The Misinformation of Barry Groves and Weston Price

I am glad Barry Groves (an electronic engineer, and honorary board member of the Weston Price Foundation) returned and chimed in again. (This is a continuation of an earlier conversation--if you haven't already please read the whole thing.) Now that his name has been mentioned many times here at DiseaseProof.com when people search for it on the web, hopefully they will be able to read his comments and my responses and see that his nutritional viewpoints are illogical and dangerous. Hopefully this will have some effect from anyone dying needlessly from his writings elsewhere and some book publisher will have second thoughts about publishing anything he puts together.

Barry Groves doesn't get the idea that I am not defending the American diet or the almost worthless recommendations of the American Heart Association. However, I am claiming that my dietary and nutritional recommendations are dramatically protective and can enable people to heart-attack-proof their bodies.

Barry Groves obviously did not read Disease-Proof Your Child or Eat To Live, but maybe others too, are not clear that I clearly explain that processed foods, sugar, white flour, and other low-fat, low-nutrient foods promote heart disease. Saturated fat is only one causative factor; but one I do not ignore.

Dangerous Advice
I realize the web allows a forum for people with potentially dangerous advice, but I think most intelligent people can see through his straw arguments, so I welcome the opportunity to comment again to his skewed nutritional viewpoints and unsubstantiated claims. Each time Barry Groves reports on a medical study he gave a different conclusion to the data than the researchers do, and the studies are usually some poorly done old study. It is typical stuff for the Atkins crowd and the Weston Price Foundation to find one research paper they can claim makes their argument legitimate, but even when they hand pick one study, they typically don't report the research accurately.

Fortunately we have a comprehensive body of knowledge today with over 15,000 articles written since the 1950's documenting the link between a diet high in saturated fat and low in fresh fruits, nuts, seeds, vegetable and beans and the increase risk of cancer and heart disease. Thousands of research scientists don't agree with Barry Groves' meat-centered diet recommendations and the platform of the Weston Price Foundation.

Respected Research Agrees
Let's look at what the most respected modern researchers say after a lifetime of collecting data from all over the world, and I will let the data speak for itself without my interpretation. I could have easily put a hundred decent studies on this list, but a few will illustrate the point. The following indented lines are cut and pasted from medical abstracts; the comments are from the abstracts not mine.

Huxley R ; Lewington S ; Clarke R. Cholesterol, coronary heart disease and stroke: a review of published evidence from observational studies and randomized controlled trials. Semin Vasc Med. 2002; 2(3):315-23
In observational epidemiologic studies, lower blood cholesterol is associated with a reduced risk from coronary heart disease (CHD) throughout the normal range of cholesterol values observed in most Western populations. There is a continuous positive relationship between CHD risk and blood cholesterol down to at least 3 to 4 mmol/l, with no threshold below which a lower cholesterol is not associated with a lower risk. Observational studies suggest that a prolonged difference in total cholesterol of about 1 mmol/l is associated with one-third less CHD deaths in middle age. Dietary saturated fat is the chief determinant of total and LDL cholesterol levels.

Tucker KL ; Hallfrisch J ; Qiao N ; et al. The combination of high fruit and vegetable and low saturated fat intakes is more protective against mortality in aging men than is either alone: the Baltimore Longitudinal Study of Aging. J Nutr. 2005; 135(3):556-61.
Saturated fat (SF) intake contributes to the risk of coronary heart disease (CHD) mortality. Recently, the protective effects of fruit and vegetable (FV) intake on both CHD and all-cause mortality were documented. However, individuals consuming more FV may be displacing higher-fat foods. Therefore, we investigated the individual and combined effects of FV and SF consumption on total and CHD mortality among 501 initially healthy men in the Baltimore Longitudinal Study of Aging (BLSA). Over a mean 18 y of follow-up, 7-d diet records were taken at 1-7 visits. Cause of death was ascertained from death certificates, hospital records, and autopsy data. After adjustment for age, total energy intake, BMI, smoking, alcohol use, dietary supplements, and physical activity score, FV and SF intakes were individually associated with lower all-cause and CHD mortality (P < 0.05). When both FV and SF were included in the same model, associations of each were attenuated with CHD mortality, and no longer significant for all-cause mortality. Men consuming the combination of > or =5 servings of FV/d and < or =12% energy from SF were 31% less likely to die of any cause (P < 0.05), and 76% less likely to die from CHD (P < 0.001), relative to those consuming < 5 FV and >12% SF. Men consuming either low SF or high FV, but not both, did not have a significantly lower risk of total mortality; but did have 64-67% lower risk of CHD mortality (P < 0.05) relative to those doing neither. These results confirm the protective effects of low SF and high FV intake against CHD mortality. In addition, they extend these findings by demonstrating that the combination of both behaviors is more protective than either alone, suggesting that their beneficial effects are mediated by different mechanisms.

