Weston A. Price Foundation, Stupid Traditions

Imagine being told to feed your child meat broth and sea salt and limiting their intake of fruits and vegetables—crazy, right? Indeed, but those are just a few of the insane recommendations by The Weston A. Price Foundation.

According to Dr. Fuhrman, Weston Price is a relatively small non-profit that has been very effective in advocating a meat, butter, and raw milk-centered diet—foods that are NOT health and longevity-supporting.

Actually, we’ve debunked Weston Price and its cronies before. Remember these posts:

So, if Weston Price is a dead horse—why start beating it again? Because of this article in The Washington Post, in it Sally Fallon, founder of The Weston A. Price Foundation and co-author of Nourishing Traditions, attempts to convince people that foods like raw milk, butter, bone broth, and chicken liver pate are great for us.

Here’s a bit of reporter’s Jane Black’s article. You might recognize one of the names mentioned. Take a look:

In 1989, Fallon began to think about spreading the gospel of Price. She did not have any formal nutrition training, so she recruited Mary Enig, a Washington nutritionist whose controversial work promotes saturated fats, to co-write a cookbook. It had two goals: to explain Price's findings and to provide a range of recipes for traditional foods such as chicken liver pâté, sauerkraut and sourdough breads that deliver the requisite fat and nutrients for good health. (Some of the book's recommendations, such as the importance of bone broths, are inspired by the work of California doctor Francis Pottenger, a contemporary of Price's.)

The result was "Nourishing Traditions: The Cookbook That Challenges Politically Correct Nutrition and the Diet Dictocrats." The first edition, released in 1996, was riddled with typos and errors. But it sold…

…Some independent studies, such as the ones charted in Gary Taubes's recent book, "Good Calories, Bad Calories: Challenging the Conventional Wisdom on Diet, Weight Control and Disease," do support the premise that saturated fat isn't the enemy. But not everyone agrees with the foundation's claims. Joel Fuhrman, doctor and author of "Eat for Health," which advocates a nutrient-dense diet with limited animal products, calls it "unconscionable" to advocate a diet high in saturated fat, especially for children. He also alleges that the evidence Fallon and Enig use to support their claims is based on antiquated studies with poor observations.

"The worst people can say about us is that we use older studies," Fallon says. "Would you jump off a building because the law of gravity was discovered 300 years ago? This is good science."

Apparently time has stood still in Fallon’s world. You talk about blind evangelism! Despite the avalanche of research that negates her group’s views. She remains unwavering? That’s a dangerous way to think. Hey Fallon, its not 1939!

Try opening your eyes to new research or AT LEAST something within the past 20 years! Recently Dr. Fuhrman and T. Colin Campbell, PhD, author of The China Study, published this study on weight-loss using Dr. Fuhrman’s nutrient-dense vegetable-based diet style. It appears in Alternative-Therapies in Health and Medicine. Here’s a bit:

Weight loss was sustained in patients who returned for follow-up and was more substantial in those who reported good adherence to the recommendations...

...Favorable changes in lipid profile and blood pressure were noted. An HND diet has the potential to provide sustainable, significant, long-term weight loss and may provide substantial lowering of cardiac risk in patients who are motivated...

...An HND diet as demonstrated with this group may be the most health-favorable and effective way to lose weight for appropriately motivated patients.

No doubt this’ll leave Sally Fallon and Weston Price scratching their heads. After all, they’re probably still pondering the lunar landing, rubik's cube, and Tang.

I’ve said it before—and this is just my opinion—but people and organizations that advocate animal product-heavy diets are just looking to benefit from America’s love affair with rich, disease-causing foods. They know their recommendations are dangerous!

Lots of people have suffered and died prematurely from such advice, but this doesn't stop groups like Weston Price and Atkins from blatantly CASHING in on people’s emotional attachments to bacon, steak, and grease.

Shame on Weston Price, Sally Fallon, Atkins and others like them for polluting modern scientific research with their outdated unsupported nonsense—anyone who thinks giving their newborn a bottle of meat broth is a good idea, needs their head examined!

UPDATE: Here's a follow up from Dr. Fuhrman: Weston Price, Take Your Pseudo-Science Elsewhere.

Trackbacks (0) Links to blogs that reference this article Trackback URL
Comments (115) Read through and enter the discussion with the form at the end
Sharon Shaw - August 8, 2008 1:58 PM

Aww, c'mon, give these people a break. Their judgement is clouded by their arteries clogged with saturated fat..we are lucky that Dr. Fuhrman's teachings are Price-less....

Rhonda - August 8, 2008 2:42 PM

Thanks for writing this. I needed to hear this!

Scott - August 8, 2008 5:09 PM

This will get interesting.

Victoria - August 8, 2008 9:00 PM

If you disagree with someone's position, it's usually considered classier to state your case, not demean the person (or organization) with whom you're disagreeing.

Ms. Fallon is not the only person who disagrees with the lipid hypothesis. In fact, I seem to recall a number of researchers who question the strong bias of most published research on the connection between heart disease and other conditions.

Nor is she the only author suggesting that wholesome, traditional foods, including, but not limited to whole milk, eggs, fish, poultry and yes, meat, might be healthier for children than their more typical diets of processed foods (like skim milk, vegetable oils, and processed grains, foods many children are allergic to, and which provide little, if any, genuine nourishment).

And for the record, since I've actually had the pleasure of hearing Sally Fallon speak, she certainly does not suggest excluding fresh produce from the diet. Even a casual reading of the Weston A. Price Foundation's information would reveal this to be the case.

But rather than engage in a healthy debate (literally or metaphorically), or make any attempt to investigate the statements in the Post article, or even the tenets of the Foundation itself, the author of this slam chose to take cheap shots. And unfortunately, based on the earlier comments, he's preaching to the choir.

Shame on Mr. Pugliese!

David Brown - August 9, 2008 12:26 AM

And then there's the Kitava Study. http://paleodiet.com/lindeberg/

"Our most important findings so far published are that sudden cardiac death, stroke and exertion-related chest pain were non-existent or extremely rare in Kitavans. Infections, accidents, complications of pregnancy and senescence were the most common causes of death. All adults had low diastolic blood pressure (all below 90 mm Hg) and were very lean (weight decreased after age 30), while serum cholesterol was somewhat less favourable, probably due to a high intake of saturated fat from coconut."

What's peculiar about the above comment is that the author characterized high serum cholesterol as "bad" despite the fact that Kitavans apparently never develop clogged arteries from consuming saturated fat.

On the other hand, the low-carb crowd would view this diet with dismay as the estimated percentages of energy from protein, fat and carbohydrates are 10%, 21% and 69% respectively. http://high-fat-nutrition.blogspot.com/2007/06/living-on-isolated-island-of-kitava.html

All things considered, the important considerations are nutrient density and appropriateness of food choices. Some people ought to consume mostly nutrient dense vegetarian fare. Others require high quality animal products. Neither approach will prevent heart disease when coupled with excessive sugar consumption.

Gerry Pugliese - August 9, 2008 2:29 AM

Hey Victoria-

Wow, you advocates of nonsense really can't take it when someone fires back at you. You realize real scientists laugh at Weston Price and low-carb. Its a joke. Dr. Fuhrman and I are just very vocal about it.


Scott - August 9, 2008 2:34 PM

Gerry I think you do a great job here, but you so often speak in broad brushed terms. "You realize real scientist laugh and Weston Price and low carb" simply isn't true. What about the real scientists who support low carb and WAPF? They exists, and while they may not be as great in number as the opposition, they are certainly real scientists.

Correlation does not equal causation. I believe a lot of what is preached by BOTH sides (low carb and vegetarian/vegan) consist of political spin. No has proven that saturated fat causes ill health. Never. It is a correlative association in many studies, enough to be the industry standard, but has never been proven to CAUSE ill health. On the flip side, low carbers will say that all carbs that aren't leafy greens will send insulin spiking and cause diabetes, heart disease, etc. That too, is crap.

Gerry Pugliese - August 9, 2008 2:44 PM

Hey Scott-

With all due respect. "No [one] has proven that saturated fat causes ill health." Is a very silly and ill informed statement.

Advocates of low-carb or high-animal food diets need to be exposed for the liars they are.


Scott - August 9, 2008 3:24 PM

Gerry, are you prepared to offer peer reviewed studies that show saturated fat to be a causative factor in ill health? No correlative factor, causative.

Mind you, I am NOT a proponent of low carb, saturated fat, or anything the WAPF suggests is the panacea of health. I have no bias, I'm just interested in the science instead of emotion.

Gerry Pugliese - August 9, 2008 3:34 PM

Hey Scott-

I'm not a scientist or a doctor. So I'm not a research warrior, but read the news. The standard American or Western Diet is not only nutrient-deficient, but packed with those refined carbs WE all admit are crap, but its also loaded with saturated fat. The other enemy to human health and a huge reason why Americans are obese.

I mean come on. Dr. Atkins died from a heart attack!


Scott - August 9, 2008 3:42 PM

I understand all of that Gerry, you're preaching to the choir lol. I am 100% against Atkins and think he was a snake oil salesman of the highest order.

I just want to be clear that I'm not suggesting saturated fat doesn't contribute to ill health in conjunction with other factors, I'm asking for proof that saturated fat, while all other independent variables are isolated, causes ill health.

You do a great job here Gerry, keep it up.

Stephanie Rivers - August 9, 2008 4:22 PM

There are many things to learn from the diets of traditional people throughout the world. I think the most important thing we can learn is that no one diet is right for everyone.

No matter what your diet of choice may be, you can learn something valuable from the cookbook Nourishing Traditions. It has helped thousands of people. Even if you are a vegetarian, check it out. You may learn something valuable!

Sara - August 9, 2008 4:27 PM

Haven't we been through this a zillion times already. Scientific documentation is in Dr. Fuhrman's books. This is a blog not a scientific treatise, not to mention the info is covered in MANY previous posts. Also this is a nutritarian blog. Why would someone who disagrees with high nutrient eating so stronly choose to be here anyway? We are not obligated to fence with them. If Victoria wants to eat low carb she has every right to- Just don't come into other peoples forums and harass them.

Rhonda - August 9, 2008 4:29 PM

In the China Study, it was shown that rats or mice (one of those) who were given sat fat were more likely to get cancer. He showed it on a large scale culturally but only through correlation. There is no way to show it factually as you can't control all the extrenial variables. (For those who are scientists).

However, the Rave Diet Book and the Healthy at 100 Books that I just finished reading have plenty of case studies and correlations about sat fat.

Dr Furhmans' Book, Eat to Live is loaded with scientific studies. Have you read it?

HappyCat - August 9, 2008 8:27 PM

Atkins did not die of a heart attack. He slipped on ice and cracked his skull. Google is your friend: http://www.snopes.com/medical/doctor/atkins.asp

But I am no means a fan of his diet. Saturated fat has been proven to raise cholesterol and elevated cholesterol is linked to earlier mortality. (I hate when people say increased mortality, we're all going to die.)

Remember Adele Davis? Fallon sounds like her, and Davis died at 69 from bone cancer. She used to eat Creamed Brains, or Brains and Bacon. BARFFF.

Alistair - August 10, 2008 5:37 AM

A Long time ago, when the world was a lot simpler (1952 actually), two men decided they wanted to learn about atherosclerosis.

What Drs Henry D Moon & James F Rinehart did was take 250 bodies of people who died sudden deaths and examine their coronary arteies. What they did was cut up and examine the components of so called arterial plaque, from it's very earliest stage to it's worst stage. It's realy quite a simple study, one that can't be twisted by statistics and reported in a way that makes it hard for the layman to understand WTF it all means. We cut up atherosclerosis of all stages of development and see whats in it. Makes sense to me.

Now, the results of this study are published in the Circulation, the American Heart Asociations Journal.

What they say does not fit in with what the AHA preach today.

Said Drs Moon & Rinehart,

"The earliest sclerotic lesion is characterized by the apparently simultaneous appearance of proliferation of subendothelial fibroblasts, increased amounts of mucoid ground substance and fragmentation of the internal elastic membrane. No relationship between these changes and the occasional presence of fine droplets of lipid could be demonstrated. The moderately advanced and far advanced lesions differed from the early lesions in that lipid was always present."

Moon & Rinhart must have known that some people whould one day blindly believe what they read in newspapers rather than read the real information and work it out for themselves;
They must have known that some people would not be research warriors because they were not doctors or scientists, So they did put it a bit simpler,

"No direct or consistent relationship of lipid to the early lesions could be demonstrated. In arteries showing early sclerosis, lipid was frequently absent."

