Hi Samosamo,
I agree—wait ‘til the paperback comes out. In the meantime, perhaps a used WP book will show up on Amazon for much less than a new paperback. I myself wish I had the hardcover, as the binding on the paperback is shoddy.

K
p.s. I’m not coming around here for a while—my last post was censored (about Israel, big surprise), and I’m too disgusted to read TD anymore. But I’ll get an email if you post here again.

Hi Samosamo,
You could check out “westonaprice.org” and see if there is any local action in your area—for farmers’ markets, networks of farmers with grass-fed meat, raw-milk groups, etc. The real milk page helps you find groups specifically about milk, but usually these folks are hooked in the local foodie network:

http://www.realmilk.com/where1.html

Bye for now. I’ll hang around a bit and see if we can talk on TD. I’d love to hear what you think of Taubes’s book, too.
K

Hi Samosamo,
I’m glad you’re going to get the Price book. Just pick it up when you get it and look at the marvelous pictures! Lots of teeth (Price was a dentist); it i amazing how facial structures develop differently on the different diets. Also, mental health differs drastically. The book gets redundant as culture after culture shows the same results…but you can skip a few chapters and get to the other stuff.

The diseases of civilization are well covered in Taube’s book (which was just published in Oct, 2007). That book is a real treat to read, chapter by chapter. It has a cumulative effect… you may feel justly angry by the end (with our current medical industry and its industrial underwriters and government ‘overseers’).

By the way, Taubes never mentions Price until his epilogue, but he discusses several others who did that kind of anthropological work.

Take care and happy reading,
Kellina

p.s. After you read Price, you might consider trying fresh, raw milk, butter made with raw milk, and grass-fed meats. I considered also grinding my own grain (to make bread for my family) but haven’t bought the grinder yet… trying to afford a farm with our own cow. Sound over the top? It won’t after you read Price.

Hi Samosamo - I agree! No scales for a while. I went from a size 14 to a size 6 but lost less than 15 pounds (or 61.5 kg to 56). I had to shop at a used clothing store because I couldn’t afford to buy a whole new wardrobe every week… It’s great to “meet” someone like you who appreciates this knowledge. Hey, have you ever heard of Weston Price (and his book, Nutrition and Physical Degeneration, in particular)???

Hey Purplewolf - I agree with you about the drug companies and everything else you said. I feel very sad to hear of you hurting your body by restricting your calories so much and then working all day. You’re right about the starvation—it’ll just force your body to cling more tightly to that fat. You poor thing. I myself simply stay away from the potatoes, cakes, ice cream, rice, pasta, and bread, and I get to have full-fat cream in my coffee (actually, it’s whipping cream in my fridge right now, and I drink several cups—mostly decaf, but one caf a day), all the red meat, bacon, sausage, seafood, no-carb sauces, sour cream, cheeses, eggs, etc., I want, plus green veggies, salads, and berries (most are low carb), and never feel hungry, never gain weight. If I’m not careful, I lose too much. You can do it, too. You should love your body and nurture yourself. It feels good.

Too preachy? I’m sorry.

Kellina

Hi Samosamo, I wanted to clarify something…I think exercise is helpful if you are NOT eating carbs; then your body can burn stored fat. If you eat little, you’ll burn off more fat. ANd if you exercise, you’ll burn off more fat—more fuel is needed.

If however, you are the usual sort of person eating carbs (plus whatever), then your metabolism is such that you cannot access fat stores for fuel. Even if grossly obese, once the glucose is out of your blood stream, you’ll feel agonizingly hungry. The no-carb diet works, because it curbs hunger. Your body has its own snack-bar, so to speak.

Enough from this (verbose) contributor,
K

Dear Samosamo,
Thanks for posting! I have to say that that book you mentioned by the Eades is terrific. Taubes’ book is very provocative as well. The point about exercise is a case in point—that expending more effort does _not_ make you lose weight.

Is this just a wild claim? No need to argue back and forth; this isn’t religion or something out of the realm of science. According to Taubes, there are experimental studies on this point, because it is an empirical (testable) question. All you have to do is randomly assign people to exercise or not for some set period of time, and then, later, assess their weight for increases or decreases. According to Taubes, some studies show weight gain, others show weight loss; but the effects are quite small, on the order of 3%. So it looks like exercise isn’t the culprit. Having been on the low-carb diet (with absolutely no exercise), I can tell you that it got me in fantastic shape. Do I sound like an infomercial? Sorry.