Dwyer T ; Emmanuel SC ; Janus ED ; et al. The emergence of coronary heart disease in populations of Chinese descent. Atherosclerosis. 2003; 167(2):303-10.
Most countries in oriental Asia have not yet experienced the 'western' coronary heart disease (CHD) epidemic despite substantial economic development. An exception has been Singapore. We compared mortality and CHD risk factors in Singapore with two Oriental locations, Hong Kong and mainland China, which have not experienced the CHD epidemic. Mortality data from World Health Statistics Annuals age standardized for each location and were supplemented by local data. Risk factor data was obtained from population-based surveys using similar protocols in each location. Measures included diet, blood lipids, blood pressure, height and weight. CHD mortality in the year chosen for comparison, 1994, was significantly higher for Singapore Chinese males [108 (95.2-119.1)] than Chinese males in Hong Kong [44.3 (40.2-48.2)] or China [45.5 (44.2-46.8)]. Female CHD mortality was also relatively higher in Singapore Chinese. The only CHD risk factor markedly higher in Singapore Chinese was serum cholesterol; Singapore males [5.65 (5.55-5.75)], females [5.60 (5.50-5.70)], Hong Kong males [5.21 (5.11-5.31)], females [5.20 (5.10-5.29)] and China males [4.54 (4.46-4.62)], females [4.49 (4.42-4.55)]. Dietary differences in saturated fat consumption were consistent with this. Although there was little difference in total fat intake, a higher consumption of dietary saturated fat and lower consumption of polyunsaturated fat, accompanied by higher serum cholesterol, appear to explain the relatively high CHD mortality in Singapore compared with Hong Kong and mainland China. Differences in body mass index, blood pressure and smoking between locations did not explain the differences in CHD mortality.

Hu FB ; Manson JE ; Willett WC Types of dietary fat and risk of coronary heart disease: a critical review. J Am Coll Nutr. 2001; 20(1):5-19.
During the past several decades, reduction in fat intake has been the main focus of national dietary recommendations to decrease risk of coronary heart disease (CHD). Several lines of evidence. however, have indicated that types of fat have a more important role in determining risk of CHD than total amount of fat in the diet. Metabolic studies have long established that the type of fat, but not total amount of fat, predicts serum cholesterol levels. In addition, results from epidemiologic studies and controlled clinical trials have indicated that replacing saturated fat with unsaturated fat is more effective in lowering risk of CHD than simply reducing total fat consumption. In this article, we review evidence from epidemiologic studies and dietary intervention trials addressing the relationship between dietary fat intake and risk of CHD, with a particular emphasis on different major types of fat, n-3 fatty acids and the optimal balance between n-3 and n-6 fatty acids. We also discuss the implications of the available evidence in the context of current dietary recommendations.

But this is not just about heart disease. And again, with 1,500 references in my book, Eat To Live documenting my dietary recommendations for healthy weight loss, I am only placing a few representative studies here. For example, a recent study showed that after following almost 200,000 Americans for seven years, those who regularly consumed red meat had a double the occurrence of pancreatic cancer. (Nothlings U Wilkins, LR, Murphy, SP Hankins JH et al. Meat and fat intake as risk factors for pancreatic cancer the multiethnic short study J Natl Cancer Inst. 2005 97:1458-65.)

Profits vs. Sense
I realize that quoting one study after another or using clear science and logic will not change the mind of those selling and profiting from the appeal of the meat-based diet like Barry Groves and the Weston Price Foundation recommend. It is still important to address them so that an uninformed individual is not taken in by their dangerous form of quackery, like so many did with Atkins.

Poor Health of Indigenous Meat-Eaters
The dangerous habits of Americans or Europeans who eat only about 5 percent of their caloric intake from fresh produce and the majority of calories from processed foods, does not in anyway make a diet centered on meat health supporting. The whole purpose of this website is to offer information that can offer people control over their health destiny, without dependency on medications and without a premature death due to nutritional ignorance. With the knowledge we have available today and the access to high quality foods all year round we have a unique opportunity to live well and longer than ever before in human history.

When Barry Groves and the Weston Price Foundation people listed above rest their laurels on the health of high meat eating tribes, we have to counter that with real research, not phony claims. The research on the life expectancy of these people is clear. The Inuit Greenlanders have the worst longevity statistics in North America. A careful literature search reveals multiple studies documenting an earlier death in these people as a result of their low consumption of fresh produce and their high consumption of meat.

Legitimate research on the health of these people at present and in the past, show that they die on the average about 10 years younger and have a higher rate of cancer than the general population of Canada. Again, we don't want to mimic the population of Canada and certainly not a population with even a shorter life expectancy. But this research can not be ignore: Iburg KM ; Brnnum-Hansen H ; Bjerregaard P. Health expectancy in Greenland.
Scand J Public Health. 2001; 29(1):5-12. Choinire R. Mortality among the Baffin Inuit in the mid-80s.Arctic Med Res. 1992; 51(2):87-93.