"The lack of correlation between lipid and early arteriosclerotic changes leads us to believe that the deposition of lipid is not the initiating factor in the development of coronary arteriosclerosis."

They described the order of appearence of substances in these atheroscleropic plaque. Lipids appeared at stage 6 out of 9
"A general survey of the material indicate that there were multiple pathologic processes occurring in coronary arteriosclerosis. These processes were:
(1) subendothelial fibroblastic proliferation of the intima;
(2) appearance of increased amounts of mucoid ground substance
in the intima and occasionally in the media;
(3) fragmentation and degeneration of elastic tissue;
(4) formation of collagen fibers in the intimal plaques;
(5) regeneration of elastic tissue;
(6) deposition of lipid and cholesterol;
(7) "hyaline degeneration" of fibrous connective tissue;
(8) deposition of calcium;
(9) intramural hemorrhage and thrombosis."

The beauty of this study is it's simplicity. It relies on a scientists most basic skill, the power of observation. What you see is what is get.

Scott you should not believe everything you read, either in a newspaper or on the internet.In fact, I'd sugest you don't believe what I have said, but go and have a look at the study yourself.


Alistair - August 10, 2008 5:56 AM

My apologies To Scott, I addressed him when I should have addressed Gerry Pugliese in my previous post. Sorry Scott.

Danna Seevers - August 10, 2008 11:41 AM

If what you say is true about Sally Fallon and the WAPF "cashing in" then why doesn't the WAPF accept any money from the beef industry or the big dairy companies?? Don't they have a lot to gain from the WAPF pro animal fat advice? I think the main thing you've all missed here is that the WAPF DOES NOT avdocate consuming beef from conventionally raised animals( ie., grain fed, confinement raised, feedlot beef) but instead from pastured animals raised on green grass that hasn't been poisened by chemicals. Big difference folks and the science IS there to prove that.

My experience with WAPF principles is that people who follow this way of eating (I personally know over 200 families who eat this way-not necessarily "members" of the foundation either) seem to have one thing in common. They are almost always highly educated. One or both spouses has an advanced degree of some type and no matter what their socio-economic status may be(in other words, these are not mindless processionary caterpillars!), they are taking charge of their own health care and pursuing ways to improve the life and health of their families. Sadly, something currently not offered by mainstream nutritional advice or medical practitioners. When things don't work, people don't stick with it, they move on to something new. The Weston A. Price Foundation may not have ALL the answers but once people "get" what it has to offer, they only build upon that knowledge....as opposed to failing and hopping along to another diet. I wish someone would fund a study and look at the now thousands of WAPF raised babies and compare them to mainstream raised babies.

I don't know the author of this article but based on the comments, he knows very little about the Weston A. Price Foundation and Sally Fallon.

Gerry Pugliese - August 10, 2008 11:45 AM

Hey Danna-

Wow, you buy the nonsense hook, line, and sinker. You believe all the grass-fed babble.

In a nutshell, the more animal products you eat, the sicker you'll get, the quicker you'll die.

Grass or no grass. You're silly. That comment made me laugh.


Scott - August 10, 2008 1:54 PM

Gerry -

How about countering Alistair's post? He present a real study. I know you aren't a scientist, but the entire point of this blog and your job here is to promoted Dr Fuhrman's agenda right? So how about answering science with science.

I know you don't have all day to chase down studies, but so far in this thread and many others on this blog it seems as though you call people "silly" and move on. How are you going to convince the public to eat for health when you offer no scientific basis for your positions? "May studies" and "scientist laugh at low carb" has a 0.0% value. List these studies, names these scientists.

I'm not trying to be rude Gerry, it's just that the WAPF/Atkins/Pro-fat people who post here and challenge you ALWAYS get the better of you and ultimately Dr. Fuhrman because of this blog's refusal to answer science with science.

Gerry Pugliese - August 10, 2008 2:14 PM

Hey Scott-

Quite frankly, you are wrong. Dr. Fuhrman or myself has never been bested on this blog. Please site an example where this has happened. Also, please note, that old posts, sometimes don't get responses because they are old posts and the topic has most likely already been addressed somewhere else. Anyone who READS blogs knows that. Clearly, you don't read ALL of the blog.

My strategy as the blogger is not to fight science with science. Its not my place. I don't have the background for that. Doing so would make me no better than the arm chair scientists that THINK they know what they are talking about when they comment here.

I have taken up the charge of speaking out. Fighting fire with fire if you will. Low-carb people try to bully. So I bully back--and they SO can't take it.

Please flip through DiseaseProof's diet myths category. You'll find a lot of info from Dr. Fuhrman debunking ALL the WAPF-type nonsense.

Add here is something to ponder. Would fighting science with science honestly do any good? Who's mind would it change? Its a shame, but its pointless.


Scott - August 10, 2008 2:59 PM


Understand this... Let's say someone happens upon this blog and this very topic and reads the comments. This person would see Alistair's post, which includes a scientific study showing the OPPOSITE of what your story says. Naturally, the reader would expect a rebuttal from you showing a study that backs up your claims, but none are presented.

You can't honestly expect a new reader to fish through this entire site looking for a rebuttal that you could have simply linked to. You would be fighting fire with fire if you presented facts instead of name calling and broad brushed assumptions.

And yes, you and Dr. Fuhrman most certainly have been bested, namely Dr. Fuhrman regarding coconut oil. He was flat wrong with his argument and the thread disappeared. Funny, that. You have been bested in this thread by not fighting back and resorting to "liars", "silly", and overall dismissive replies to those who formulated good points.

Again, I'm not trying to be rude. I feel that Dr. Fuhrman does indeed have the science and knowledge to knock down the pro-fat crowd, but for some reason they always come out making this blog look weak. (IE: Chris Masterjohn's work against this blog).

I'm on your/Dr.Fuhrman's/this blog's side on this issue. However, I think this blog can do much more swinging and less ducking.

Gerry Pugliese - August 10, 2008 3:07 PM

Hey Scott-

Your concern is valid and yeah, in a perfect world it would be great to rebut every whacky comment, but DiseaseProof has nearly 4,000 posts. So, you got to stop somewhere.

That's the reason I just let comments go after awhile. The only other option is turn comments off after awhile or not publish dissenting views after awhile, but then you get hammered for being bias.

Someday I will figure out a solution. :)


David Brown - August 10, 2008 5:03 PM


I think the solution lies in recognizing that, where food is concerned, there are three important considerations. First, nutrient intake must be adequate. Dr. Fuhrman and his opponents agree on this point.

Second, food choices must be appropriate. You don't want to feed a vegetarian metabolism too much animal protein and vice versa. And you don't want to feed a person with a naturally slow metabolism too much carbohydrate or too little fat.

Third, foods overly rich in certain fats and sugars such as omega-6 vegetable oils and fructose (sucrose is half fructose) should be either avoided or strictly limited. Again, Dr. Fuhrman and his opponents agree on this.

The major bone of contention, then, is saturated fat. Dr. Fuhrman insists that saturated fat contributes to clogged arteries. Well, that can be true under certain circumstances having to do with the protein and micro nutrient density of the food ingested, the genetically determined biochemical configuration of the individual, and the amount of "empty" (generally sugar) calories included in the diet. To illustrate my point, here is an excerpt from pages 81-82 of "Nutrition Against Disease" by Roger J. Williams PhD:

"No discussion of heart disease would be complete without mention of the question of saturated fats. It has come to be almost an orthodox position that if one wishes to protect oneself against heart disease, one should avoid eating saturated (animal) fats. While this idea may not be entirely in error, it is misleading in its emphasis. The evidence shows that high fat consumption, when accompanied by plenty of the essential nutrients which all the cells need, does not cause atherosclerosis or heart disease.

Rats have been used extensively to study the effects of diet on atherosclerosis. Under ordinary dietary conditions the inclusion of saturated fats in their diet will consistently promote the deposition of cholesterol in their arteries.(50) For 285 days rats were fed a diet containing 61.6 percent animal fat, but highly superior with respect to protein, mineral, and vitamin content, without producing any pathological changes in the aorta or in the heart.(51) The animals did, to be sure, become obese, as much as three to four times their normal weight. Animals fed vegetable fats at the same level fared essentially no better and no worse. These findings were based upon extensive long-term experiments at Yale, using a total of 600 rats, which were observed for as long as two years. There were no findings suggestive that either high animal fat diets or high vegetable fat diets were conducive under these conditions to atherosclerosis."


50. Thomas, W.A., and Hartroft, W.S. "Myocardial infarction in rats fed diets containing high fat, cholesterol, thiouracil, and sodium cholate." Circulation, 19:65, 1959; Taylor, C. B., et al. "Fatal myocardial infarction in rhesus monkeys with diet-induced hyper-cholesterolemia." Circulation, 20;975, 1959.

In the above experiments, the investigators found that prolonged feeding of butter or lard to rats resulted in hyperlipemia and finally coronary thrombosis and myocardial infarction with lesions similar to those found in human beings. The diets of these animals were regarded as otherwise "normal" in respect to their intake of supplementary vitamins, minerals, and amino acids. Other data, however (see reference note 52 below) demonstrate that when fat and cholesterol (or animal protein) are increased in the diet, certain nutrients (particularly pyridoxine) must be increased above "average" or "normal" requirements.

51. Barboriak, J.J., et al. "Influence of high-fat diets on growth and development of obesity in the albino rat." J. Nutr., 64: 241, 1958.

As far as lifespan is concerned, Gerry, you shouldn't be so quick to finger animal foods as a factor contributing to an early demise. In the July 3, 2008 issue of our local paper was an article entitled "At age 106, Bigfork angler enjoys day of lake fishing." The closing paragraphs:

As she fished from the dock slowly retrieving a lure and hoping for a strike, she passed along her secret for a long life.

"I eat bacon every morning," she said. "Crisp bacon."

Scott - August 10, 2008 7:55 PM

Nice post David.

The Okinawans are often used as examples of health and longevity, but the fact that animal fat (namely pork and fish) constitute a daily percentage of their diet is often left out. What Dr. Fuhrman has said is that a diet lacking fruit/veggies/beans/nuts and seeds is inferior, and that a diet simply without animal products AND inadequate intake of the above foods is not protective.

Alistair - August 11, 2008 5:56 AM

There is an early episode of the Simpsons where Homer joins the debating team at school. Anyone who watches the show would know that Homer is also unlikely to ever articulate a logical argument with sound references, but at least his rebuttle made me laugh.

Although there some amusing statements made here.
"My strategy as the blogger is not to fight science with science"

(Well, what do you fight science with then? Heresay?)
But then,in the very next paragraph,
"I have taken up the charge of speaking out. Fighting fire with fire if you will."

Would not fighting fire with fire = fighting science with science?

The post that started this Blog ends with;
"Shame on Weston Price, Sally Fallon, Atkins and others like them for polluting modern scientific research with their outdated unsupported nonsense, anyone who thinks giving their newborn a bottle of meat broth is a good idea, needs their head examined!"

Mayby it's just me, but I find it strange that someone could accuse others of "polluting modern scientific research" Yet claim that they won't fight science with science or that they are not a Research Warrior.
Personally I don't care if the person is a scientist or someone who left school at the age of 16. If they can be bothered to research and learn with an open mind, then I will listen to what they have to say. If it makes some sort of sense yet counters what I believe, I will investigate further. Sometimes this results in me changing my view. I too used to believe the low fat nonsense, but via the process decribed above, I now take the stand that I do.

A persons health is the single most important thing to them, and I find it scary that someone can refuse to debate science with science and continue down the path of personal insults and belittlement, while claiming to "take a stand" regarding this subject.

In the world of science, A theory must be able to stand up to vigorous scrutiny. If one properly designed study contaradicts the theory, then that theory must be revised or tossed out all together.

"Science is nothing more than a method of inquiry. The method says an assertion is valid and merits universal acceptance only if it can be independently verified. The impersonal rigor of the method means it is utterly apolitical. A truth in science is verifiable whether you are black or white, male or female, old or young. It's verifiable whether you like the results of a study, or you don't."
Michael Chrichton - (American author, film producer and director, medical doctor; 1942 - )

While there are some studies that show an association between sat fat intake and health problems (Ditto for cholesterol), there are also many that don't (again Ditto for Cholsetol).