Kellina

How about we all start taking responsibility for ourselves and our families??? Where has common sense gone??? This reliance on meds and government to save us from ourselves is ludicrous! Grow up, quit your whining and be a real parent (yes, that does include discipline). It’s the hardest most important job in the world - take it seriously.

. . . Part V

5)  Obesity is a disorder of excess fat accumulation, not overeating, and not sedentary behavior.

6)  Consuming excess calories does not cause us to grow fatter, any more than it causes a child to grow taller. Expending more energy than we consume does not lead to long-term weight loss; it leads to hunger.

There is no evidence that exercise leads to weight loss; the literature shows that exercise sometimes leads to a slight weight loss but, in other cases, exercise leads to weight gain. (Exercise does help increase muscle tone and often provides a feeling of well-being due to the release of endogenous endorphins into the bloodstream.) Increased physical effort requires increased energy; if the body is unable to metabolize fat stores (due to excess circulating insulin), then the result is hunger. In other words, although there is food in the pantry (fat in the tissues), the pantry door is locked (and the fat is unable to be metabolized). When energy is not available, blood sugar drops and hunger results.

7)  Fattening and obesity are caused by an imbalance—a disequilibrium—in the hormonal regulation of adipose tissue and fat metabolism. Fat synthesis and storage exceed the mobilization of fat from the adipose tissue and its subsequent oxidation. We become leaner when the hormonal regulation of the fat tissue reverses this balance.

8)  Insulin is the primary regulator of fat storage. When insulin levels are elevated—either chronically or after a meal—we accumulate fat in our fat tissue. When insulin levels fall, we release fat from our fat tissue and use it for fuel.

9)  By stimulating insulin secretion, carbohydrates make us fat and ultimately cause obesity. The fewer carbohydrates we consume, the leaner we will be.

10)  By driving fat accumulation, carbohydrates also increase hunger and decrease the amount of energy we expend in metabolism and physical activity.

The flip side is that decreasing our carbohydrate intake (relative to fats and proteins) will result in decreased hunger, greater energy, weight loss, and a feeling of well-being. Foods vary in their carb content, however. For example, although green beans and Krispy Kreme donuts are both “carbs,” the former is much lower in carbs than the latter; and one or two servings of green beans are unlikely to even stimulate insulin production compared with just a taste of the donut. Research (discussed in Taubes’ book) by Judy Langlois, a psychologist at the University of Texas at Austin, demonstrates that mere tastes of certain foods can stimulate insulin production and, astonishingly, even thinking about eating very high-carb foods can stimulate an insulin rush.

. . . Part IV

As a final example, let us consider the French. Anyone who has eaten his way across France has observed that the French diet is just loaded with saturated fats in the form of butter, eggs, cheese, cream, liver, meats and rich patés. Yet the French have a lower rate of coronary heart disease than many other western countries. In the United States, 315 of every 100,000 middle-aged men die of heart attacks each year; in France the rate is 145 per 100,000. In the Gascony region, where goose and duck liver form a staple of the diet, this rate is a remarkably low 80 per 100,000. This phenomenon has recently gained international attention as the French Paradox. (The French do suffer from many degenerative diseases, however. They eat large amounts of sugar and white flour and in recent years have succumbed to the timesaving temptations of processed foods.)
A chorus of establishment voices, including the American Cancer Society, the National Cancer Institute and the Senate Committee on Nutrition and Human Needs, claims that animal fat is linked not only with heart disease but also with cancers of various types. Yet when researchers from the University of Maryland analyzed the data they used to make such claims, they found that vegetable fat consumption was correlated with cancer and animal fat was not.”

2)  The problem is the carbohydrates in the diet, their effect on insulin secretion, and thus the hormonal regulation of homeostasis – the entire harmonic ensemble of the human body. The more easily digestible and refined the carbohydrates, the greater the effect on our health, weight, and well-being.

3)  Sugars—sucrose and high-fructose corn syrup specifically—are particularly harmful, probably because the combination of fructose and glucose simultaneously elevates insulin levels while overloading the liver with carbohydrates.

Discuss the role of the liver in producing triglycerides – and the role of triglycerides in heart disease.

4)  Through their direct effect on insulin and blood sugar, refined carbohydrates, starches, and sugars are the dietary cause of coronary heart disease and diabetes. They are the most likely dietary causes of cancer, Alzheimer’s disease, and the other chronic diseases of civilization.