Similar statistics are available about the Maasai in Kenya. The Maasai are best distinguished by their jewelry and ornamentation in their "self-deformation" of the body: elongated or torn ear lobes and stretched out lips. They do eat a diet rich in wild hunted meats and have the worst life expectancy in the modern world today. Maasai women have a life expectancy of 45 years, and men only live 42 years. I know these red-meat loving nuts will claim that those statistics are of the modern Maasai, not those of years gone by, but the data is also damaging even if you bring up statistics from 20 or more years ago, when good data was collected. Real African researchers, not Weston Price who just briefly visited them, or the list of Groves' Weston Price Foundation compatriots, documented that a Maasai rarely lived past the age of 60 and when they did, they were considered a very old man. If you want to mimic that dietary style, I guess that is your right, but certainly we know a little more about nutrition than the typical Maasai warrior. (Consider these sources: http://www.kenya.za.net/maasai-cycles-of-life.html and www.who.int/countries/Ken/en/)

Adult mortality figures on the Kenyan Maasai, show that they have a fifty percent chance of dying before the age of 59.

Choosing Between Two Bad Diets vs. Choosing an Optimal One
Weston Price and the Weston Price Foundation's claims about achieving good health on a diet rich in saturated fat are entirely without substance or merit. Weston Price himself did not painstakingly document the lifespan of these people; he was a dentist who just made a quick visit and jumped to simplistic conclusions claiming people were healthy by looking at their teeth. He ignored life expectancy, infant mortality, high rate of infection and many other confounding variables. Weston Price did not grasp the complexity of multi-factorial causation and this tradition is continued by his followers today. This in no way dismisses or makes less of the importance of Price's criticism of the dangers of sugar and other processed foods modern societies eat.

And maybe eating lots of wild meats and natural vegetation, without exposure to modern processed foods may offer a better health outcome than a modern American eating even less produce, and more processed foods, (which may be even worse) but we don't purchase a car by comparing it to a junkyard wreck, we want to know what is best. Fortunately, we actually know that eating a higher percentage of vegetables, legumes, fruit, and raw nuts and seeds in a diet (and much less animal products) can offer a profound longevity advantage due to a broad symphony of life-extending phytochemical nutrients. We have a unique opportunity in human history, we can devise a lifestyle and diet-style to dramatically increase our productive years and live well into the nineties or later without dementia or medical tragedies. We must offer recommendations based on a broad overview of all the evidence. The evidence here is overwhelming; and for those who want maximum control of their health destiny one's dietary choices should not be based on politics, ego, or a belief system.

Trackbacks (0) Links to blogs that reference this article Trackback URL
Comments (28) Read through and enter the discussion with the form at the end
row - April 25, 2006 5:54 PM

Thankyou again Dr fuhrman for posting more on Barry Groves. I see your point, when doing searches on Barry Groves links to different opinions like yours will come up. It still takes a lot time to write these.

I have been watching the nutrition posts at www@crossfit.com on their message board. Their standard for diet is the Zone Diet. Often post concerning high cholesterol will come up. These guys seem very fit but have a hard time keeping there cholesterol down on the zone diet, eating all the protein and fat . The answers all always the same. Don't cheat on the Zone Diet and don't worry about problems concerning high cholesterol, because they are a myth!! Dr Uffe Raunskou, the author of the "cholesterol myth" will be often quoted or Barry Groves names comes up with a link to his web site. These young guys seem very fit , but I wonder what is going to happen to them in later life.

Barry Grove believes cholesterol is a complete myth.He also believes a diet loaded with saturated fat is healthy. 50% saturated fat no problemms. He also doesn't beleive smoking cause cancer!! He also believes Vegetarians who bring up their children on a vegetarian diet is equal to child abuse. He also says that most protestors [any protestor, what ever the cause] are most likely to be vegetarian. He claims the vegetarian diet must be deficient in something.I quote him here.
" As we know, when it needs food, our body indicates this to us with the feeling of hunger. But there are also other signals if specific nutrients are deficient. Meat is the best source of several nutrients. When our bodies are deficient in these, we become irritable and aggressive. This is a perfectly natural signal built into our genetic make-up over our evolution: our bodies are telling us to go out and kill something to eat. This is why strict vegetarians tend to be so vociferous. It is a trait that was recognised long ago; it was, after all, the vegetarian Cain who killed the carnivorous Abel, not the other way round. The vegan Kikuyu tribe in Kenya were the perpetrators of the murderous Mau Mau in the 1950s, not their wholly carnivorous, but peaceful, neighbours, the Maasai.
The butcher's shop in my village has had its windows smashed so often that it is now boarded up when it is closed. Have you ever heard of a meat eater bombing a greengrocer's shop?"

Blaming wars on vegetarians, that's a new twist on the cause of war!!!!!!!!
Barry grove also blames GE modified food on vegetarians because vegetarians are creating a need for more vegetables.
How do you reason with a guy with views like these

Go to his web site for views from another planet!! All the above info was taken from his site, Like I said in another post he is a wealth of MISinformation. By the way when using the word MISinformation, I am just being polite!!!!!!!