If you want to make an informed decision, then your first point of call should be a dictionary. Look up 'association', then look up 'cause'. You will see they are not the same thing.

What drew me to this blog was the vile, unsubstanciated attack on Sally Fallon and The Weston A Price Foundation. Its realy no surprise to see insults and vaugue unspecific statements being used in an attempt to counter those that try to defend Sally and the Foundation, rather than logic or science. Yet at the very top of the page is the quote;
"The beginning of a genuine scientifically based health revolution"

I provide a scientifically sound study that goes against what is being preached here, yet when asked to counter all we get is
"in a perfect world it would be great to rebut every whacky comment".

Well,I have even more such wacky comments on my site;

If you find that I'm wrong anywhere specifically, then feel free to point out where and why.

The sad part about all this is it seems that we are all of the belief that a wholesome nutrient dense diet is the foundation of good health. It's just that there are a couple of points about what this constitutes that differ. The old bugbear of tribilism raises it's ugly head and while such mindless attacks continue those that profit from the sickness spreading through out society sit back and continue to watch the dollars roll in at the expense of peoples health.

Pam - August 11, 2008 3:14 PM

Was born and raised a "healthy" vegetarian...plenty of fruits, vegetables, soy, whole grains, no junk food, never stepped foot in McDonalds, but by my late 20's my health was a complete shambles. Thankfully I decided to start ignoring you lot and read Weston Price. I added fat, lots of fat, tons of saturated fat, eggs, organ meats, bone broth. Guess what? Health and vitality returned, blood tests for HDL/LDL and triglycerides fantastic, blood pressure back to normal, blood sugar back under control, painful menstrual cramps suffered my whole bleeding life GONE, fantastic body that causes auto wrecks back, cellulite gone, energy to ride my bike 20 miles/day to work. The proof is in the pudding folks. I feel sorry for you lot. I wouldn't trade how I look/feel now for that stupid, vegan, low-fat bull of my past for anything.

P.S. Gary Taubes wipes the floor with you on the science.

Blair McMorran - August 11, 2008 11:12 PM

Same here Pam. My sons were diagnosed with asthma - disappeared on WAPF diet. I lost 35 pounds (over 3 years) on WAPF diet. My husband had gout and beginning signs of arthritis - disappeared on WAPF diet. Works for me...

Don't want to argue about one size fits all, everyone has to find their own path, but I'm so much happier and healthier eating whole unprocessed foods!

I want to point out that our meat is grassfed - huge difference between your factory feedlot kind of beef and my kind of (e.coli - free), grass and sunshine fed beef. My eggs are from pastured poultry. My milk is from a small grain-free, grassfed dairy It is all local - and sustainable. These farms feed their animals biologically appropriate food, humane living conditions, and passionate dedication to their customers. Do yours?


alistair - August 12, 2008 8:44 AM

I actualy started to reply to you post saying that I did read the post and the other posts cited, that is why I used the term unsubstanciated. But upon re-reading your posts in this thread it's apparent that I must admit defeat to an obviously superior intelect.

There is no way I could hope to compete with the rational,logical and knowledgable arguments being put forward in such a civil manner here. I must slink off with my tail between my legs and inform others of my tribe that even our combined knowledge will never be any match for what we are up against on this blog.

I thank you for your enlightenment and patience in dealing with those of us who, despite actualy doing our own research in an attempt to develop an informed opinion, obviously have no idea what we are talking about.

You have also made me aware that my High School motto, Strive For The Light Of Knowledge, is truly a pointless ideal. For this I will be eternally grateful.

Joe - August 12, 2008 10:57 AM

I just wanted to chime in here.

Thanks Gerry for helping to take some of the air out of the WAPF's tires. The fact that so few came out to fight this battle, leads me to believe that there aren't many left of them. And the vigor with which they fight leads me to believe that those that are left are feeling very threatened.

BTW Pam, you might want to read up on where your posting. Dr Fuhrman does not advocate low-fat veganism. I've also never met a single person who claimed that meat made their health problems better, that were eating healthy diets as vegans/vegetarians. You may be the one exception, but I doubt it.

Darleen - August 15, 2008 12:10 PM

Ah, Gerry gets all his scientific know=how from the news. That explains it.

"journalists" who report gossip as if it were gospel. Now there's a source of information I truly trust. LOL.

Joe - August 16, 2008 1:32 AM

I could say the same about your people, Darleen...

(most recent Atkins study for example)

Matt Stone - December 26, 2008 2:48 AM


Excellent article. It's just a shame when people like Sally Fallon come up with some tangent and then try to cash in big on donations. Man, those non-profit organizations! They must be stopped! I mean, read the news! Saturated fat raises the almighty bajeezus out of HDL cholesterol! I totally trust the news. There are no ties to any kind of financial interests there, or advertisers that have a claim in the fat-kills hypothesis or selling food with cheap commodities that conveniently happen to be low in saturated fat. Our media is far superior to Atkins, who ate a diet exactly like Fallon recommends - snack bars with soy protein isolate and splenda - something Fallon strongly advocates in Nourishing Traditions II: How Our Ancestors isolated soy protein with Hexane and then Stone-Pressed the Splenda from Sugarcane.

I have successfully proven Fallon completely wrong by the way, by having great success eating an all-plant diet for 30 days, inspired by Michael Pollan, at my blog. I lost weight effortlessly, overcame toothache, watched my skin and digestion miraculously clear, noticed the disappearance of aches and pains and more!

Now if we could just override our young children's pesky instincts to vomit upon looking at anything green we can save the world! Fuhrman rulz!

Scott - October 3, 2009 4:50 PM

Everyone, just let your body direct you to healthy life, based on what it indicates to you by it's response to what you consume and do. I've been involved in the health, vegetarian, vegan, raw, fruitarianism, cleansing, maintenance aspects of diet and living, and after much experience with all that I clearly found that the basic balanced diet, with animal products and flesh being a very important and essential part of the diet, is clearly what works best for me in maintenance and healing of body and mind. I'm a worker and a learner. I have a physically active life working and playing outdoors, and also time for rest and restful play, of course. My career is in horticulture and landscape. My business is Plants Comprehensive. I understand the ideals of veganism, vegetarianism, fruitarianism, and so forth. From my experience what I've seen I've other people, if you want to be healthy, it's a matter of being 'in tune' with your body in what you consume and how you live your life. Animal products and plant products have both been prominent standards and requirements in human history in having us be our best in health and mind. Plant only diets may be 'good' for a while or longer, but human history does not show that. But we may all have different phases in our life. It's evident to me that the people on the plant-only diets are the ones in an 'odd' phase.

barb - October 29, 2009 8:08 PM

I'm an R.N.,I've seen enough sick vegetarians[sexual dysfunction,reproduction problems,anemia,etc...]I'm glad that there's an alternative.One of the nurses that I work with is a strict no animal fats,raw vegetable eater.The only meat her three children have ever eaten is turkey[usually dressed up like something else].These children are sickly looking,have all kinds of allergies,and two have adhd.My daughters children[four of them]are very robust.They get physical fitness awards,are in the gifted programs at school and not one needs braces or has ever had a cavity.She feeds them lots of meat,butter and eggs.So would you say the sky is really yellow because a scientist told you so even if what you see before you tells you otherwise?Also,people may listen more if you stopped the name calling and actually responded

beck - November 20, 2009 10:56 PM

Dr. Price taught that the state of the teeth/mouth equals the nutrition of the body. When traditional peoples began eating modern food, their teeth decayed and some even committed suicide because of the pain (this was after modern food and before dentists came to their area of the world). When the people ate their native diets (all of which included some kind of animal proteins and fats) there were very little cavities in their teeth. In one African village of 700 people, he found zero cavities. That village had a diet of milk, meat and blood (animal products).

Every diet contained animal products because those foods (when raised properly, i.e. grass-fed in the summer--there is a reason for the chambers in cows stomach) have essential nutrients to human bodies: Vitamin A, Vitamin D, Cholesterol, Vitamin B12 and other fatty acids.
-Vitamin A needed for: protein and calcium assimilation, thyroid function, immune system function, production of stress and sex hormones, and eyes, skin and bones, etc. Supports the epithelial defense against pathogens, enhances T-cell proliferation, regulates activation, proliferation and survival of B cells (a type of while blood cell called lymphocytes, secretes antibodies) and increases production of zinc-dependent metalloproteineses. Protects against liver dysfunction and kills tuberculosis, HIV and candida.
-Vitamin D needed for: healthy bones, proper growth, metabolism, muscle tone, reproduction, healthy skin, insulin production, feel-good chemicals, etc. Protects against heart disease and muscular weakness.
-Cholesterol is necessary for hormone production (males and females), ovulation (females, obviously), making Vitamin D, and absorbing salt (necessary for brain development, adrenal function, and carbohydrate and protein digestion) to name a few. For women to be fertile, it is necessary to eat a full fat diet, in traditional cultures there were certain foods designated for women to eat when they were pregnant so the baby would have the best possible health.
WITHOUT cholesterol, children are more likely to be autistic; cancer, chronic fatigue, anxiety and suicide are more likely to occur in adults with low cholesterol. LDL cholesterol (think "bad" cholesterol) helps protect against infection and tuberculosis (of course most things are not so good in excess). Human's brains need cholesterol to function. In fact, ALL psychiatric diseases are linked to low cholesterol. Cholesterol is also effective in assisting drug users to quit drugs and not relapse, compared to their low-cholesterol counterparts, because cholesterol activates the feel-good chemicals in our brains.

If you are opposed to eating animal products and still want to have all those positive benefits, take cod liver oil which contains Vitamin A and Vitamin D and has an added bonus of helping reduce your chance of the common cold by 1/2 and can reverse tooth decay.


Jason - November 22, 2009 3:04 PM

I stumbled upun a Weston Price style diet through other means to deal with a specific health issue. And by the way, they do not advocate minimising fruit and vegetable intake, just grains, and that they be processed in a specific way (so please read more about what you are critising before you put your fingers on the keyboard).

I felt better than I ever thought possible and have maintained a healthy weight for 5 years now without effort. My body just works right now.

I started to research why I felt so good and came across Price and crew and there was the answer. Cholestorol, blood sugar, blood preasure etc are all quite perfect thanks.

john - December 2, 2009 3:17 PM

Dr. Fuhrman,

I read your book along with the China Study. Interesting reads and well researched. I've also read Weston A. Price's book along with Good Calories Bad Calories by Gary Taubes.

It seems to me, we have two sources of information when choosing which diet is best for our family; one being clinical studies via good science. The other source, I argue, is information gleaned from our past.

Nutrition and Physical Degeneration gave me information regarding what appeared to be working for differing peoples throughout the world earlier in this century. It appears nutritional content of food is of vital importance as you promote. How that nutrition was obtained by those differing peoples varied greatly (Eskimos and Samburu on one end of the spectrum as nearly pure animal eaters and the !Kung and certain Australian aborigines on the other eating mostly plant foods). They were all healthy.

In Gary Taubes' book, he makes the very persuasive case for eating fewer carbohydrates to decrease insulin production.

For me, I changed my readings (below) by eating much fewer carbohydrates and the more nutritious food advocated by Weston A. Price himself.

Tri 338
Tot Chol 248
HDL 38
Glucose 144

Tri 118
Tot Chol 224
HDL 58
Glucose 80
(LDL went up slightly but I'm quite sure my ratio of large puffy to small dense became more favorable considering recent studies).

Which leads me to mention, what about the recent positive studies for both saturated fat as well as low carbohydrate diets?

Loree - December 5, 2009 3:06 PM

I have a strong and beautiful and very happy toddler - which I credit 100% to following the Weston A Price nutritional guidelines. I do not credit this to "good genes." Especially when I compare our child to others: she never gets a snotty or runny nose, has nice teeth, facial features, clear glowing complexion and bright eyes that always gets comments and she is very content and happy - so many children today are so unhappy and cry all the time - our hardly ever does. People are always amazed at how well behaved she is when we take her out and always say that she is the happiest baby they have ever seen - these comments increase whenever when we go home to visit the United States (we live in Europe)!