Discuss how cancer metabolism requires the oxidation of blood glucose – individuals on low or no-carb diets switch their metabolism over to burning ketones not glucose, so the cancer is starved for fuel and eventually atrophies.

. . .  Part IV

Mother’s milk provides a higher proportion of cholesterol than almost any other food. It also contains over 50% of its calories as fat, much of it saturated fat. Both cholesterol and saturated fat are essential for growth in babies and children, especially the development of the brain. Yet, the American Heart Association is now recommending a low-cholesterol, lowfat diet for children! Commercial formulas are low in saturated fats and soy formulas are devoid of cholesterol. A recent study linked lowfat diets with failure to thrive in children.
Numerous surveys of traditional populations have yielded information that is an embarrassment to the Diet Dictocrats. For example, a study comparing Jews when they lived in Yemen, whose diets contained fats solely of animal origin, to Yemenite Jews living in Israel, whose diets contained margarine and vegetable oils, revealed little heart disease or diabetes in the former group but high levels of both diseases in the latter. (The study also noted that the Yemenite Jews consumed no sugar but those in Israel consumed sugar in amounts equaling 25-30% of total carbohydrate intake.) A comparison of populations in northern and southern India revealed a similar pattern. People in northern India consume 17 times more animal fat but have an incidence of coronary heart disease seven times lower than people in southern India. The Masai and kindred tribes of Africa subsist largely on milk, blood and beef. They are free from coronary heart disease and have excellent blood cholesterol levels. Eskimos eat liberally of animal fats from fish and marine animals. On their native diet they are free of disease and exceptionally hardy. An extensive study of diet and disease patterns in China found that the region in which the populace consumes large amounts of whole milk had half the rate of heart disease as several districts in which only small amounts of animal products are consumed. Several Mediterranean societies have low rates of heart disease even though fat—including highly saturated fat from lamb, sausage and goat cheese—comprises up to 70% of their caloric intake. The inhabitants of Crete, for example, are remarkable for their good health and longevity. A study of Puerto Ricans revealed that, although they consume large amounts of animal fat, they have a very low incidence of colon and breast cancer. A study of the long-lived inhabitants of Soviet Georgia revealed that those who eat the most fatty meat live the longest. In Okinawa, where the average life span for women is 84 years—longer than in Japan—the inhabitants eat generous amounts of pork and seafood and do all their cooking in lard. None of these studies is mentioned by those urging restriction of saturated fats.
The relative good health of the Japanese, who have the longest life span of any nation in the world, is generally attributed to a lowfat diet. Although the Japanese eat few dairy fats, the notion that their diet is low in fat is a myth; rather, it contains moderate amounts of animal fats from eggs, pork, chicken, beef, seafood and organ meats. With their fondness for shellfish and fish broth, eaten on a daily basis, the Japanese probably consume more cholesterol than most Americans. What they do not consume is a lot of vegetable oil, white flour or processed food (although they do eat white rice.) The life span of the Japanese has increased since World War II with an increase in animal fat and protein in the diet. Those who point to Japanese statistics to promote the lowfat diet fail to mention that the Swiss live almost as long on one of the fattiest diets in the world. Tied for third in the longevity stakes are Austria and Greece—both with high-fat diets.

. . . Part III

In a multi-year British study involving several thousand men, half were asked to reduce saturated fat and cholesterol in their diets, to stop smoking and to increase the amounts of unsaturated oils such as margarine and vegetable oils. After one year, those on the “good” diet had 100% more deaths than those on the “bad” diet, in spite of the fact that those men on the “bad” diet continued to smoke! But in describing the study, the author ignored these results in favor of the politically correct conclusion: “The implication for public health policy in the U.K. is that a preventive programme such as we evaluated in this trial is probably effective. . . .”
The U.S. Multiple Risk Factor Intervention Trial, (MRFIT) sponsored by the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute, compared mortality rates and eating habits of over 12,000 men. Those with “good” dietary habits (reduced saturated fat and cholesterol, reduced smoking, etc.) showed a marginal reduction in total coronary heart disease, but their overall mortality from all causes was higher. Similar results have been obtained in several other studies. The few studies that indicate a correlation between fat reduction and a decrease in coronary heart disease mortality also document a concurrent increase in deaths from cancer, brain hemorrhage, suicide and violent death.

