro and against a

certain theory. The globality of the evidence is therefore
analyzed in order to get a larger and more complex
picture. UNQUOTE.

Exactly, this is what I was taught in graduate school about
evidence analysis (among other things).

However, there is enough molecular-evidence now, so that the
"epidemiological" stuff is really not particularly useful,
even if it is well designed, which is often not the case. For
example, AHA spokesman, Dr. Richard Stein, said last year that
only oxidized cholesterol is dangerous, which is ironic,
because recently the AHA made a statement about the "dangers"
of coconut oil, which is a direct contradiction to Stein's
point. Of course, they also completely ignore the raw
demographic data on hundreds of millions of people.]

What we really need is better journalism. Gary Taubes trired
to investigate these kinds of claims, but it's clear that he
does no understand the molecular-level mechanisms. Some
popularizer/experts, like Dr. Nicholas Perricone, has tried to
explain the molecular-level mechanisms in a way that most
people can understand, but he is apparently unaware of the
evidence against the "essential fatty acid" notion, and
suggests powerful, and possibly dangerous antioxidant
supplements, rather than simply avoiding oxidized cholesterol,
highly unsaturated oils, and eating more than small amounts of
meat (unless eaten raw after over two weeks of freezing - eggs
should be boiled only).

Another point is perhaps best illustrated by the soy example.
Small amounts of organic, fermented soy is fine, but large
amounts of tofu is not optimal, and may be dangerous
(depending upon how long this diet is followed). However, it
may be healthier than the "typical American diet," and so
"studies" can be conducted in which the researchers make the
claim that people should eat more soy, even though they should
have tested all kinds of other foods/diets - that would be
consistent with the scientific method. Moreover, it may be
that large amounts of tofu causes different "diseases," but
the study only determines the kinds of disease that are common
for the typical American diet. Again, the key is that the
scientific method should be followed. This is why I had
challenged people to direct experiments, in which the "loser"
pays for all expenses. Nobody has ever shown any interest in
taking me up on these offers because they know that the
studies are being misinterpreted, and that many have a
seriously desging flaw (s), and that the scientific method is
not being followed. They know that I won't allow this, and so
they have no interest in my offers.

But just think about it for a moment. If the "essential fatty
acid" claim is accurate, then how could one lose if one took
me up on my offer? It would be a proverbial "slam dunk." And
yet none of these people, some of whom are likely industry
shills, show any interest in the offers. Negotiate with me.
I'm sure we can both agree on a design, and then we will let
the scientific method decide who is correct. Clearly, that is
not something a fish oil salesman wants to hear. He/she just
wants to cite a few studies and make his sales to a gullible
public. I have nothing to sell. My only interest is in the
scientific reality.

[Tc]

Davide wrote:
> The discussion is evolving to what I didn't want it to
> evolve in It's not wonder that people are confused I don't
> think we should indulge in zealous and unscientific
> discussion Things like epidemiological, anecdotal and ad
> hominem arguments should be ignored and avoided
>
> I think nutrition should focus on the physiological and
> organical well documented mechanisms behind a certain theory
>
> So are there any well documented physiological, biochemical
> and organic mechanism that, explained in a complex way as
> they're supposed to be, can debunk the premises of WAPF
> about amount of animal fat in one's diet, importance of
> retinol from animal fat, saturated fat over poly and mono?
>
> A big failure of nutrition is trying to explain things in
> simple terms in order to attrack more readers and
> sympathizers. There's nothing simple in body functions and
> metabolism and all mechanisms involved in metabolizing foods
> are complex. So it's time to make them complex as this
> "making it lay terms" is also a convenient way to hidden
> one's lack of knowledge and understanding. It's easy to
> promote hazy theories when one doesn't want or can't be
> specific. If it weren't for this nonense "let's make it
> simple and lay term" so many quacks wouldn't have had a
> chance to have their works published and be taken seriously

There are too many people who are prepared to attack Price
because of silly one-issue disagreements with certain
single-issue aspects of his writings. Whether it is with the
meat eating, or the fat eating, or the paternalistic tone
(which was common to all research of this era), or the fact
that wheat does not figure as the dominant nutrient source, or
that he was "only a dentist", or that it sheds the harsh light
of truth onto the modern nutrient-deficient SAD diet of highly
refined manufactured foods.