These comments always amaze me and I want to tell the world it is b/c she gets cod liver oil ever day and she drinks raw grass fed milk, and has grass fed butter liberally with all her veggies and bone broths, etc. She also has advanced fine motor skills. She is a living testimony to WAPF and their research. Since we live in Europe/Luxembourg I can also compare how differently people eat here (although this is starting to change to include more processed foods) - but in general it is still much more in line with traditional diets that the WAPF teaches and their children's health reflects it. Pediatricians here still recommend meat as a first baby food! Our baby was started on egg yolks w/ sea salt and bone broth cod liver oil after she turned 6-7 months. I also feed her cultured vegetables and sourdough breads (after she turned one year).

At the nurseries here they feed their children always soups and meat at lunch - bone broth based soups and duck and always with lots of saturated fats: pork fats, butter, etc is common for lunch. We should take heed in the US as our lunches are too light and many children have blood sugar problems leading to weight issues.

Esme - December 13, 2009 2:43 PM

My great-grandmother ate pig lard and corn everyday for at least 70 years while living on a farm and died at the age of 94. Similarly I was talking to my friend who told me her grandmother fried up thick bacon and ate that for breakfast nearly every morning and died at the age of 97. She also grew up on a farm so the bacon was fresh from off the animals they raised without going through a chemical process before reaching the plate. Perhaps it was their attitude more than the food... who knows... ? I'm 36yrs old and had one cavity back when I was 18 when I was a year into being a vegetarian. Actually, I was a vegetarian for 3 years in my late teens and ended up with such bad stomach problems that I ended up in the emergency room and had several tests done to check out my GI tract. I started researching nutrition as a result which lead me to read Jordan Rubin's book and quit my no-fat diet and stopped drinking caffeine and got off of antacids. He bases his diet on the Weston Price Foundation, so I read up on WAPF too. Weston Price diet gave me my life back and I've never had a cavity or a stomachache since.

x33 - December 15, 2009 1:12 PM

My diet has been 100% plant-based for several years. I think meat consumption increases the risk of colon cancer. I eat mostly seeds and grains. I never did like meat, eggs, or milk. How can anyone trust the Weston A. Price Foundation, when they claim soy is toxic, yet have no scientific proof.

Monica - December 21, 2009 1:12 PM

Hehe, it is funny the way people go on attacking one another's character without any substantial evidence to support their own theories. And that is precisely what it is, a theory, on both sides. You have to think about who funds the research to prove or disprove said theories and who benefits greatly from the postulates thus concluded.
Follow the money is my word of caution when looking at "empirical studies" because it takes fiscal investment to carry on any such experiments and typically the findings are manipulated in order to propagate one's own bias.

That being said, the only way to find out what in fact works, is to try it yourself. I have actively pursued a diet that was based on principles as suggested by the WAPF and found my results personally to be unparalleled. I've even documented my own findings and results and I've gone off the diet and incorporated other principles in addition to having been raised according to SAD principles, vegan, vegetarian, macrobiotics and a slew of other "cure all's.

The time period in which I was in the best shape of my life was while utilizing traditional nutritional guidelines. Not to say it works for everyone.

Also, just a note, the author of this article obviously has little understanding of this diet being he seems to think it advocates abstaining from vegetables and fruits, it encourages incorporating these into one's diet and I don't see what is so "crazy" to suggest you eat bone broth.

Lizzy - December 21, 2009 2:55 PM

First I have to take exception to the statement that Weston Price advocates limiting fruits and veggies - as the site and the cookbook clearly shows this is NOT the case. And as to making fun of grassfed beef like it's all the same - that's pure garbage - cows were meant to graze on grass and NOT be fed hormones and antibiotics - there are vast differences between natural grass-fed beef and the commercial trash that I refuse to eat anymore - fed things like chicken manure, trash and an overall unnatural diet. For you to totally dismiss the ideas when there are so many that show they have benefitted is closed minded and ridiculous. I don't see any evidence the average American is getting healthier from the processed junk they are eating that are advertised as healthy and are supplemented with statins and other dangerous drugs. Holes are being blown into the whole cholesterol is bad theory, saturated fat (from animals grown the way nature intended) is bad and all the other nonsense that has forced us into the most obese and unhealthy group in history! The same people that are eating the modern american diet and are eating saturated fats that have turned rancid, fats from factory raised animals and pesticide filled food are also eating transfats, high fructose corn syrup and white bread. I see them in the stores all the time - the entire family - a cart willed with horrible junky processed food and the lack of health in the family, including the children, is plain to see! Start looking at the overall picture and you will see the vast difference.

Chris K - January 16, 2010 10:28 AM

I know you're not a "science guy", Gerry, but maybe you could have Dr. Fuhrman explain the significance of this recent meta-analysis published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition to you. It pooled data from 21 studies covering more than 350,000 people over 14 years. Here's the conclusion:

"...there is no significant evidence for concluding that dietary saturated fat is associated with an increased risk of CHD or CVD."

But wait! Doesn't "everyone" believe that saturated fat causes heart disease? Sure they do. Does that mean it's true? Sure it doesn't. "Everyone" used to believe the world was flat, and "everyone" used to believe that ulcers were caused only by stress. But time passes and scientific knowledge evolves, and we learn from our mistakes. Some of us do, anyhow.

As Anatole France once said, "Even if 50 million people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing."

The problem with the early studies that "proved" that saturated fat was associated with heart disease is that they did not distinguish between saturated fat and total fat. In most of these studies the participants were eating both saturated fat and polyunsaturated fats like corn oil, soybean oil, etc. And guess what? In studies that separated out consumption of saturated fat and consumption of other fats, those who ate saturated fat were no more likely to have heart attacks or stroke than those who didn't.

Again, from the study I quoted above:

"More data are needed to elucidate whether CVD risks are likely to be influenced by the specific nutrients used to replace saturated fat."

What the authors are saying here is that they suspect that the vegetable oils used to replace saturated fat in these studies (i.e. corn oil) may actually be associated with the disease they were designed to prevent.

Alas, I'm not expecting this to convince anyone except those with an open mind who are willing to question "common wisdom". Thankfully there are some people in the world willing to do this. Otherwise, we'd still be running around thinking the world was flat, and we'd have no idea that a bacterium called h. pylori can contribute to ulcers.

Most people can't be bothered with "science". After all, you can't fight faith with facts.

For anyone interested, here's the link to the saturated fat study in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition:


John Mayer - January 17, 2010 1:03 AM

”For 285 days rats were fed a diet containing 61.6 percent animal fat, but highly superior with respect to protein, mineral, and vitamin content, without producing any pathological changes in the aorta or in the heart.”

Might could be. But rats are natural born omnivores; they can handle some fat. We are, by nature, herbivores (yes, it’s been proven, but why introduce a new detail when the WAPF’ed out posters here are so confused already?). Our systems are very unlike those of rats. One example of how problematic animal research is.

John Mayer - January 17, 2010 1:16 AM

I was going to respond to some more of the WAPF nonsense here, but what’s the point. As Galileo said, “...very great is the number of the stupid.” These arguments sound very like, for those than can remember, the arguments of smokers insisting there was no evidence that tobacco was bad for you. “Aunt Martha smoked every morning till she died, and that was at age 92.” Smokers were so galvanized by cognitive dissonance that the tobacco companies hardly needed PR men. They would just stir the pot every once in a while. People love to be reassured that what they are doing is what they SHOULD be doing, so you got your work cut out for you, Gerald, something akin to sweeping up the sand on the beach.

If it weren’t for the harm done by factory farms and deforestation and habitat loss due to tropical oil plantations I’d be the first to urge all fat-lovers to eat a big bowl of lard right now, and bon appetit! Ultimately, that would, I believe, be beneficial in raising the IQ of our species.

But the consequences to the planet (to say nothing of the tortured animals) is just too great. However, I have heard that heroin has gotten a bad rap, that it’s not really addictive and that it can actually help make you a better adjusted person. Just thought I’d pass that on. Somebody might want to start a foundation.

Jen - February 2, 2010 9:35 PM

John, I don't think anyone is advocating eating animals raised in Factory Farms.
And can you show the evidence that humans are herbivores? I know gorillas are herbivores, but I thought humans, from the time of the Neanderthals until present, have had a diet of both plants and animals.

Heather - February 5, 2010 1:14 PM

John Mayor,

I'm not sure if you noticed but humans have these teeth on the top, three from the middle called canines which are very effective at tearing meat. These are lacking in animals that are true herbivores. Another interesting thing about our anatomy is the placement of our eyes. They are both forward facing which gives us a hunters ability to focus on prey. The last clue our bodies give us of our historical dietary preferences, is the fact of our bi-pedalism making us excellent and patient walkers. That was in fact our paleolithic hunting advantage. We'd fan out and walk a herd to near exhaustion, where we could then easily slay a mature adult. Interestingly, our ancestors placed taboos on killing young and lean prey. The elder and fattier of the herd was preferred. Perhaps this was from a knowledge that if you kill animals which have yet to reproduce, you'll kill your food future, or maybe they valued the (saturated) back fat. For whatever reason, not only did our ancestors eat meat when they could...they ate fatty meat.

I am not a scientist but I'm never without a book. I read everything and make a particular effort to read whatever challenges my assumptions. I have studied statistics in college and am aware of a few things which often happen in our "superior" empirical controlled studies. One is that too often the findings reflect either what they were commissioned to find, or what will give that scientist a name in the field. By massaging the numbers in a variety of ways and inconclusive finding can be made to appear conclusive, at least to those who are unaware of margins of error, z-scores, variables....and how difficult it actually is to isolate a variable from the world it comes from.

After really learning what statistics were all about I decided that too often they are just a fancy way to lie. Because of that....Weston A. Price's less scientific method of going out and observing people in their own environment, observing their health, happiness, and diet, lends more credibility to his ideas.

But the greatest evidence of all is my personal health and how that has been affected by the things I eat. I was raised an omnivore but my mom believed as most people did and still do that vegetable oil products were superior to animal fat. We had margarine instead of butter, miracle whip instead of mayo, and canola fro frying, instead of lard or bacon grease.

When I was 9 I was struck with vitiligo. I looked at my right leg and half my pigment was simply gone. Soon after, I woke in the morning and could barely walk. My ankle was swollen an in serious pain. This was later diagnosed as juvenile rheumatoid arthritis. Years later a lesion formed on my leg. Now Psoriasis had struck and would leave me an itchy flaky painful mess. This whole time I rarely passed a BM that wasn't diarrhea.

Doctors were useless. They gave me dangerous steriods, or would just say that nobody knows why some people get riddled with auto immune diseases and some don't. That wasn't good enough for me. So I experimented with my diet. I went to a mostly organic vegetable diet and used earth balance butter. No improvement. I heard that some people have dairy allergies so I removed that from my diet. No improvement. Then I found WAPF and changed three things, adding cod liver oil, raw milk, and grass fed beef to my diet, also keeping organic vegetables in the mix.

This changed everything. The Psoriasis is barely noticeable.
and I excrete like a normal person.

I am a very skeptical person until I see things with my eyes and I have. But I still like to challenge my own assumptions. I came to this site with an open mind. Even though I'm healed, perhaps there's another factor I've overlooked which actually made the difference, but this site and the childishness of Gerry's supposed rebuttals "you're silly", has actually galvanized me somewhat as a WAPF supporter. The articles on WAPF are well written and well reasoned and rather than calling people like Gerry names, they respond to the purported scientific data. They DO fight science with science. Yours Gerry, comes across as a circular argument.

Gail - February 5, 2010 6:10 PM

My grandfather lived to be 100 disease free. He was born in 1886 and ate exactly the way shown by the Weston Price group. No heart disease, no cancer, no diabetes, no nothing. I, myself, have been eating a high animal fat diet for the past 30 years. I never had cancer, diabetes or heart disease. I'm a wrinkle free 52 year old who passes off as 28. I've never been operated on and I'm completely intact. I've been eating like Weston Price long before I ever heard of him. I figured that if my grandfather and his cronies - one who lived to be 112 - could live to be 100+ on high fat diets and be very physically active (my grandfather planted and harvested 5 acres of corn by himself, no help, until he was 92) then I could live on a high fat diet too. And it's working beautifully!

Valerie Blank-Jaquith - February 7, 2010 10:23 AM

Article by Ann Gibbons, Science 1998; 280: 1345-1347:
To understand brain evolution, anthropologists and neuroscientists are analyzing the energetic constraints on brain size--and how humans may have evolved a way around them.