The Lipid Research Clinics Coronary Primary Prevention Trial (LRC-CPPT), which cost 150 million dollars, is the study most often cited by the experts to justify lowfat diets. Actually, dietary cholesterol and saturated fat were not tested in this study as all subjects were given a low-cholesterol, low-saturated-fat diet. Instead, the study tested the effects of a cholesterol-lowering drug. Their statistical analysis of the results implied a 24% reduction in the rate of coronary heart disease in the group taking the drug compared with the placebo group; however, nonheart disease deaths in the drug group increased—deaths from cancer, stroke, violence and suicide. Even the conclusion that lowering cholesterol reduces heart disease is suspect. Independent researchers who tabulated the results of this study found no significant statistical difference in coronary heart disease death rates between the two groups. However, both the popular press and medical journals touted the LRC-CPPT as the long-sought proof that animal fats are the cause of heart disease, America’s number one killer.

Studies that Challenge the Lipid Hypothesis

While it is true that researchers have induced heart disease in some animals by giving them extremely large dosages of oxidized or rancid cholesterol—amounts ten times that found in the ordinary human diet—several population studies squarely contradict the cholesterol-heart disease connection. A survey of 1700 patients with hardening of the arteries, conducted by the famous heart surgeon Michael DeBakey, found no relationship between the level of cholesterol in the blood and the incidence of atherosclerosis. A survey of South Carolina adults found no correlation of blood cholesterol levels with “bad” dietary habits, such as use of red meat, animal fats, fried foods, butter, eggs, whole milk, bacon, sausage and cheese. A Medical Research Council survey showed that men eating butter ran half the risk of developing heart disease as those using margarine.

part II . . .

Below, I will quote extensively from Enig and Fallon’s book (cited above) about the lipid hypothesis:

The “Evidence” Supporting the Lipid Hypothesis

  These “experts” assure us that the lipid hypothesis is backed by incontrovertible scientific proof. Most people would be surprised to learn that there is, in fact, very little evidence to support the contention that a diet low in cholesterol and saturated fat actually reduces death from heart disease or in any way increases one’s life span. Consider the following:
Before 1920 coronary heart disease was rare in America; so rare that when a young internist named Paul Dudley White introduced the German electrocardiograph to his colleagues at Harvard University, they advised him to concentrate on a more profitable branch of medicine. The new machine revealed the presence of arterial blockages, thus permitting early diagnosis of coronary heart disease. But in those days clogged arteries were a medical rarity, and White had to search for patients who could benefit from his new technology. During the next forty years, however, the incidence of coronary heart disease rose dramatically, so much so that by the mid fifties heart disease was the leading cause of death among Americans. Today heart disease causes at least 40% of all US deaths. If, as we have been told, heart disease results from the consumption of saturated fats, one would expect to find a corresponding increase in animal fat in the American diet. Actually, the reverse is true. During the sixty-year period from 1910 to 1970, the proportion of traditional animal fat in the American diet declined from 83% to 62%, and butter consumption plummeted from eighteen pounds per person per year to four. During the past eighty years, dietary cholesterol intake has increased only 1%. During the same period the percentage of dietary vegetable oils in the form of margarine, shortening and refined oils increased about 400% while the consumption of sugar and processed foods increased about 60%.
The Framingham Heart Study is often cited as proof of the lipid hypothesis. This study began in 1948 and involved some 6,000 people from the town of Framingham, Massachusetts. Two groups were compared at five-year intervals—those who consumed little cholesterol and saturated fat and those who consumed large amounts. After 40 years, the director of this study had to admit: “In Framingham, Mass, the more saturated fat one ate, the more cholesterol one ate, the more calories one ate, the lower the person’s serum cholesterol. . . we found that the people who ate the most cholesterol, ate the most saturated fat, ate the most calories, weighed the least and were the most physically active.” The study did show that those who weighed more and had abnormally high blood cholesterol levels were slightly more at risk for future heart disease; but weight gain and cholesterol levels had an inverse correlation with fat and cholesterol intake in the diet.

DIET ARGUMENTS

Since the 1950s, nutrition and medical researchers have questioned the lipid hypothesis that says that dietary fat leads to heart disease. Researchers have explored more broadly the role of fat in the diet as it relates to health, in particular the role of dietary fat in weight gain/loss and metabolic disorders (diabetes, heart disease, cancer). A prominent science writer, Gary Taubes, has laid out the arguments and discussed the research on all sides of this issue. His work is summarized below in the bolded 10 points taken from the Epilogue of his book, “Good calories, bad calories: Challenging the conventional wisdom on diet, weight control, and disease” (2007). Information in italics listed under point #1 is specific to the role of fat in heart disease and was taken from Mary Enig and Sally Fallon’s book, “Nourishing Traditions: The Cookbook that Challenges Politically Correct Nutrition and the Diet Dictocrats” (1999).