Peter Bircsak - April 26, 2006 8:38 AM

The Barry Groves site states quite matter of factly the if we all became vegetarians we would starve. Perhaps if we only ate twinkies. The amount of water and land needed for grain to raise cattle is available everwhere. From an engineering viewpoint he is way off base. He has a strange mix in his website of some true things and gross misinformation. On the matter of vegetarians starving he is way out of line. Most people who think they tried vegetarianism included refined flour, sugar and copious processed junk. That clearly doest work.
He likely never really read Dr. Fuhrmans books or gave the green based way of eating a try. Too bad. It does indeed work.

Davide - May 5, 2006 4:31 AM

Barry Groves doesn't literally knows what he is talking about
I would like to remind that the majority of authors and researchers studying paleolithic diet, hunter/gatherer diets and traditional diets don't agree at all with Barry Groves.
This needed to be told.
Barry Groves theory that we are actually carnivorous animals and more carnivorous than dogs and that plants are actually not necessary or suited for us is not one any of his collegues accept, in fact Weston Price himself would say Groves is hallucinated as Weston Price praised the virtues of vegetations, suggested a diet that was not high fat or low carb and suggested everyone to eat starch foods like grains, legumes or potatoes.
But remind this when you want to know where Barry Groves is coming from: he believes we're carnivorous animals that thrive on a meat only diet, to him we're more like tigers and lions than primates
This belief thought is not shared by low carb authors, paleo diet authors or traditional diet authors
Masai and Inuits are two extremes examples. There are studies proving that Masai suffer from cardiocirculatory and neurologic disease (Masai are not immune to atheriosclerosis for example)and their diet is rich enough in carbs not to be ketogenic and certainly not a carnivorous meat-only diet.
There are evidences that Inuits adapted to an extreme diet in an extreme environment, that they have metabolic peculiarities and optimal for cold climate fat distribution and yet they have been suffering from liver enlargement and electrolytes deficiency
Steffenson himself wrote that a 40 years old Inuit looked as old as a 70 year old American.

Talking about traditional hunter/gatherer populations, of all examples of traditional hunter/gatherer diets Groves took the two extremes as an ideal archetype. But the truth is that majority of hunter/gatherer diet are in the middle of the dietary spectrum consuming a balance of animal foods and plant foods.
For example the Bushmen consume a diet which is 75% plant food, their staple are nuts and they believe that there can't be health without plant foods while their animal food staple is fish
Not only the Bushmen are fit, healthy and strong but they're healthier than either Masai or Inuits
So, one wonders why among the dozen of healthy hunter/gatherer populations that share a common health and dietary pattern with a big consumption of green, fruits, roots, tubers, nuts and plant food in general Groves based his idea of dietary perfection on just two isolated, extreme and not even ideal cases

Davide

Mirine - May 18, 2006 3:49 PM

Thank you for addressing this food following of WAP/Nourishing Traditions...I have been looking for some rebuttal or investigative articles into the Weston A. Price foundation for the promotion of the animal-rich diet and have not found much.( I can find plenty of rebuttal information on Atkins)

I am a lactation educator and vegetarian and am finding more and more mothers drawn to this philosophy which I find to have very little validity.
Aside from being a "choice" of how to eat, the foundation offers reckless advice such as

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

" VEGANISM: The milk of vegan mothers will be lacking in vitamin B12 and important long-chain fatty acids. If a vegan mother insists on breastfeeding, her baby's diet should be supplemented with cod liver oil, egg yolks and liver, all animal foods. "
This group supports that women do not breastfeed but instead use raw milk homemade formulas for infants. This is completely without scientific merit and is horribly irresponsible.

todd - June 8, 2006 2:09 AM

"For example the Bushmen consume a diet which is 75% plant food, their staple are nuts and they believe that there can't be health without plant foods while their animal food staple is fish. Not only the Bushmen are fit, healthy and strong but they're healthier than either Masai or Inuits"

davide, talk about stupide
last time i checked the traditional territory of bushmen is the kalahari desert - yep, lots of fish there...

steph - July 8, 2006 4:58 PM

Hi there,
I am usually fond of comparative studies in populations regarding nutrition and health and this is how I became interested in the Weston Price Foundation group, especially since a nutrionist I work with seems to be adhering to most their views. I came here (to your site) looking for a different point of view than the W.P.F.

To tell you the truth, my thyroid problem, amonst other health problems in the past 3 years has made me put the breaks on and re-examine my diet with a new eye. But confusing, sometimes drastically opposing views as really made it difficult for me to make up my mind and now, another pot stirrer, this nutritionist, who appears in much better health then I tells me to check out the WPF? Confusion is the keyword.