"Researchers have long known that an animal's body size is a critical influence on brain size, as shown at the turn of the century by renowned Dutch paleontologist Eugene Dubois. Brains consume large quantities of energy in making neurotransmitters and firing axons, and bigger bodies have bigger hearts and lungs to supply more energy and oxygen to the brain. That's why elephants and baleen whales can have brains four to six times larger than those of humans. But humans are different. Our brains have tripled in size since Lucy and her fellow australopithecines, with brains roughly the size of a chimpanzee, began to walk upright on the African savanna 3 million years ago. But our bodies aren't even twice as big. "Humans, in fact, have the largest brain size relative to body size among placental mammals," says University of Zurich primatologist Robert D. Martin.

Nor do humans conform to another pattern that Martin noticed in the early 1980s when he was pondering the question of human brain size. Research on basal metabolic rates, or how much energy an animal consumes while resting, showed that in mammals, the size of the newborn's brain tends to correlate with the mother's metabolic rate. Martin and others reasoned that supporting a bigger brain requires a higher energy consumption. Yet humans' basal metabolic rate is no higher than that of large sheep, which have brains five times smaller. Humans are apparently getting enough energy to feed their brains without increasing their overall energy intake, so it must be coming from some other source.

That source is the gut, according to the expensive tissue hypothesis, first proposed in 1995 by Aiello and physiologist Peter Wheeler of Liverpool John Moores University and revised last month by Aiello at the AAPA. The pair reviewed studies of humans and found that most of the basal metabolic rate--more than 70%--goes to fuel the brain, heart, kidney, liver, and G.I. tract. To find out if the demands of any of these organs were reduced to fuel the human brain, they compared the mass of each organ in adult humans with that expected for a primate of similar body size. Only the G.I. tract was smaller than expected--and it was about 60% of the size expected for a similar-sized primate. "The increase in mass and energy consumption of the human brain appears to be balanced by an almost identical reduction in the size of the gastrointestinal tract," concludes Aiello...

...Aiello speculates that we could reduce our gut size to free up energy for a larger brain because of a dietary change that was taking place as brain size expanded. Our ancestors were shifting from a heavily vegetarian diet, which requires a massive gut to digest plants and nuts, to a more easily digestible, nutritious diet that included meat and requires less gut tissue.

Other researchers are now testing Aiello's idea.
But Martin thinks another source of energy may be more important in building and fueling big brains: energy donated by the mother. He thinks the obvious place to look for extra energy in humans is during the "crunch time" for brain development--from gestation until age 4, when the brain reaches 85% of its full adult size. That trail led straight to the mother, who "provides most of the energy in gestation, then in lactation, which is 3 to 4 years in hunter-gatherers," says Martin.

Indeed, work by other researchers makes it clear that during gestation at least, the human system has evolved to allow maximum energy transfer between mother and offspring. The human placenta is particularly greedy, sucking nutrients from the mother's bloodstream more aggressively than in other primates, according to recent work by Harvard University evolutionary biologist David Haig. He notes that in humans the placenta invades the uterine lining more deeply than in other primates. This energy drain continues in lactation. Human gestation is over well before brain growth is complete, in contrast to other animals. Lactation takes up the slack, says Martin. In effect, human gestation continues in the first year of life. "We achieve our big brains in continuing our fetal pattern of growth in the first year of life, and human milk must be pumping in energy," says Martin. Thus humans can afford such big brains because their mothers make such an enormous investment in them, nursing them until brain growth is almost complete.

The only way human mothers can donate so much energy to brain growth in their infants is by taking in extra energy themselves. Paleoanthropologist Alan Walker of Pennsylvania State University, University Park, has an as-yet-unpublished proposal about how human ancestors met this need. Like Aiello, he thinks the switch to a diet high in protein and fat 2 million years ago, with the advent of hunting, was crucial. In his scenario, however, the new diet's role in brain evolution allowed a fetus to pull this much energy from the mother without killing her. "

This should answers some questions.

Bethany - February 18, 2010 12:53 AM

I am experimenting with the Weston Price diet, because it is so close to what my grandfather used to eat like. He lived to be 90. I just want to chime in with the rest of these comments, and say that your post is very weak. If I already wasn't going to try this diet, your lack of a decent defense against all the comments would have certainly swayed me in the direction of trying it. You should answer some of these intelligent, well thought out replies. They make you look stupid.

Christina - February 21, 2010 8:55 AM

I have to agree with Esme and Loree, the proof is in the pudding. Your article attacks using quips as your best proof. On a low fat diet I did detox and loose weight but then after about 6 months I was not replenishing. I had low energy, emotional instability and infertility. On the Weston A Price diet I have energy, good physical and emotional health, great skin, I'm accused of looking as much as 10 years younger and gorgeous kids who've never had an ear infection and or cavity and are natural well behaved.
Eat your low fat diet, but those of us who have witnessed the good effect of Weston A Price can't go back to the modern 'science'.

Peasant - February 24, 2010 2:23 AM

Um...I have the cookbook, have read Pottenger and Price, and am confident in saying that this diet does NOT revolve around saturated fat and limiting fruits and vegetables.

What Price found (and was dissapointed because he WANTED to find healthy vegans) was that the people groups who included "organic" and "free range" animals in their diet had fewer dental carries and were healthier, overall, than those who's diet was mainly carbohydrates. (You might be surprised to know that a diet based upon Price's findings also supports the bulk of the diet be carbs from high quality sources.) The diet does no advocate eating an abundance of fat, but a balance of the three fats: saturated, monounsaturated and polyunsaturated, from plant and animal sources. Have you read the cookbook? It doesn't sound like it. Have you read their books?

Lumping Price, Pottenger, Fallon, and Enig with Atkins in the same dough is irresponsible and uninformed. I seriously doubt you have done your research.

Nate - March 4, 2010 1:11 AM


Atkins didn't die of a heart attack. He died a week after sustaining severe head trauma after slipping on icy pavement. If you can get a fact so horribly wrong, it does not bode well for your analysis of arguments.

Jennifer - March 7, 2010 2:24 PM

The information provided by the advocates of Weston Price Foundation have saved my life! And yes, I do eat plenty of fruits and vegetables along with good animal based products. No more asthma after over 50 years. Blood pressure normalized. Cholesterol dropped 80 points! No more joint pain. Improved memory. Improved digestion. Improved assimilation. Improving thyroid, adrenal, kidney, and liver function. I have the comparative lab results and tests that prove it. My mother, a vegetarian, lies turning vegetative in a nursing home at 77 years of age. Dementia and heart disease. My father who ices pancakes with butter is vital at 87. Healthy heart, low blood pressure. One size does not fit all. Allopathic practitioners like yourself do a tremendous disservice to patients by refusing to recognize the limits of their science. And ignoring the practices that have provide health to generations before us. My agrarian ancestors lived well into their 80's 400 years ago! Yes, I have family records. Before your current science. I have over 50 years experience with your profession making me sick, while two years of traditional foods have set me on the path back to vitality and wellness. Thanks, but no thank you! You may be helping some, while slowly and insidiously destroying the lives of many others. I am not a minority! Wake up!

Amanda - March 9, 2010 12:38 PM

I have appreciated reading through all of these comments- especially because most of you are seeking the truth behind all of the nutritional information out there~~ and that in itself is something to be praised.

First I would like to say that, as a supporter of whole foods, plant-based diets I am dismayed by Gerry's approach in this forum. Gerry~~If I were Dr. Fuhrman I would not want someone so critical, who does not respect the participants of this blog or their comments, to be representing my ideas. I have not seen any actual knowledgeable, helpful contribution by you!

That being said, for all of you WAPF people, I am curious as to the availability of any information of your diet for actually promoting the reversal of heart disease. The use of a low-fat, vegan, whole foods diet has been used by Dr. Caldwell Esselstyn to reverse many cases of advanced heart disease.

ann - March 18, 2010 1:29 PM

I grew up on a farm in Eastern Europe, eating everything that Dr. Fuhrman is against meaning meat,meat organs,fried animal brains,liver,lard almost every day,milk and cheese(raw) plus tons of vegetables,fruits,seeds everything being organic,grass fed.I was really skinny and very healthy until I came to US and started eating the American way(cereal,more carbs than meat,margarine,soy etc)like everybody else and everything went down the hill.In 2006, after being diagnosed with hypothyroidism,depression and gaining a few good pounds I decided to start eating only organic and grass fed products.In 2008 I got pregnant and thank to Weston Price I had a beautiful, happy pregnancy and a gorgeous 8.11 lb baby.Til this day I'm having meat everyday(grass fed),pasture eggs ,raw milk and cheese,soups that I cook(we don't eat out),lots of veggies and fruits(less pasta,no bread) and I'm a happily still breastfeeding my 11 month old baby.Since 2006 I haven't had not even a cold plus have lots of energy.Sally Fallon's book is a copy of my grandparents and great grandparents diet and none of them was overweight or die from heart attack,cancer,nor had health issues like 80 year old American popping pill people have.No other country in the world have so many children with allergies,autism,add and adhd (etc) like US.Kids don't know what real food is,they just just know peanut butter and jelly,toast,english muffin,mac and cheese(from the box),soup from the can,hot dogs(with not even real meat),french fries,skim milk,fat free yogurt with lots of sugar and stuff that you can't even pronounce and the list goes on with tons and tons of plain bad carbs.No wonder these kids are always sick.So don't tell me that Weston Price's traditions are stupid,because they are not.Look around you at how many people are sick,overweight or just look weird.

Megan - March 26, 2010 3:27 PM


I just found this blog, and I have to say that it has completely weakened my opinion of Dr Fuhrman and the diet he advocates.

The snide comments and refusal to address valid questions, making claims that such and such has been proven, but not backing those claims up makes for a very poor impression.

I have not made up my mind about saturated fat, and I am still reading up on whether it makes a difference how animals are raised with regard to the nutritional status of their meat, milk and eggs. And of course the impact on the environment.

I am going to poke around a bit on this blog and see if the claims actually hold water, or are just dogma.

Jonas - April 4, 2010 5:35 AM

If I'd found this site a few years ago instead of the WAPF site when I was dying, and followed the ill advice on here, I have no doubt that I would be dead long before now. A WAPF diet literally saved my life, and also of others I know.

The tragic and ironic part regarding your main argument of this article is that modern science is "proving" exactly what Price discovered all those decades ago, and what healthy cultures have been doing for many, many years... as if thousands or millions of years evolving along with the type of diet the WAPF advocate isn't enough "evidence".

Gerald "Gerry" Pugliese, have you heard of NPD - Narcissistic Personality Disorder? Maybe go get some help for your affliction (don't be too hard on yourself - it most likely goes back to an unhappy childhood that wasn't your fault, in which you weren't given enough genuine affection, credit, understanding or acceptance), and stop spreading your damaging nonsense via your abusive attitude.

Jonas - April 4, 2010 5:44 AM


Take a look a the book, "The Vegetarian Myth", by Lierre Keith. You may find it helpful!

VIcki - April 5, 2010 11:34 PM

One thing that is mentioned about the vegetarian diet in the book Nourishing traditions is that it can lead to more anger and depression. Vitamins D and A are both fat soluble and the quality of absorption for these vitamins is higher when eating fat, even saturated fat.

Thousands of years of traditions outweigh scientific experiments which are almost always performed in artificial conditions. Scientists have failed to do well when it comes to understanding nutrition because they try to isolate factors. The need to look at the whole picture. I think Weston Price did this much more than others.

KC - April 7, 2010 2:51 PM

Why does anyone waste their time reading this man's blog? I stumbled upon it by accident and have found his immaturity and hostility to overshadow anything of substance. I'll look for information elsewhere.

JZ - April 17, 2010 2:55 PM

I agree KC! Why would someone, who supposedly is so sure of himself, get so upset about an opposing point of view? I think it's called "immaturity". Hopefully, someday, Dr.Fuhrman will become more open-minded.

Patricia G - April 18, 2010 2:27 PM

For years, I have been reading books on nutrition,spending money, lots of it in health food stores, never had a weight problem and thought I was doing all the things pertaining to my body, right. Well, when I was rushed to surgery in 06 with an aortic dissection, I couldn't believe it. I came through it alive, but did pick up an infection in the hospital that I am still fighting, they gave me awful medications that were not only bad for me, but did nothing. The food in the hospital was garbage with a capitol G. So now I am looking into the Weston Price way, I know in the days when my ancestors lived on the farms, they never had the illnesses we have today, and drugs, forget about, the FDA and AMA are the biggest pushers around, can't even get through my favorite soaps without one of them coming on and the side effects are worse than the disease. I'm sorry, but I am ready to go for the truth, and I think here in America people have been duped for years and can't accept it. So you know they say, "Don't knock it until you have tried it"

Louise - April 21, 2010 5:32 PM

Maybe the Weston Price approach is like the once-popular macrobiotic approach, or the vegan rawfoods approach: they are good for a few months or maybe even years for people needing to balance out their previous diet. But then they start to get sick.