1)  Dietary fat, whether saturated or not, is not a cause of obesity, heart disease, or any other chronic disease of civilization.

Ancel Keys is a medical doctor who in the 1950s created what is known as the “lipid hypothesis.” This hypothesis states that dietary saturated fat causes coronary heart disease. Saturated fat from animal sources was targeted as particularly unhealthy because it contains cholesterol, thought to be the mechanism whereby dietary fat is translated into heart disease. Thus, the prescription for health is a diet low in fat, especially saturated fat, and one that emphasizes fresh fruits and vegetables, whole grains, and regular exercise. This is the prescription that most people are familiar with.

Unfortunately, low-fat diets are associated with loss of energy and concentration, weight gain, mineral deficiencies, and depression. And there is no evidence that lowering dietary saturated fat or cholesterol reduces heart disease, obesity, diabetes, cancer, or any other metabolic disorder (so-called ‘diseases of civilization’ – diseases not seen in indigenous peoples until the introduction of the Western diet, which is high in refined carbohydrates).
A class of drugs called “statins” are often prescribed to lower cholesterol. Although such a course of treatment does result in lowered mortality due to heart disease, there is higher mortality due to all other causes combined, so the overall mortality rate is the same, with our without statins. The body actually needs cholesterol; one of the most common side of effects of statins (e.g., the drug named ‘Lipitor’) is muscle weakening. The heart is a muscle, so ironically, taking statins can weaken the heart.

I should add to my previous comment that I found out about cholesterol norms for adolescents being set using boys when I read about a study showing girls’ levels are different.  In other words, I wasn’t just guessing that girls’ levels are different; that was borne out by the evidence when anybody bothered to check.

Blackspeare: While I agree that a two-year-old on Lipitor is likely to stay on it, barring some radical change in their lifestyle or medical advice, I must disagree with the statement that once people go on diabetic drugs they stay on them. 

A woman I know who was diagnosed with insulin resistance (her blood sugar was normal, and they told her so) was treated with insulin-sensitizing medication as well as diet and exercise.  (She had tried diet and exercise before, and never been able to lose weight at all, not even yo-yo.)  She went from obese to normal weight, “cured” (per her doctor) her insulin resistance, and greatly reduced her risk of developing Type II diabetes.  She also went off the medication and maintained her weight and healthy blood work.

The drugs themselves are not the problem; the problem is a mindset where everything can be fixed with a pill, and lifestyle changes aren’t at the center of any treatment.

I totally agree with caia on the issue of what “treatment” should be pursued with children who supposedly have high cholesterol.  Hasn’t it come out in the news lately that the levels set by the health professions are unrealistic and that we’ve gone a bit overboard on the reaction to what is perceived as high?  That it looks a bit like a conspiracy to sell more cholesterol reducing drugs?  Thank you, again pharmaceuticals.  We’re convinced we can’t make it through the day without a raft of high dollar drugs to make our “health” more optimum.  You can’t totally blame the parents in this situation.  The food industry is much like the tobacco industry, subsidized by the government to produce questionable products that have become pervasive in our society.  Try to find food products in supermarkets that do not contain high fructose corn syrup and a host of other additives.  If you live in a part of the country that is isolated and cold a good portion of the year, (Wyoming comes to mind) it’s difficult to find fresh produce at all.  At the risk of buying into a conspiracy theory, it seems that the food, health, pharmaceutical, insurance and possibly other industries I can’t think of are so “out to make a profit” that people are just pawns.

When I was a teenager, a female friend of mine was told she had “high cholesterol”.  Years later I found out that cholesterol, which is necessary in the body, fluctuates during puberty and adolescence.  Moreover, I found out that they had set the norms for healthy cholesterol levels—surprise, surprise—using only boys as a model.

So… Did my friend have high cholesterol?  Possibly.  Or she could have just been a girl.

As for children who really do have high cholesterol: they say that high cholesterol comes from both heredity and diet.  With few if any exceptions, I would posit that two-year-olds do not have high cholesterol based on heredity.  If doctors check for high cholesterol in children, their first treatment should absolutely be dietary.