Regarding fats, one of the rationales " according to in-house nutrionist " is that modified milk products [homogenized] makes these foods less satisfactory to our system and brain, and consequently we end up eating more calories then if we’d allow ourselves to eat full fat which may help us being more attentive of the satiety signals of our bodies. Regarding butter, her other point was that, as we are going to use fats anyway in cooking " she also advocates, just as the W.P.F. to stay away from Teflon coating cookware…- might as well use organic, pasture fed, saturated fat cow butter for that purpose because this type of fat is less ‘damageable’ by heat, but also is less prone to become rancid than " sometimes hydrogenated - vegetable oils common in the American diet. [?] What’s your take on that?

My own thyroid problem " as well being intrigued as to why there is an epidemic of thyroid dysfunction in America " increased my interest in WPF’s articles mainly on the problems attributed to soy, sugars and refined flours, fluorinated water, and the benefits of cod liver oil and omega 3 fatty acids and so on. Some of the most interesting yet disturbing essays: While refined flours and sugars detriments are documented across the board, there seems to be a love-hate relationship to soy[?] and fluoride in the scientific community that does not make the choice easy. For soy and other 'anti-thyroid' some suggest lacto-fermentation. And then there's the whole animal source of omega 3s in cod liver oil versus vegetable source debate…What is your take on Fluoride and Cod liver oil? I wonder if you could tell me more about what you think of these. On the soy subject, I am still hesitant…I still eat tempeh but the conflicting info on soy as made me seriously wonder. What do you think of lacto-fermantation?

I'll take 'appearing' ingnorant as opposed to remaining ingnorant - if one's wondering why the heck I even ask these questions.

-peace.
thank you.

David Shields - July 14, 2006 8:03 PM

I posted an article on my blog where I jumped into this debate between Barry Groves and Joel Fuhrman.

Dr. Fuhrman has the better science on his side, but his diet is missing a key ingredient. Ironically, that missing ingredient may have been discovered by the mentor of his adversay, Barry Groves. I am speaking of Weston Price and the "Activator X" factor he was researching in purified (clarified) butter.

Let me know if you have had the same poor experience that many people I know have had on vegetarian diets similar to those recommended by Dr. Fuhrman. If you have, before you add animal protein back to your diet, read my article (http://blog.freeradicalfederation.com/archive/2006/07/14/4.aspx) and try adding a very small amount of ghee instead. Your overall diet will still be very similar to what Dr. Fuhrman recommends. The small amount of ghee will not turn your diet into a high fat diet, nor will it increase the amount of animal protein in your diet.

But I wager that for many people it will give you back the energy and feeling of well being that you think animal protein was giving you on your pre-vegetarian diet.

I find it interesting that starting with Dr. Fuhrman's more scientifically sound diet and adding one item from Weston Price's research results in a diet very similar to the thousands of years old tradition of Ayurveda. When studying nutrtion, it is always helpful to look at traditions, especially those with long histories.

Gerry Pugliese - July 18, 2006 12:09 PM

Steph-

Here's some reading that should clear things up for you:

Too Much Soy?
http://tinyurl.com/hfuhm

The Meat and Butter Diet
http://tinyurl.com/egeqv

Are Soy Products Healthful?
http://tinyurl.com/hpyec

Should I take fish oil or a DHA supplement?
http://tinyurl.com/eeklx

Maria - December 9, 2006 5:29 PM

I bumped into this article in looking for answers for all this diet & nutrition confusion i.e. high fat low fat high carb low carb also high protein low protein. Dr. Furhman's and Dr. Groves are two extremes.

Although in Western or modern diets industrialized processed foods predominates in the diet, thus even young kids have those diseases (like diabetes, etc...) that are acquired only when one is old, surely those highly processed food should be avoided.

I grew up without those processed food. I did not have ice cream, cakes, chocolates, red meat, fresh milk, chips and coffees. What I had as a treat was sugar lollies. For our coffee, we roast rice or milled corn, once roasted, we put water, let it boil, then that was the coffee and eat it with freshly baked bread, not the bread with additives or preservatives like the one in a western diet. The normal diet in our country was milled corn or white rice with fish, green leafy vegetables sauteed in 1-2 tablespoons of cooking oil and fresh fruits like jackfruit, papayas, bananas, pineapples, avocadoes, coconuts and other tropical fruits. If we did not have fish or vegetables for our corn or rice, we were happy eating only the corn or rice with oil, soy sauce and salt. Please take note that those foods have no synthetic chemicals i.e. preservatives, additives, food colorings, pesticides, herbicides, insecticides, etc... like the ones in a modern diet. We did eat canned food or red meat but very rare, very seldom because these were luxury food and expensive therefore we could not afford. We drink lots of clean fresh water from underground. In addition, we walked everyday 20-30 minutes and played a lot. With this diet, we had colds and flu, headaches, fever and others that doctors, nutritionists, dietician would conclude of detoxification. Then, when old age, overweight, hip factures (maybe this is what they called in modern medicine as osteoporosis), diabetes, heart strokes, cancers, blindness and others not diagnosed diseases appear. Then, old people passed away with these diseases. My father died with lung cancer at age 33 while my mother died with lung cancer at age 49. My grandmother died at 82 overweight with hip fracture. Most often, diseases were not diagnosed like the ones in affluent countries because doctors were expensive.

