Nice article by Chris Masterjohn:



http://www.westonaprice.org/blogs/c...-doesnt-cut-it/

Weston Price was a true visionary. His foundation is still doing a lot of good today. Its nice to see him get recognized.

Thanks for posting this link!

I've find some of the findings suspect. Basically Weston A. Price visited primitive societies that didn't have access to medical care and only found healthy people. Therefore eating the local primitive diet, whether low carb or high carb, kept them healthy.

Has anyone considered the fact that he only found healthy vibrant people is those who had conditions such as diabetes, cancer or heart disease would of died without medical care?

It has been considered. But that's not the case.

In Gary Taubes' Good Calories, Bad Calories, he has a whole chapter discussing this theory, and rejects it because of every report from missionary doctors and colonial health outreaches and the like winds up coming to the same conclusions; these people tend to live to old age without developing diabetes, cancer or heart disease.

This is how these conditions got the brand tag of "Diseases of Civilization." In this case, they deserve it.

This is Weston Price's book Nutrition and Physical Degeneration:

http://journeytoforever.org/farm_li...e/pricetoc.html

http://journeytoforever.org/farm_li...priceintro.html

Translation: He looked for traditional populations that had both a group that still lived according to their primitive wisdom, and a group that had adopted modern wisdom. Then he compared their health and so forth. This way we eliminate genetics as a possible factor.

I have the book, Nutrition and Physical Degeneration, I've read it twice but I am not that impressed.

I do know Christian Missionaries currently (2011) living among primitive hunter gatherer tribes. Many of the tribes are on a waiting list for missionaries to come live with them. Why are the tribes so interested in the Christian Missionaries? Because the missionaries bring the medicines they need. Yes, the ones who survive childhood adolescence do tend to live to old age. But the traditional diet does nothing for the high infant and child mortality rates.

Now you enter in a philosophical discussion. Need why? They didn't need it when it wasn't available. Why should they need it now, because it's available? High mortality rate is normal for all species, why not humans, because we're the chosen, we're a thinking species, because it's sad to see so many children die? There is such a thing as traditional medicine. Is modern medicine any better? Consider all your arguments in favor of modern medicine, then consider that we're all sick with some sort of disease of civilization.

I question your implication that traditional populations have a high infant mortality rate. I read elsewhere that some populations systematically practice pregnancy spacing of at least 4-5 years. Maybe infant mortality rate isn't as high as you'd imagine.

Weston Price saw what he saw. You don't have to agree with his conclusions, but you have no choice but to believe him when he says "I saw this". The traditional populations that ate their traditional diets were more healthy than the same populations who adopted modern foods. All that in spite of modern medicine. If infant mortality rate is higher, so what. Those who make it to adulthood are what matters. Consider that the infants that died would probably be sick anyway. What good would that do? Is our current situation better than theirs?

Philosophy, define good and bad. So a high infant mortality rate is a bad thing. Then a high infant disease rate is a good thing. Because that's the trade off.

I picked this out because I actually agree with it.

Um, I think infant mortality does matter. I don't care how "normal" infant mortality is in all species, I don't like it when it happens in humans.

Paleodude, are you saying that the modern, cruddy diet protects against infectious disease? Personally I think modern plumbing is a far better candidate.

Most of our discussions here revolve around diet and disease, not medicine and infant mortality. Yet the two are intimately linked. We understand the role diet plays on our health but often forget what role infant mortality plays on our health. To put it simply, the higher infant mortality rate, the lower disease rate, and vice verse. If you don't like infant mortality, then you must like diseases because that's the trade off. Rather, you must be willing to accept diseases. If you've been reading this forum for a while, you'll note that most here don't accept diseases and would prefer not be afflicted with them. But I bet most would choose low infant mortality in a jiffy if given the choice because they probably want that less than diseases.

Paleodude brought it up, as if we could get both somehow by choosing our foods better. Based on our current plight, it's obvious we can't. It's either or. I'm not sure what I want most, or how much it will cost of the other.

Modern plumbing, trash collection & elimination, clean water.