These true believers in diet as be-all & end-all feel wonderful with the new diet, no doubt about it. But sooner or later, if you rigidly stick to your healing diet, the **** will hit the fan. There's no forever diet. You have to change as necessary.

I'm not finished yet! I recall Sally F. of the WAPF stating that she was hypoglycemic. In the field of natural medicine, that's considered a sign of liver stagnation (among other things). Maybe her liver is all clogged up. I think she needs to go on a vegetarian diet with juices, may be, and lots of raw vegetables for the next 6 months or so.

The woman posting here who had a healthy child, etc. etc. on the WAPF diet - I have no doubt that her diet was a factor. But let's see 5 or 10 years from now. Same with all people following any diet rigidly. And sometimes we just get sick for other reasons regardless of diet.

Alina - April 23, 2010 11:41 PM

It is interesting that people who are for the Weston Price diet make reasonable, well balanced comments pleasure to read. Gerry and other non meat eaters seem to be angry, attacking everyone and calling people names. Is the lack of meat making you so unbalanced and belligerent? Hmm.
Gerry says that low carb people bully so he fires back. Well, so far I see Gerry as the bully.

Margaret - April 24, 2010 8:08 PM

It all depends on who is funding the research

van Rooinek - April 27, 2010 4:01 PM

Stumbled on this by accident... but I've seen this stuff before. It never ceases to amaze and appall me, how many people froth at the mouth at the very mention of Weston Price -- yet his nutritional research stands unrefuted. I won't waste my time refuting the low-fat and anticholesterol myths as that has been done so ably and thoroughly by others. However, I will point out one thing that virtually nobody ever mentions: modern kids have horrible bone structure, orthdontic problems, etc, and among the folks in the other "dietary" camps, nobody even has a theory as to why! (Dentists are taught in dental school that it's genetic, a hypothesis blasted to nullity by Price's research). Where are the Pritikins, the Furhmans, the Ornishes, etc, on the whole bone structure issue?...(crickets chirping). Price's work is the only research that even remotely addresses the issue - and answers it, splendidly.

Of course Weston Price's work treads on a lot of ideological vegetarian toes. And that is probably the sole reason why so many people hate it. Because if the vegetarian gospel isn't true, that means their utopian world isn't possible, which means that the old doctrine of the "Fall" just might be right, which has philosophical implications they'd rather burn in hell than face... Hence the wrath of the vegan.

The final irony is that Price was something of a utopian himself, and earnestly sought to find a primitive tribe that was able to produce good bone structure, good teeth, and good overall health, on plant foods only. HE COULDN'T. And he was an honest enough scientist to admit it.

Timothy - May 1, 2010 3:57 PM

Great response van Rooinek. sigh... If it isn't obvious by now who makes more sense here... sigh...

Strawman - May 2, 2010 6:31 PM

This is nothing but a "Straw man" arguement. A favored arguement amongst cultist where you mis-represent someones beliefs and then beat it down to discredit them.

I have personally met Sally Fallon and other proponents of healthy fats. I have even been to their farms and eaten with them. A credit which no one, especially the author here can claim. The meal INCLUDED healthy fats/meats amongst a balance of fresh or cooked vegetables being the major portions of the meals.

People will misrepresent the proportions or misrepresent the context of which the Price people fit healthier fats into. It is all to their own detriment. I have seen young couples have very tiny babies who continued to be very small toddlers because they stuck to a vegan and a terrible soy-protein diet, ignoring the importance of healthy fats and cholesterol neccessary for brain and body development en utero and after birth.

There is a reason mothers have cholesterol in their breast milk. By the way, mothers milk has not been powdered through high temperature and pressure causing the proteins and cholestrol to change into toxic forms. It is unproccessed and natural.

These are real experiences, not propaganda. To me that trumps debate over theory.

Kerri Knox, RN - May 12, 2010 3:06 PM

I find it interesting that the vegetarian proponents equate WAPF with 'Atkinism'. Please stop. They are just simply NOT the same thing and it's only those who've not read WAPF that thinks that his diet = Atkins Diet.

Also, the studies that show that plant-based vegetarianism reverses heart disease and makes people healthier does NOT mean that the WAPF diet doesn't.

It IS possible that BOTH the WAPF diet AND a plant-based vegetarian diet BOTH make people healthier because the people who eat BOTH these diets are not eating junk or processed foods.

So, the fact that studies show that plant based diets are healthy does not invalidate the WAPF diet.

Kd - May 13, 2010 10:16 AM

As I started reading through this blog I was shocked at the attitudes and comments that attack rather than inform and educate. I could not agree more with the above comments from Kerri.

After 20 plus years of searching for the "right" diet my conclusion is a very simple one. When our diets include whole, and unprocessed foods in balance and moderation we will be a healthier america! As I have chosen to be more aware of the foods I am eating and preparing for my family, it is obvious that the real threat to our health comes from the plethera of non-foods (processed, additives, chemicals, fake food,"junk food" etc.)that we as a nation consume and indulge in each and every day. Whole,unprocessed, organic foods in all of their varieties, in balance and moderation... fruits, vegetables, meats, dairy, grains, legumes "real food" is the critical component to health. It doesn't take mountains of book work or scientific studies for any of us to know in our core that food closest to the earth and removed from boxes, additives, chemicals, horomones, gmo's etc. will lead us away from disease and towards health and vitality. It would be lovely to see such passionate people as yourselves unite together in an effort to make positive changes through education and reform...rather than bantering over who is right and wrong. Wrong is that we accept all of these NON (yet FDA approved) foods, and then sit back and watch billions of our hard-earned dollars go towards health care in an effort to supposedly fix what these foods destroy...our health, freedom, and peace of mind!

Heidi - May 21, 2010 12:18 PM

Have to say- Mr.Pugliese - I was excited to read more about opposition to the WAPF in your blog. But after reading your replies to others, I am totally turned off by you and your blog. Obviously, you have nothing to offer - you silly silly man. You ave extremely annoying.

SK - May 22, 2010 7:00 AM

This blog is ridiculous and a simple case of "Rock Soup" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stone_soup). Everyone Please stop commenting on this blog and doing the bloggers work for him; you are spending your own time researching only to give your hard earned information to this antagonistic, passive-aggressive leech. Can't you see the blogger only offers juvenile arguments and comments while having nothing of substance to offer? The purpose is to have everyone else do the bloggers work for him - so please don't do that anymore.

Lucien - May 25, 2010 11:31 PM

Dear Joel, I made a mortal mistake in the previous comment. Kindly post the revised version to avoid confusion. If you feel the commernt is too strident you are welcome to addend it with this disclaimer that this is my experience and opinion only and anyone should consult a trusted doctor berore trying any radical changes in their diet. Thanks.

Dear sir, I have just spent a year living exclusively on fresh milk from my own happy protected cows. I have never felt healthier in all my life. Previously for 25 years I produced the grains, pulses vegetables etc. for the community I lived in by doing all the agriculture with bullocks( oxen)and without machines. That was a fantastically rewarding adventure into the real life practiced for thousands of years that is still the only way to solve the problems created by today's overintelligent "advanced" destructive society. Anyhow, now I've progressed further and retired from unnecessary work and living mostly on milk and some fruit. At 55 years of age people say I look more like 30. The many physicians who cured or greatly benefitted patients of just about every disease from the middle 1600's 'til 1950 with "THE MILK DIET" ( such as Charles Porter with 20,000 patients over 40 years) couldn't be wrong when they unanimously called milk(raw, fresh) the "Miracle Food", especially beneficial for children, diseased and the elderly. In fact, if you can get such a product you'd be better off giving up all other foods, which are much harder to digest and are actually a liability, especially after 50years of age when the digestive enzymes are only a fraction of the potency in youth. As such, one gets only a fraction of the benefit from a meal at that age than when in youth. Fresh, whole, raw milk from happy, protected grass fed cows is perfectly assimilated within 24 hours( whereas some foods take 36 days!) and contains just about everything we need(admitted to be complete) and is therefore the perfect food for health and longevity at that period of life. Similarly, by Nature's arrangement a baby can only survive on it's mothers milk( preferably for 6 months) and is at it's prime of beautiful health at that time, and also by Natures arrangement benefits best on cows milk after that. That has been proven for countless generations. It is only by unnaturally forcing the baby to eat something else that it does, whereas actually anyone and everyone(except the lactose intolerant who 80% of can tolerate raw, fresh milk, or if not yoghurt or soured milk cultures where the lactose has mostly converted to lactic acid) can actually thrive and flourish much better continuing to live on milk alone, or with some fruit available preferably fresh from any trees around locally.
I do agree with you that meat products are unnecessary, and since the cow is so indispensible for it's milk and therefore biologically our mother for most of our lives it is highly uncivilised that when she has nourished us as we were vulnerable and helpless, when we become strong cut her head off and eat her. Nature doesn't tolerate that and that's why we get sent to slaughter in wars, on the road, and in the womb of our mothers( who we killed previously).If people are really so fond of cow's flesh then just wait until she dies naturally(it'll probably be less disease giving) and make the world a much more peaceful, happier and safer place to live. I would much rather trust the physicians beginning with Hippocrates who were genuinely trying to cure naturally than some modern-day business- oriented counterparts swayed by skewed research funded by corporate interests bent on trying to discover some magical cheap-fix (or maybe not - so -cheap) chemical cure.
Thanks for the forum: no offence intended but please try drinking more raw fresh milk from happy protected cows( if you can't get it then get your own- it's worth it at any cost) and you can experience for yourself.
In fact, in Vedic culture( considered the oldest surviving human culture) Lord Krishna as a child in His village used to steal butter, just to show that if you can't get it than it's worth it to steal it, it is so utterly important and essential for happiness and health. Cheers!

Cam - June 13, 2010 12:01 AM

LOL whoever wrote this article or was sourced in corroboration to the point is just to ignorant to be handing out health information. The article doesn't debunk anything the WAPF says or believes.

casey curtis - June 20, 2010 6:57 PM


i'm absolutely appalled by your dismissive tone and inceredibly arrogant attitides towards your readers; know that whether the position you take is true or false is belied by your borderline xenophoic attitide. Someone such as yourself seems better suited to be reading blogs instead of writing them.


Lori - June 22, 2010 6:01 PM

I found Weston Price's site when my little girl turned 6 months. I could not imagine giving her white rice cereal as her first food--we don't even eat WHITE rice. Weston Price's regimen was boiled egg yolks as a first food and regularly thereafter. My little girl is very healthy--hardly ever a sniffle. She eats meat (chicken and fish too), raw milk, yogurt, fruits and veggies, bone broths, sourdough bread, butter with her veggies/bread, etc. Sugar/sweeteners are very limited, as are refined flours. Other grains are soaked/sprouted/soured prior to eating. I hear stories about how I was fed formula as a baby, then soy formula when ear infections kept recurring. It was a near constant cycle for my mom of doctors and antibiotics for me, leading to my tonsils and adenoids being removed, and tubes placed in my ears. The Weston A Price lifestyle of eating, along with much prayer, has worked wonders for us. My daughter in 19 months of life has been ill but once or twice, with fevers that disappeared within a day or two of onset.

Ellen - June 27, 2010 6:36 AM

Too bad your zeal against parents feeding kids real and natural food such as milk, eggs, butter, meat, and meat broth, could not be redirected to those who are constantly filling them with chemicals, sugar, bad fats, and other junk.

Sean - July 9, 2010 2:53 PM


I should have know what I was in for by your choice of title. The only thing "stupid" is the fact that you have no facts and have not stood up to one scientific rebuttal. A few short Points:

Atkins was indeed a lucky overweight "fraud" who knew little about nutrition. Atkins even went so far as to claim that calories didn't matter. This is ABSURD. The weight loss studies found it was all calorie based. The less calories you eat, the less weight you gain. That IS science. Eating only meat and cutting out fruits and veggies is NOT healthy at all.


To put WAPF and Atkins in the same group shows immediate ignorance.

For those Vegetarians that swear by the China Study, perhaps you should skip the hyped book and read the actual study. It is a fantastic study with a wealth of data that was left out for "spin". There is much correlation with grains/wheat/rice and sugars which conveniently "left out" of the book.