When I married, the normal diet of the people in my husband's village is whole, freshly milled wheat grain, so everything that dieticians & nutritionists would say is the best for health and nutrition, vegetable or meat deep fried in clarified butter (ghee) with lots of onions and spices. Most often, they have fresh milk, sometimes they boil ( I think this is equivalent to pasteurization in the affluent countries) it to preserve, sometimes they eat it fresh from the cow or goat. They also have fresh butter but raw, not pasteurized and eat it with with the whole freshly milled wheat grain bread. They eat only twice a day with lots of exercise by working in the farm. Their farm is grown organically. They do not have cakes, ice cream, chocolates, chips, or other processed foods. They do drink tea made with milk and tea leaves. This is their drinks in between those 2 meals beside of course, water. They do not drink coke, colas or bottled juices. With this diet, my brother in law had one kidney removed at aged 20, now he is overweight with heart & high cholesterol. The older brother had a mild heart stroke at aged 28. By the way this brother finished his medical doctor degree but still having a heart problem. My father in law healed himself of tuberculosis. My uncle in law has rheumatoid arthritis. Basically, almost all in the family are sick particulartly having joint pains. Colds, flu are normal. They don't bother this kind of thing. They believe in medicine though but they don't regularly checked and take them.

Now, my family and I live in Australia. Our normal diet are white rice, breads, meats, fruits, vegetables, olive oil and other vegetable oils with some processed meats & other processed foods and coffee for my husband & I. Every 6-8 weeks, we have colds and flu (maybe for detoxification). My husband has high cholesterol @ age 33. He eats 2 toasted bread spread with cholesterol lowering margarine and meat curry with the bread everyday to lower the cholesterol, & walk for 20-30 minutes but his cholesterol is still high. While I am overweight.

When I compare the 3 diets, there must be something wrong. With the highly processed foods, young kids are getting the disease of the old people. The diets when I was small, the diseases were for the old people. While the diets where my husband grew up, I think, the women were 10 years older than their age compared to when I grew up that we looked younger than our age. I don't know if it is because of the diet because the women where my husband grew up worked in the farm while the women that I grew up did not work in the farm.

I am writing all of these for the reader to compare the complete picture, there must be something wrong, I think. I don't have science to back up only from the experience that I had.

I think whether human beings are primates, eating fruits and vegetables, or carnivores or herbivores but animals eat whole fresh raw foods not like human being, we always eat our foods processed by cooking or industrial processing. Therefore, I think we cannot compare ourselves to other primates or other carnivores or herbivores for this reason.

Celeste - December 10, 2006 1:24 AM

Dear Dr. Fuhrman,

The "substance and merit" in the teachings of the Weston A. Price Foundation is that consuming raw dairy from grass-fed animals, along with following many of their other recommendations, for the past two years has cured my asthma.

You write that the WAPF recommends "meat-based diets", which is not really accurate. They recommend the consumption of traditional foods, many of which include meat, of course! But they also recommend all sorts of fruits and vegetables, along with properly fermented grains, nuts, milk and butter from grass-fed cows, eggs from pastured chickens and much more!

And who's to say that the studies you hold dear are all accurate??? The study you mention that links red-meat consumption to pancreatic cancer probably doesn't even consider the QUALITY of red-meat consumed by its subjects, does it? Grain-fed cattle vs. grass-finished? It makes a world of difference. Cows are not meant to eat grain!

Anyway, I'm just a woman who cares where her food comes from and believes we truly are what we eat (the same goes for cows!).

ben - December 13, 2006 4:59 AM

Why does saturated fat increase cholesterol? Why the addition of a few hydrogen atoms suddenly makes fat more likely to be turned into cholesterol? what ISOLATED, OBJECTIVE, REPEATABLE evidence do you have that saturated fat from healthy sources increases cholesterol? im not either for your argument or against it, its just i have searched the internet for PROOF of the health harming effects of saturated fat and found none.

Epidemiological evidence is nothing like enough! groves has plenty of that in his favour and you seem to have a small amount in yours, but neither is any form of proof. You can correlate sesame seeds with cancer but only because there sprinkled upon most burgers.

You should not post YOUR OPINION as though it is scientific fact, many real scientists disagree, so it seems to me either you PROOVE IT or ZIP IT.

Doris Smith - December 13, 2006 7:26 AM

I think a lot of people who are bashing Dr. Fuhrman here are not reading the whole post, nor are they exploring the rest of Disease Proof.com.

This post itself includes 4 references and most of Disease proof posts include references. So I say to people reading/critizing dr. Fuhrman, either read the entire post, or don't comment at all.