Many refuse to see the whole forest because of their objection
and obsession with the one tree.

If anyone is to attack Price, it must be based on real
science that challenges the real findings of Prices research.
Not just some single issue nonsense being attacked with
industry funded crap science. Or some attack on an aspect of
his research that is twisted and changed to appear to say
something it never did.

There is no single published challenge to Prices finding that
even comes close to succeeding in invalidating his findings.
The core of his research remains as one of the modern
centuries most solid and enduring contributions to the
nutritional sciences.

TC

[capmack]

"There are too many people who are prepared to attack Price
because of silly one-issue disagreements with certain
single-issue aspects of his writings. Whether it is with the
meat eating, or the fat eating, or the paternalistic tone
(which was common to all research of this era), or the fact
that wheat does not figure as the dominant nutrient source, or
that he was "only a dentist", or that it sheds the harsh light
of truth onto the modern nutrient-deficient SAD diet of highly
refined manufactured foods.

Many refuse to see the whole forest because of their objection
and obsession with the one tree.

If anyone is to attack Price, it must be based on real
science that challenges the real findings of Prices research.
Not just some single issue nonsense being attacked with
industry funded crap science. Or some attack on an aspect of
his research that is twisted and changed to appear to say
something it never did.

There is no single published challenge to Prices finding that
even comes close to succeeding in invalidating his findings.
The core of his research remains as one of the modern
centuries most solid and enduring contributions to the
nutritional sciences."

One does not have to discuss the merits of his conclusions or
propose alternative interpretation or counter research if the
research techniques he used are so flawed as to make any
conclusions meaningless. As said before, the only conclusion
reached that was based on even minimally sound research
techniques was the tooth decay observations. His was an
example of garbage in garbage out research. In a research
methodology 101 class he would get a failing grade.

I like the "forest and tree" and "single issue" bits above,
poster heal thyself.

[Davide]

monty1945@lycos.com ha scritto:

> QUOTE: As a researcher once said: "By picking and choosing
> individual studies carefully enough, you can prove just
> about anything you would like."
>
> An important fact about health research is that conclusions
> are not based on few one-sided evidences but on both
> evidence pro and against a
>
> certain theory. The globality of the evidence is therefore
> analyzed in order to get a larger and more complex picture.
> UNQUOTE.
>
> Exactly, this is what I was taught in graduate school about
> evidence analysis (among other things).
>
> However, there is enough molecular-evidence now, so that the
> "epidemiological" stuff is really not particularly useful,
> even if it is well designed, which is often not the case.
> For example, AHA spokesman, Dr. Richard Stein, said last
> year that only oxidized cholesterol is dangerous, which is
> ironic, because recently the AHA made a statement about the
> "dangers" of coconut oil, which is a direct contradiction to
> Stein's point. Of course, they also completely ignore the
> raw demographic data on hundreds of millions of people.]

I have read Richard Stein claims He wrote an articles in
which compared what we knew about heart disease 20 years ago
and what we know today. About cholesterol he writes that
nowadays we know that cholesterol must be oxidized to be
dangerous. But it seems to me he wasn't talking about dietary
cholesterol but about internal oxidization In fact he said
that happens because of free radicals and lifestyle and diets
that are good and allowing the body to buffer as much free
radicals as possible

> What we really need is better journalism. Gary Taubes trired
> to investigate these kinds of claims, but it's clear that he
> does no understand the molecular-level mechanisms. Some
> popularizer/experts, like Dr. Nicholas Perricone, has tried
> to explain the molecular-level mechanisms in a way that most
> people can understand, but he is apparently unaware of the
> evidence against the "essential fatty acid" notion, and
> suggests powerful, and possibly dangerous antioxidant
> supplements, rather than simply avoiding oxidized
> cholesterol, highly unsaturated oils, and eating more than
> small amounts of meat (unless eaten raw after over two weeks
> of freezing - eggs should be boiled only).
>
> Another point is perhaps best illustrated by the soy
> example. Small amounts of organic, fermented soy is fine,
> but large amounts of tofu is not optimal, and may be
> dangerous (depending upon how long this diet is followed).
> However, it may be healthier than the "typical American
> diet," and so "studies" can be conducted in which the
> researchers make the claim that people should eat more soy,
> even though they should have tested all kinds of other
> foods/diets - that would be consistent with the scientific
> method. Moreover, it may be that large amounts of tofu
> causes different "diseases," but the study only determines
> the kinds of disease that are common for the typical
> American diet. Again, the key is that the scientific method
> should be followed. This is why I had challenged people to
> direct experiments, in which the "loser" pays for all
> expenses. Nobody has ever shown any interest in taking me up
> on these offers because they know that the studies are being
> misinterpreted, and that many have a seriously desging flaw
> (s), and that the scientific method is not being followed.
> They know that I won't allow this, and so they have no
> interest in my offers.