To not trust a theory is natural, but there is no excuse to not do your research. It is your own health, and thank goodness I live in a country where I can make my own choices. Do not believe everything you read, just follow up and read a counter argument and then make an opinion. I would love to see some more science and less opinion Gerry. Until then let the blind follow the blind. Those who care to learn and research can follow there own paths.

Ari Arom - July 10, 2010 2:58 AM

Here's a link below from a mainstream "modern" source revealing that saturated fats are not the culprit that you are making them out to be. As an onlooker I am not at all pleased at the diatribe on nutrient rich bone broth, slander of Fallon, and misrepresenting the stance of an educated diet that overall incorporates pasture raised animal products in their least processed forms.

A recent berkeley wellness newsletter regarding some changing perspectives on saturated fats:


Furthermore I might add that statistical claims that often omit conflicting data and conclusions based on unreferenced facts can be seen today in modern nutritional papers as well... These types of empirical studies should be seen more as reference guides not facts.. and we see this i The China Study as well as in Nourishing Traditions. So it seems like we have a case here of 'the butter pan calling the vegan kettle black" and an agenda to sell.

karen ferguson - July 20, 2010 1:27 PM

The War on Fat via the low fat dogma has failed as well as the War on Drugs. We still have the side effects of "no fat" everywhere and as the baby boomers age, those that grew up with it, memory is going to be a big problem, not to mention the yo-yo syndrome promoted by those starving on McDougall, Ornish and Furhman, who by the way, screws with our metabolisms by making blanket statements about fasting and fruits to those already compromised.
You don't have to believe me, I don't care. I've already lost my weight, regained my memory and don't buy those books anymore.
Scientists?? ha! Over-rated, close-minded and bigoted. IF they were scientists, they'd be all over Weston Price and the high sugar/high cholesterol link. But they'd rather rest on their highlly compromised laurels.
That's my 2 cents and I stand by it.
Open the brain.....30 years w/ the low fat dogma and what do we have? epidemic use of sugar and statins and a mulitude of depressives with anti-depression meds. You call that success?? Shame on you.

Danny - August 1, 2010 3:48 PM

I see a lot of opinions but no evidence. America needs the wisdom of our healthy ancestors because what we're doing obviously isn't working.

Elizabeth - August 2, 2010 10:06 PM

Debunking the China Study....


Information about saturated fats....


Do the research and decide for yourself.....

Deana Ferreri, Ph.D. - August 3, 2010 11:02 AM

Dr. Campbell, author of The China Study, has responded to this recent "debunking." His response can be found here:

egle - August 9, 2010 9:09 AM

I came from 3rd world country, where I grew up on a farm. I came to this country 10 years ago as an au pair and lived in a traditional american family eating their diet for 4 years.

I am no scienist, but just an observer that can compare 3'ld world farm nutrition (real food) to traditional american diet and the results that follow.
Where I come from we do not have skim milk, cherios for breakfast and do not favor large salads with premaid dressings, we do not know what soy and corn is and we do not consider that peoples food. We drink raw whole milk from that cow that we raise on the grass in the pasture, we cook on lard and eat seasonal vegetables that we grow ourselves. I do not know anyone in my family or friends or anyone that is alergic to anything, I do not know anyone with astma, diabetis or is atistic. I have never ever seen a person that weighed 250lb or more..I was terrified and saddemned to see these obese people here in america, this was so new to me..Here in Michigan it seems that every other person is that way.
So here in America, I was eating this traditional diet of skim milk and sereal for breakfast and chicken breast cooked on canola oil and eat a lot of salads with "healthy" dressings for 4 years, the results..I gained 40lb and developed skin disease all over my face and body...
I had enough, when I found out that the medicine that I was using to control my skin disease will thin out my skin and cause other sidefects that will impact my overall existance.

Well, thanks to Weston A Price foundation I am back! I am drinking ileagal raw milk from healthy animals (leagaly, by having a cow share) I lost those 40lb while cooking my foods on coconut oil and my breakfast is not boxed sereal that taste like cardbord if not shugared. And my skin disease....What skin disease??

Well tell me how I should make sence of the traditional/promoted science that "laughs" acording to you at Weston A Price research?
Maybe you should try to find places like he, they still do exist to some level and see for yourselve.
Hate will not prove your theory (what theory???) .. People are mislead in America but they are not blind, they know what they are told to eat is doing them no good...The movement of real food is here and it is getting bigger every day..
You claim that Weston A Price foundation is small, this is world wige organization. What is small, is people like you who are tought to be followers, not critical thinkers.

Elizabeth Walling - August 11, 2010 8:20 AM

Dietary dogma will always do more damage than good, whether you're preaching grass-fed butter or lifetime veganism. Everyone seems to forget that there's REAL people out there looking for health and vitality. And they're sick and tired of being preached at and and reprimanded for their dietary "sins."

I am not surprised if anyone has experienced immense health benefits switching from SAD to Fuhrman's diet. It's a great improvement upon a life of Doritos and donuts, no doubt about it.

But to deny that anyone could receive health benefits from eating animal foods is willful ignorance. To "debunk" the WAPF by claiming they're reaching too far back and then recommend a diet based on what human supposedly ate thousands of years ago is unsound.

Does the WAPF deserve some honest criticism? Sure, every organization does. Nothing (and no one) is perfect, and it's always important to weed out what really works in a given situation.

But what you've said is not honest criticism. It's petty persecution and childish grumblings. Who do you expect to convince with that?

Kevin M. - August 11, 2010 11:54 AM

Sorry, but I don't agree with a word of your article and Weston A. Price is right about everything. You are guilty of the same brainwash message which infects our entire health system, based on no valid scientific or anecdotal evidence whatsoever. All the fat studies of the last 50 years were done in a high-sugar dietary environment, which makes them immediately invalid. The mainstream anti-fat, anti-cholesterol medical advice you promote is the primary cause of our modern health epidemic. Read something by Gary Taubes, who promotes the science which debunks pretty much everything you say. Also check out the Nutrition and Metabolism Society, a growing group of doctors and researchers who are proving you wrong. Thanks to Alistair for a great post. There is not a word of valid science or anecdotal evidence behind the lipid or cholesterol hypotheses, in fact all indications are to carbohydrate. The USDA guidelines are not based on medicine, but on industry lobbyists, and supporting Big Sugar, Big Ag and Big Pharma.

Mary - August 12, 2010 6:32 PM

Ad-hominem attacks are the refuge of those who know, but won't admit they can't refute an argument. Think about it people. There is an old saying one man's food is another man' poison. I read a theory that one's blood type is indicative of what diet he or she should consume. You all might look into it. At any rate I think we can all agree that all foods should be pure and handled in a manner that will prevent contamination.

It's your choise what you put in your mouth and healthy debate about just what that might be is a good thing because it makes people think. However adhominen attacks on anyone or any group of people counterproductive and indecates a closed mind. A closed mind is nothing to be proud of bye the way.

I try to be a voice of reason and a peace maker so let's get on with a reasoned debate.
Peace to all and my God bless

Erin - September 4, 2010 6:19 PM

If eatin eggs, cheese, raw milk and meat was so bad for you our race would have died off hundreds, if not thousands of years ago. I have worked in health care for 20 years and I see that the Western diet DOES contribute to the INCREASE in new and uncommon diseases. Especially the autoimmune ones.

Angela - September 16, 2010 6:08 PM

All diets do not work for everyone. Maybe some people like Weston Price, I really cannot agree with his point of view. I am very allergic to dairy products and a large majority of the population is without even knowing it. I had horrible allergies and asthma as a child until the age of 23 when I went to a naturopathic doctor who told me to cut all that stuff out.

I've been mostly a vegetarian for 20+ years. I am now in excellent health. Even when I try to add meat back into my diet it does nothing make me sick and feel horrible.

I don't believe that grains are bad for you, only refined carbohydrates and sugar. Whole grains contain lots of fiber and vitamins, people have been eating them for centuries. Is anyone really prepared to tell me that oatmeal will kill you? Really, whatever.

Red meat and excess protein consumption have been linked to many different cancers, including colon cancers.

The problem is all of these doctors do nothing but go back and forth yelling at each other. The Weston Price Foundation would have you believe that we all are anemic and will shrivel up and die. It is ridiculous.

TruthorDeath - September 20, 2010 5:10 PM


90+ percent of people allergic to mainstream dairy products are not allergic to raw dairy. Pasteurization is a brutal process, and completely destroys milk, making it indigestable for many people.

Pasteurization kills the good bacteria in raw milk, nad in doing so, intracellular proteins are then released into the milk. These proteins, along with several other factors, are a big problem for digestion. Lactose intolerance is a result of pasteurized milk, and rarely do people have problems with the raw form. For more of the TRUTH about milk, have a look at www.realmilk.com. Also, dig into some other sources.

You will find many doctors in full support of raw milk products, so long as the source is pure. In CA, a great source is www.organicpastures.com. They too, have a wealth of information on their site on raw milk and it's benefits. There's an article on diseaseproof.com that shows this nasty looking pale of raw milk saying to stay away. Well, I have been drinking Organic Pastures raw milk for a while now, and it tastes absolutely crystal clean perfect. Raw milk is a whole, nutrient dense food filled with amino acids and proteins. Pasteurized milk is nearly poison.

Also, whole grains CAN be good for you, but only if prepared correctly. Whole grains in 2010 are not what they used to be many many years ago. The food instustry has drastically changed the protein makeup of say... wheat. Many people suffer from 'allergies', but almost ALL of those same people can eat a big, huge slice of properly prepared whole grain bread. Specifically if the grains have been soaked to reduce their phytic acid content, and then sprouted, which neutralized the natural enzyme inhibitors in the grains.

There is a lot of misinformation out there. Be sure to get the true truth.


Erin - September 22, 2010 3:51 PM

I actually read every single post here and I have to say those posting counter arguments make the most intelligent, thoughtful, respectful, and articulate presentations.

The moderator, on the other hand, comes off as simple, rude, arrogant, bullish, and incompetent. So in my quest to figure out the saturated fat riddle which was prompted by my brother-in-law's heart attack last week at the age of 47 (vegetarian for 20 years), this blog has pushed me in the opposite direction. I think I will go check out WAPF for some balance.

As Gerry says,,, Peace.

D. - September 24, 2010 9:47 PM

There are good saturated fats and bad saturated fats. Evidently the good Dr. Fuhrman doesn't get that point, nor does Gerry. Good ones are in butter, raw milk, cream, quality cheese, etc. Bad ones are in potato chips, french fries, donuts, etc.

If you can't see the difference, Gerry, it might be because you're lacking those very fats in your diet and your brain isn't functioning at full capacity.

I STILL haven't seen any evidence from you, Gerry, re: supporting your position, as well as Fuhrman's. He just wrote a book recently, didn't he? Probably needs to sell it so he (and you) have to proselytize a vegetarian way of eating, or at least try to denigrate the work of WAPF, which has several noted doctors and nutritionists who conribute to their Web site and their journal, Wise Traditions.

I'll take their years of experience over your name calling and slanderous remarks any day of the month.

Until and unless you produce said scientific evidence that WAPF is totally wrong in their advice and findings, you and Furhman are both cowards who are afraid to look for it because you're afraid you'll find out that you're wrong and they're right.

Put up or shut up. I hope NO ONE takes your nutrition advice seriously. What a disaster.

Lis - September 25, 2010 1:04 AM

The subject of diet tends to become very like religion. People form their opinions based upon what they believe makes sense i.e.; fat in the diet must contribute to fat in the body or fat in the arteries. Yet, this has not been scientifically proven. It next turns to a discussion of the leaders one believes in: "so and so says it is bad and I trust him!" and mudslinging and name calling. But I personally feel that we are living in a time which is more puritanical than the time of the Puritans- only the rules are different. There is this angry, controlling mindset in many areas of life today and we see this in regards to food quite often. It's a religious sort of judgmentalism: we should not be *allowed* to enjoy fat! it's "wrong"! it's "bad"! it's... sinful!