GMB - December 19, 2006 11:13 PM

the good doctor's argument has a pretty big fatal flaw - virtually every society in history (that is healthy) has consumed a great deal of saturated fat. this is not to the exclusion of other foods, mind you, but weston price didn't argue to just eat animal products - he said that a total lack of animal products is unhealthy. the good doctor fuhrman apparently needs to go back to school and try taking reading comprehension again. i know lots of "vegans" - my sister is all into that and so are all her friends. they're all skinny with sagging skin and looking very malnourished. vegetarians can be healthy if they include milk, eggs, or butter. to counter the good doctor's anthropological arguments - the ancient egyptian royalty eschewed animal products - and we have their mummies to show the bad teeth, osteoporosis, and general withering of their bodies prior to death. again, weston price wasn't advocating an atkins type diet - he believed in the value of fresh produce - he also believed that we need animal products, too. as to saturated fat - some of the healthiest cultures in the world use lots of it. the french use a ridiculous amount of butter, cream, and cheese and have the lowest incidence of heart disease in the western industrialized world. the mediteranean diet is mislabeled as being low in saturated fat. go to greece or italy. observe the copious amounts of butter, ghee, and feta cheese used. even the asian diets are replete with saturated fat in the form of pork lard and coconut oil. its a shame that people listen so readily to doctors nutritional advice simply because they have a "d" "r" in front of their name. the only nutrition the vast majority of them have been schooled in is pharmacology -since they're essentially the lapdogs of the legalized drug industry.

Mike - December 20, 2006 8:51 PM

Most Importantly we should remember that no randomised controlled Clinical Trial has ever shown any reduction at all in Coronary heart Disease mortality or overall mortality from replacing animal fats with polyunsaturated vegetable fats.

In fact, just the opposite persons randomised to polyunsaturated fat had significant increases in Coronary Heart Disease mortality rates.


Are you familiar with the research Dr. Fuhrman?

There are 18 Clinical Dietary Intervention Trials and 26 prospectiuve Trials to date on the saturated fat/Coronary Heart Disease issue.

Here are all 18 Clinical and you can look them up at a Medical University Library to confirm it everyone.


*Sydney Diet Heart Study
*National Diet heart Study
*Los Angeles Veterans Administration Study
*Ball et al
*Minnesota Survey
*Lyon Diet Heart Study
*Women's Health Initiative
*Bierenbaum et al
*DART
*Anti Coronary Club
*STARS
*Medical Research Council
*Hood et al

*Finnish Mental Hospital Stusy
*Medical research Council
*Rose etal
*Oslo Diet Heart Study

Clearly when you look these up you will see the research does not support the anti-cholesterol/anti-saturated fat paradigm.


Sincerely,
Mike

Gerry Pugliese - December 27, 2006 3:16 PM

Dr. Fuhrman adds more to this discussion in this post:

http://tinyurl.com/y6kyw8

Jennifer - December 27, 2006 9:55 PM

The Massai may only live to 45 but so do the people of Loas and they had the highest vegetation consumption and lowest heart disease and cancer according to Eat To Live. There are also countries that have high fat consumptions and long life expectancies. Many varibles cn effect life expecancy--wars, infant mortality ect.

Mike - February 6, 2007 11:23 PM

Re the comment: "i know lots of "vegans" - my sister is all into that and so are all her friends. they're all skinny with sagging skin and looking very malnourished."

Maybe they aren't going about it the right way. Research the 2006 Badwater Ultramarathon results and you will find the overall winner (Scott Jurek) and the fastest female (Monica Scholz) are both vegans. This is a 135-mile race in temps up to 130F (55C). Not bad for a couple of vegans. Tell your sister to get the book, "Becoming Vegan" (Brenda Davis & Vesanto Melina) and start doing it right.

Brian Edgar - February 16, 2007 6:39 AM

Dear Dr Fuhrman, I'm sure you're right in general about cholesterol (and nutrition in general)but high cholesterol does seem to be protective against parkinson's disease. Right? Thanks.
Brian Edgar

E Palacios - March 7, 2007 6:22 PM

It seems to me you all need to read Eat Right for your Type, Blood types are different, therefore we are different and thrive on different diets. I was a vegan and ate a very "healthy" vegan diet and felt absolutely terrible for a long time, I found eat right for your type followed a red meat based diet suggested for my blood type and feel great. I also have Sally Fallons nourishing traditions and absolutely do not believe that everyone needs dairy, even raw and unpastuerized, the majority of americans cannot digest it.