I'm getting really tired of epidemiology I once though it
would be the answer to many question, I've come to realize it
is hardly a science at all.

That's why I'd love to see for once a discussion of saturated
fat vs. unsatured fats, high animal food diet vs. high plant
food diets, high fat vs. high carbs based on physiological
proven and observable mechanisms ... and not physiology. I'd
like to know what happens that make this healthy and that
unhealthy at a cellullar and organical levels not on
high-variable cultural and social levels.

> But just think about it for a moment. If the "essential
> fatty acid" claim is accurate, then how could one lose if
> one took me up on my offer? It would be a proverbial "slam
> dunk." And yet none of these people, some of whom are likely
> industry shills, show any interest in the offers. Negotiate
> with me. I'm sure we can both agree on a design, and then we
> will let the scientific method decide who is correct.
> Clearly, that is not something a fish oil salesman wants to
> hear. He/she just wants to cite a few studies and make his
> sales to a gullible public. I have nothing to sell. My only
> interest is in the scientific reality.

I'm not sure I completely understand your recommendation
Certain satured fats seems to be atherogenic while other don't
This seems to explain the difference in high heart disease in
big roasted and grilled pork consumers and polynesian low
levels of cardiovascular diseases on coconut based diets

PUFA are more instable but this has more to do with the way
they're processed and stored than the foods they're contained
in. Also because it's impossible not to consume EFA, they're
everywhere. Even eating nothing but chicory and lettuce would
provide you with EFA

I can see the problems of oxidization because of storing, oil
extracting and bad cooking Also increasing one's intake of
veggies, greens and fruits would help to improve one's
resistance to rancidification. Most studies where PUFA seems
to be harmful are based on deficient, processed diet poor in
plant anti-oxidants

That would explain for example because high consumption of
salmon or nuts, when part of a balanced veggies rich diet, is
always associated with better hematic profiles, higher
longevity and low heart disease incidence

Take the Okinawans for example. Their diet is both rich in
plants and in PUFA and EFA A recent studies showed their diet
has a very high ORAC level and they all show very low
oxidizative stress levels compared to people from western
countries. They have arteries like 20 years old. So clearly
their consumption of EFA is not harming them and is not
increasing oxidization or them

I have seen 20 studies that prove that nut consumption is
never harmful and is always cause of cardiovascular health

I think this shows that it's not PUFA that is dangerous but
the way they're consumed and processed. I can see why canola
oil, flax seed oil, peanut oil, sunflower oil, safflower oils
are all better avoided. But I can't see any reason for
removing fresh salmon, almonds, walnuts, cashews, pistachios,
macadamia, brazil nuts, sesame seeds, avocados, olives from
one's diet

Don't overcook food. Don't mix eggs with other ingredients in
backing Don't buy olive oil who is not stored in dark bottle
and whose date of bottling is not stated Don't consume
unsatared oils processed from tiny seeds Do consume lot of
veggies, greens and fruits

These seem all good advices to keep an health cardiovascular
system and are consistet with what Stein stated in "Outliving
Heart Disease"

but what about: ?

* remove all sources of PUFA from one's diet

Shouldn't it be instead:

* remove all rancid and processed sources of PUFA from your
diet but don't be scared of natural foods high in PUFA when
fresh (fish, fatty fruits, nuts) as there are no proof they
are dangerous and in fact there's evidence they protect from
heart disease?

Davide

[Mr. Natura]

capmack@shipper.com wrote:
>
> In addition I might add that the original price "research"
> is in the main grossly flawed which when steered by the
> current pricies only distorts it all the more.

Price was one of those people who believed in science, but
totally failed to use the scientific method.