MachineGhost wrote:What makes you think Price has all the answers?
Simple. Because Price isn't coming up with new and untested ways to extend our life span.
All Price did was look at the long-term dietary habits of cultures that had low incidence of degenerative diseases — and were specimens of very good health/proper bone development — and he documented what he observed. All of these healthy cultures had the same things in common: High levels of saturated fat intake, high levels of Omega 3s, and eating some raw and/or lacto-fermentated foods, and had no exposure to modern refined foods. All of the cultures he observed (as well as our own pre-1900 Western cultures) had low incidences of heart disease. ("Heart disease"
in 1900 was chiefly infectious or valvular, rather than atherosclerotic, and heart attacks were rare before 1920). So, Price's observations are an excellent documentation of the historical record. That's all there is to it. Eat like your ancestors ate if you want to avoid the many chronic diseases that have increased dramatically over the past century.
More importantly, the dietary habits he observed are almost certainly representative of how humans nourished themselves for thousands of years. In other words, Price observed thoroughly tested dietary regimens.
MachineGhost wrote:If it comes down to traditions vs science, I'm not going with the former until its proved by the latter. That's just how I think after spending two decades listening to various gurus and hucksters. People are always full of shit; I now prefer science.
"Science" isn't nearly as pure as Bill Falloon would have you believe. He is clearly one of those gurus/hucksters — selling supplements and holding up a bunch of cherry-picked white papers to prove they work. He's a snake oil salesman. Scientific studies are heavily influenced by corporate interests. Where do you think the money to do all these "studies" usually come from? When the studies don't make the sponsors happy, they either eliminate conflicting data — to prove their hypothesis — or they downplay the conflicting data. Or they bury the study and don't publish it. Many times they will tweak graphs and data points to overemphasize their conclusion. Researchers who don't make sponsors happy don't get funded. All this money-driven data makes its way to the media and gets simplified to conclusions that have very little real "science" behind them. Those same flawed conclusions are often used as a foundation for subsequent studies (i.e. Study A says X=Y, so Y must be the cause of Z). It's a very murky way to jump to conclusions. Many studies conflict each other, but researchers will just exclude — or fail to mention — the studies that don't pair nicely with their own findings.
"Tradition" is much more clear cut. There is a pretty clear historical record that shows what people died from and how they lived. You don't see corporate interests proving much with the historical record, because everyone got their nutrition from farms before 1900 and most chronic disease was pretty rare.
[align=center]
[/align]
Nothing I say should be construed as advice or expertise. I am only sharing opinions which may or may not be applicable in any given case.
[/align]