Gerry Pugliese - March 20, 2007 12:45 PM

Check out this post for Dr. Fuhrman's thoughts on many of these comments:

Dr. Fuhrman on Dietary Misinformation
(http://tinyurl.com/23voau)

Chris - January 22, 2008 5:23 PM

There will always be a study out there that will back up our opinions and we will jump on it! Its a big problem and kind of humorous at the same time. It makes it a little difficult for the nutritionally challenged however. I have been personally training a variety of people from top athletes to my Grandmother for 17 years and have long concluded that we are so similar yet so different. "One man's food is another man's poison" comes to mind. Ethnic background I think plays a huge role. The same food pyramid for all of us? Same ideal cholesterol levels? I don't know. By the way, aren't we made of cholesterol? I am Norweigan, for instance, and feel so much better when I eat lots of wild seafood and a good amount of organic red meat as well. Lots of produce too by the way. Red, Green, Purple and Orange everyday! An ex of mine of East Indian decent did not tolerate red meat well so we would share brown rice, salad and have fish or I would throw on a hamburger patty for me and a chicken breast for her. Worked so well once we figured it out. I have to admit that I would shut down without the animal protein and fats as disgusting as that may sound to some. When I smell a steak on the grill my mouth waters. By accident? Hmmm. I also believe in sprouted grains, nuts and seeds so I guess you could call me the meat eating vegan:-) I have been very successful helping people discover what works best for them by trying a variety of whole, unrefined foods and doing some trial and error. A high fiber, omega and anti-oxidant rich regimen is a must no matter what blood or metabolic type you are or what "diet" or food "Guru" you currently subscribe to. A good cleanse once in a while wouldn't hurt either. Peace.

A Turner - March 17, 2008 11:17 AM

It is worth having a look at this website about the Island of Okinawa which is claimed to be the most long-lived population in the world.
http://www.wonder-okinawa.jp/026/e/pork.html
This is a Japanese website and tells the real story of what the islanders eat, not a romanticised assumption of what they eat.

Guenn and David Gentry - June 16, 2008 2:44 PM

You must be a fundamentalist Christian or a member of some other extremist religious group, because your disdain for primitive cultures and thier amazing, ancient cultural traditions is clear in both your writing and attitude...If you want educated people to take you seriously, I highly reccomend streamling your eurocentric, zenophobic attitudes in your written criticisms of your more enlighted colleagues and thier appreciation for traditional wisdom and cultures.

LowCarber - July 9, 2008 2:36 PM

Dangerous? Tell it to the people who have improved their health and weight and blood parameters following a lower-carb diet.

Darleen - August 9, 2008 10:34 AM

That's right, keep quoting the junk science that tells us that fat is bad and we'll all be thin if we just starve ourselves long enough and work out like maniacs for 90 minutes a day.

Please.

This grand experiment has gone on long enough. The food industry, big pharma and diet doctors have made enough money off of the fat of the land. It's time people woke up to reality. Dietary fat is good. Sugar and other highly refined carbs are BAD. Fitness is good. Overdoing it is insane.

We are a nation of anorexics... WAKE UP. Groves is right. So is Mary Enig and Sally Fallon and Gary Taubes and Dr. Atkins. Stop preaching the insanity of low fat and get your head back on straight.

Goinup - September 29, 2008 1:11 AM

How do you explain the fact that since I started Barry Groves' diet my blood sugars have stabilized and I have more energy and I'm losing 2 pounds a week?

Teflon - October 12, 2008 3:31 PM

If your going to pick on poor little Kenya's low life-span, realize that Finland, Denmark, and Belgium, countries that consume 1000+ calories or more of animal products daily than Japan have an average lifespan only 6 years lower, and lifespans higher than vegetarian countries India, Mexico, Venezuela, Chile, Panama, etc. Canada, Iceland, Sweden and France have a lifespan average less than 4 years lower than Japan. Also, the studies posted have not isolated for confounding variables. Most later studies reveal a NEGATIVE association between heart disease and stearic acid, which gets rapidly transformed into oleic acid in the body.

Chris Byrne - January 15, 2009 10:27 PM

"This grand experiment has gone on long enough. The food industry, big pharma and diet doctors have made enough money off of the fat of the land. It's time people woke up to reality. Dietary fat is good. Sugar and other highly refined carbs are BAD. Fitness is good. Overdoing it is insane."

I completely agree. If only scientists were actually as objective as we like to believe them to be. The day science and policy hopped in bed together is the day that science died. Nothing outrages me more than the term 'scientific consenus'... what the hell does that even MEAN! - We can't prove it, so a group of us got together and decided to believe it anyway. That sounds suspiciously like RELIGION to me. The Church of the Latter Day Lipid Hypothesis?

As for 'fitness', I would like to contribute by stating that cardio is almost as bad as carbs! We were not designed for it. We were designed for anaerobics. Hunt, kill, drag home. Do you honestly think primitive man JOGGED while he was collecting berries and nuts? Perhaps he also read a Woman's Weekly as he ran? Cardio is an inefficient method of burning fat and causes unnecessary wear and tear on the body; those who were earlier using marathon runners as representatives of the pinnacles of health are kidding themselves. If you want to look after your heart, eat protein, saturated fats, do resistance and interval training. Isn't it amazing how this combination not only raises basal metabolic rate, fortifies our joints and ligaments, improves our overall muscularity, but amazingly it also reduces our bodies' propensity for fat storage, hence completely eliminating the need for evil cardio in the first place!

Cardio and carbs: killing Americans since 1970.

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







Remember personal info?
Send To A Friend Use this form to send this entry to a friend via email.