I base my own diet upon actual research studies I have read combined with the reaction my own body has to the food. I have done very well on the low carb diet for several years now. I feel better than I ever did on the highly praised diet high in whole grains, which I honestly tried to make work for many years but always felt awful. I am at a healthy weight. My cholesterol numbers are excellent. I enjoy the diet, I enjoy the food I eat. I don't crave foods I can't have. I'm happy. I have no plans to change. A heart doctor I know told me the Atkins diet was an excellent diet and had no problem with it. This was based upon the research he has read and his experience with his own patients. So what are you people getting so upset and worked up over? Does it somehow inflame your sense of right and wrong that some of us enjoy and do very well on animal foods? If so, is this due to research or is it more because it offends your own personal belief system?

Alyssa - September 29, 2010 3:39 PM

Yes, wouldn't it be sad if Americans fed their kids chicken soup again? What a tragedy... wholesome chicken broth instead of that nasty formula they push on us?

Lauren - October 16, 2010 8:37 PM


Six months is the BARE MINIMUM to breastfeed a child. At six months, other foods may begin to be introduced safely. Until about 12 months, a child's milk should only be breast milk. Cow's milk should only be introduced when the child stops drinking mother's milk (this usually happens naturally somewhere between 2 and 6 years of age). Cow's milk is an incredibly nutritious drink, but it will never be better for a child than the milk exclusively designed for them.

Angela - October 28, 2010 11:04 PM


really, if you want to drink raw milk, more power to you, I have tried it as well as raw goats milk, and raw cheese and it still makes me sick! So more power to you, if you want to drink it I really don't care but I don't think it is too healthy for me and for many other people! Lots of people are lactose intolerant and I don't think raw milk makes a big difference and pushing milk on a majority of people is really not too healthy. peace out! =)

Chad - October 31, 2010 12:38 AM

I just threw up a little of my raw milk after reading everyones bickering. In my farm family, I can see first hand
how raw grass fed animal products makes everyone look so thick, sturdy and sexy. Sex sells, and that is all that matters to me. Who cares about science or the latest fades of dieting in the last two hundred years. The Native American's ate raw buffalo. They where damn sexy. So I would rather be sexy and happy then a starved pissed off disgruntled vegetarian. HA!

Scott Ferguson - November 3, 2010 3:16 PM

I found your attack on the Weston Price Foundation very uninformed. The hostility in your writing and toward people posting their thoughts alone proves you do not know what you are doing with your own health. As your health improves, you will find yourself taking a more compassionate approach because signals in your body or the clarity of your mind lead you there. You may achieve literal radiant health with other nutrition plans, but WAPF is an excellent way to experience life with a new found surge in grounded energy.

I learned about this method of eating from a bunch of friends with whom I play beach volleyball in 2000. I did not get around to trying it until 2002 and have followed it ever since with profound improvements in my heath.

Out of a dozen or so people who initially tried eating this way back then, none have gone back to other ways and all of us have gotten rid of chronic health annoyances like allergies, eczema, ADHD, and I no longer ever get sick (Jan 2007 had the flu/cold, but otherwise not since I 2004. one woman got control of her rheumatoid arthritis and detoxing has since caused most conditions to go away. Granted, I do yoga and Taoist Kung Fu forms also, but I am 43 next week and no longer have any aches and pains or knots in my muscles. The results have been profound.

While I am not concerned with cholesterol, the last time it was measured around the end of 2007, it was in totally normal ranges with a healthy ratio of LDL / HDL.

and the Amish dairy and pastured meat tastes so good!!! Also, love my fermented food and drinks. My senses are so much more heightened when I eat, much more enjoyable experience when the food is so good.

I would suggest more Omega 3 fatty acids and saturated fates to calms your emotions and some detoxing. Ambayagold.com has a great zeolite product, trace mineral and B vitamin supplements if your diet is not meeting your needs.

I wish you the best in improving your health and raising feeling better.


Joe - November 7, 2010 7:18 PM

What about a balanced diet with lots of variation? You guys haven't even talked about gut health and how the bacteria living inside you affect how your food is processed... perhaps, that's because you have a lot to learn (as do I) about health.

Weston Price had some very interesting ideas as did Nikola Tesla. However, you've decided to lump everything together, point out his most radical ideas, and essentlally throw the baby out with the bathwater... I detect the same amount of zealous fear that I notice when Richard Dawkins speaks about atheism. A bit of humility and respect for other people and ideas is in order.

Jerry Atkinson - November 14, 2010 1:08 PM

If you read The book "Nutrition and Physical Degeneration" A comparison of primitive and modern diets and their effects, by Weston A. Price you will see what a wonderful history of the truth about nutrition and vibrant health, that Weston A. Price has left us. These are his findings from his study 13 or so primitive cultures eating the diet of their ancestors and when they started eating modern food and its affects on human, animal, plant, and soils of these people. It is maybe the most valuable book on the subject ever written in my view.

Chris Dieter - November 17, 2010 12:28 AM

I've followed the natural hygiene and some of the Weston Price diets and I believe this article in USA Today may have some ideas that might be difficult to test in a medical study, but has merit in my eyes.
It may be more about "how" we eat rather than the percentages of calories we get from plants or animals. Are you enjoying the process of eating? Do you savor your meals with the company of others? Do you eat out of quality or quanity? Could it be in the "how" we eat more than the "what" we eat? Maybe some of both? Food for thought...

Todd - November 27, 2010 9:22 AM

Saturated fat is NOT the problem, trans fatty acids are the problem. Even virgin olive oil turns to trans fatty acids when heated. There is only one oil that does not. *Which one? Clue: lauric acid.  Lauic acid is in mother's milk, yes human. It is a saturated fat. Yes babies are meant to drink fat, saturated no less. Did nature boo boo? Science is no good if it wears blinders to thousands of years of history. Babies take in saturated fat when breast fed, no grains, candy bars, grease, or meat broth! Just raw milk, mmmm. Maybe if mom moves extra it turns to butter?! But it doesn't ever become unsaturated. And hey where's the carbs for baby?!! You have to wonder why I would spend any time chastising a blogger as stupid and willingly blind and full of himself as Gerry. Don't contemplate too much it's Thanksgiving, just pass me a little turkey pate'!!!    *(Did you guess the oil?)

Amanda - November 28, 2010 8:32 AM


With all due respect, you claimed Dr. Atkins died from a heart attack and that is not true. He died from a head injury after he slipped on ice. http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2003-04-17-atkins-dies_x.htm
You may want to get your facts straight before saying things that are incorrect.
As for your blog, I find it very interesting and a great forum for discussion, but I feel you belittle people that differ from your position.
As one who embraces the majority of the WAPF teachings, I have seen first hand the benefits of changing our diet to include a lot of locally grown fruits, veggies, raw milk, eggs and meat from grass fed animals. Not only does the food taste so much better, I am amazed at the improvements in our health. My husband's cholesterol has dropped over 200 points and he was able to get off his medication. I have lost weight and many of our allergies have cleared up. Our skin looks clearer, softer and more even. Our needs for fiber/laxative supplements are no more.
I did the low fat diet for years and my health only deteriorated (including my hair thinning) and my weight never budged. My husband couldn't get his cholesterol below 400, nor beat the fatigue he was constantly plagued with. And we were both active people.
I wouldn't go back to the SAD Diet (Standard America Diet is quite sad) for for anything.


Greg Shoe - December 3, 2010 1:11 AM

Where's Gerry? It looks like he went home as he hasn't responded to any of our comments in months.

For the record, I think our real enemy is USDA with their propaganda about raw milk, the need to track farm animals (NAIS) and their apparent collusion with mega-producers like Cargill and Tyson.

We have every reason to fear land-grant colleges that first researched the feeding of toxic manure from Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs), as well as rendered beef guts, chicken carcasses and chicken manure as up to 1/2 of the finishing diet for feedlot animals. We should be more than a little concerned with the USDA that promoted the idea...What to do with the toxic waste stream from the CAFOs.

We cannot, however, blame anybody for our apathy on matters such as these. Go out on the street and ask 100 people to define bovine spongiform encephalopathy or to explain why we feed corn to bovines not designed to eat it. See if you don't get 85 or 90 blank stares as responses. Ask them when they last ate a hamburger from a downer cow or a feedlot herbivore fattened on animal parts. 9 times out of 10 you will get looks of disgust mixed with confusion. When asked before he died how his work could be carried on, Weston Price replied, "You teach, you teach, you teach".

Linas - December 22, 2010 1:59 PM

There was a short period of time when I believed that eating plant foods is the best choice and this brings the best fuel for our body. Now I feel a bit stupid that during this time I was talking to people and especially children who I coach for track and field "that animal foods aren't good for you and so on...". I live in Eastern Europe and people strive great on meat like pork and it's fat, turkey, chicken, eggs, fish, milk, butter. Of course there are many unhealthy people, but these are usually who use too much alcohol, tobacco, eat too much junk food and too little unprocessed. Winters here are long enough so there is no much option for fresh vegetables and fruits. During summer I like to eat fresh berries and fresh fruits, especially after training to restore my glycogen. However, without animal foods from normal farm I would get into trouble again which I experienced not long ago when eating only plat foods.

Thuan Nguyen - December 23, 2010 9:01 PM

Why do you feel the need to distort their recommendation? Right there in their website is dietary guideline at number 6:

# Eat fresh fruits and vegetables, preferably organic, in salads and soups, or lightly steamed.

Distortion is not an honest argument.

Sarah - December 29, 2010 1:49 PM

I think the body and stress levels are what determine the ideal diet. I was an ovo lacto vegetarian for 26 years. I ate a healthy whole foods diet, my own sprouted legumes and fresh vegetables, whole grains, nut, seeds, dairy, butter, and eggs were included and even occasional fish. I have strictly adhered to a transfat free food for decades. After 7 years as a vegetarian I had B vitamin anemia. I still ate veg, but added B vitamins, which cleared up the problem.

I went through a period of extreme stress and everything fell apart. The stress resulted from a brain injury. In dealing with stress the body requires a large amount of vitamins and minerals. Through the process of healing I have conclude that veg. diet, can be a decent even good maintenance diet, but maybe not optimal. Vegetarian diet can cleanse, and bring healing when used for a period of time. Vegan diet, or any restricted routine can bring about healing as the body cleanses itself. It is also a very spiritual diet. From my expereince the practice of not killing animals has had a strong purifying effect on heart and mind.

However, the brain needs fat, cell walls need hard fats, healthy complete fats, just as it needs healthy complete vegetables. Balance is the key, and the ability to respond as needed. It is best not to be dogmatic. Traditional diets vary from culture to culture, but they all contained some kind of fatty meat along with whole foods and usually fermented foods. If you want to argue bad food, cut sugar and highly refined processed foods.

Linas - January 13, 2011 6:22 AM

For sure balance is a key. I just can't imagine eating only plant foods during winter time. Most of vegetables aren't tasty from foreign countries. Still organic doesn't mean that it's without nitrates and pesticides. It's not enough to eat just carrots, cabbage and apples who are locally grown. These are my additional foods during winter time. Main foods are eggs, beef, chicken, raw milk, chicken liver and fish. In addition, eating mainly fruits and vegetables still makes me feel hungry.

Walter Ezell - January 17, 2011 12:52 PM

I read the entire thread. Gerry, it appears, is long gone. His rants did not have the intended effect. A friend recommended the Weston A. Price Foundation. I came here first, open-minded, wanting to see objections to WAPF before reading their side of it.

Gerry's approach to dialogue makes me wonder if animal fat is an essential brain food for homo sapiens. Maybe people without it cannot employ reason, marshall evidence, or engage in civil dialogue with those who disagree, and are thus reduced to yelping and name-calling.

Of course, Gerry is a small sample, so I will withhold judgment till I see more evidence. Meanwhile I'm off to browse the WAPF website.

bb - January 17, 2011 7:56 PM

The Weston Price foundation and what they teach is very different from what Weston Price the person wrote about.

Lennox - January 23, 2011 1:12 AM

I think this is one of the most convincing, compelling arguments I've ever seen FOR the Weston Price diet.

Thanks, Gerry.

Matt - January 24, 2011 11:21 PM

Ditto Lennox - Best resource for newbies on the internet. Practically became a forum for the Weston Price diet. In the interest of continuing censoring out good information - I'd maybe recommend you remove this blog. ... it'd at least be a more compelling argument then the one that has been set forth and destroyed...

chef Allen - August 19, 2011 12:30 PM

I've been doing extensive research on Soy and coconuts. This webpage is "obviously" a paid endorsement by the Soybean industry to mislead the consumers to support a $70 billion annual return from Soy.

Post A Comment / Question Use this form to add a comment to this entry.

Remember personal info?