What's your favorite diet?

[Barry]

It's getting to be that time of year to start thinking about dropping some of that winter padding and get ready for spring and summer (and in my case, a wedding!)

The first time a tried the Atkins diet I managed to drop 30 lbs! It totally changed my life! However when I tried it again, or the related South Beach diet, I was less successful.

What I liked about it is that I could eat as much as I wanted. I've always had a preference for protein rather than sugar (Blood Type 0) so the restricted food choices worked for me. The food choices can also be rather expensive, especially if you try to do it using primarily organic sources.

The HCG diet is all the rage now and I've seen people lose significant weight using it. However, injections are unappealing as well as low energy while your starving yourself.

I'd love to hear primarily first-person accounts of what diets have worked for you!

[Shandi]

I've also had success with high protein, low carbs. Becoming familiar with carb foods and their
numbers is just a matter of buying a little booklet for this purpose. I discovered a book called The
Carbohydrate Addict's Lifespan Program by Drs. Richard and Rachel Heller. They had both been
extremely overweight. She had weighed 300 lbs. and has been 165 for over 10+ years.

I've heard people say that they're overweight because of hormones, and this book backs that up!
But the great thing is that they give you a way to lose weight by knowing what triggers those hormones.
Knowledge is power! Using that knowledge is actually what's powerful!

This book has a lot of great recipes, and a vegetarian section. But they do have a more comprehensive recipe book called the Carbohydrate Addict's Diet.

What surprised me was that any kind of sugar, whether regular or diet, triggers insulin reaction. "The
sugar substitutes can falsely signal your body that a sweet meal is coming, and excess insulin may be
released. When no carbs are forthcoming, the high levels of insulin that remain can lead to increases in
cravings, weight gain, and health related risks." They advise to reduce or eliminate intake of sugar
substitutes.

How many overweight people do you know that will only use sugar-free drinks or foods?
A lot of information on sugar substitutes show that they can be very dangerous to our health,
and create other serious health issues.

I've also heard from several friends that a vegan diet will help drop the pounds, but this involves a
willingness to take on more serious dietary shift. But probably a beneficial one for all.

[Marty M]

French Women Don't Get Fat by Mireille Guiliano

Bon appetit!
Marty

[edie]

Hi Barry!
My favorite diet is the one I should not eat at all- and I don't- 99%.

The one diet I love and is easy for me is my grandmothers:*
a little bit of everything-
a little bit at a time-
six times a day-*
one of each at every meal: protein, complex carbs, lipids & oil

The exercise part is the one I have to work on!

Important: at my grandmothers time there where no processed foods available!!!

edie

[Quintessence]

I am generally following the Eat to Live plan of Joel Fuhrman, and I really like it, as it is a lifestyle, not a diet. You can cheat and eat some meat, seafood, whatever, but it is largely vegan, which I never thought I could do. But I love vegetables, and beans, and fruit........... and you can eat large quantities and really be creative with the foods.

I recommend folks read the book, and decide for yourselves. Fuhrman makes an incredibly good case for keeping oils, meats, poultry, dairy, etc., out of our diets. You don't need them, and are much better off without them....... you can prevent disease, for example. Did you know that broccoli has twice as much protein as steak? Lots of good surprises....... and I am a pretty good cook, so I like the challenge of using fresh ingredients. :)

[edie]

Over the past many years I have learned so much about diet and foods from many sources but not much*new about the basics of what is good for ones body or not (every body is a little bit different). I kind of new from childhood on about the basics. I do believe most of us do.
** * * What was left do figure out was to make it fun and tasty.
** * * Or to find the willpower to be good to myself and do the right thing.
** * * Not being lazy about it.
** * * To think about- that some foods can actually hurt me (everybody is different)
Its the balance of it. There are so many choices of creating a delicious plate of food (without processed foods) it's fun to go about it. I believe the "willpower" is the problem, the one lucking to make the correct choice. Not the cookbooks or the advertising, diets, fast food outlets or what my neighbors are eating. An old saying- I do not have to jump over a bridge because someone else does. Therefore I know I wont have ice creme, a stick of salami or some other such- in my fridge- cause I can't control myself staying away from it. When I like to indulge with some tasty (bad) specials once in a wile, thats okay.*
I think about the balancing of nutrition- the willpower- stress can nock that over- doesn't it?... it's a fun challenge...

[DynamicBalance]

Fuhrman makes an incredibly good case for keeping oils, meats, poultry, dairy, etc., out of our diets. You don't need them, and are much better off without them....... you can prevent disease, for example. Did you know that broccoli has twice as much protein as steak? Lots of good surprises......

I'd love to see Fuhrman's references for this claim. According to Nutritiondata.com, 100 grams of steak contains 34 grams of protein, while 100 grams of broccoli contains 3 grams of protein. In other words, steak is 11 times higher in protein than broccoli. How on earth did Fuhrman get that so incredibly wrong?

Anyone who believes animal products or fats are bad for health and that avoiding them will prevent disease needs to read Denise Minger's review of Forks Over Knives: https://rawfoodsos.com/2011/09/22/fo...-and-critique/ This is possibly the most detailed (and most interesting, at least if you're a health nerd like me) movie review of all time. This young woman is one of my heroes for her incredible intellect and willingness to sort through the scientific muck and make it understandable and interesting, even downright entertaining, for the rest of us.

Not to mention that there are quite a few examples of peoples that have traditionally eaten diets that are moderate to high in animal foods while enjoying robust health and low rates of degenerative disease. That fact alone disproves the idea that animal products and/or fats are inherently unhealthy.

I advocate the diet recommended by the Weston A. Price Foundation. These are the dietary principles they stand by:

1. Eat whole, natural foods.
2. Eat only foods that will spoil, but eat them before they do.
3. Eat naturally-raised meat including fish, seafood, poultry, beef, lamb, game, organ meats and eggs.
4. Eat whole, naturally-produced milk products from pasture-fed cows, preferably raw and/or fermented, such as whole yogurt, cultured butter, whole cheeses and fresh and sour cream.
5. Use only traditional fats and oils including butter and other animal fats, extra virgin olive oil, expeller expressed sesame and flax oil and the tropical oils—coconut and palm.
6. Eat fresh fruits and vegetables, preferably organic, in salads and soups, or lightly steamed.
7. Use whole grains and nuts that have been prepared by soaking, sprouting or sour leavening to neutralize phytic acid and other anti-nutrients.
8. Include enzyme-enhanced lacto-fermented vegetables, fruits, beverages and condiments in your diet on a regular basis.
9. Prepare homemade meat stocks from the bones of chicken, beef, lamb or fish and use liberally in soups and sauces.
10. Use herb teas and coffee substitutes in moderation.
11. Use filtered water for cooking and drinking.
12. Use unrefined Celtic sea salt and a variety of herbs and spices for food interest and appetite stimulation.
13. Make your own salad dressing using raw vinegar, extra virgin olive oil and expeller expressed flax oil.
14. Use natural sweeteners in moderation, such as raw honey, maple syrup, dehydrated cane sugar juice and stevia powder.
15. Use only unpasteurized wine or beer in strict moderation with meals.
16. Cook only in stainless steel, cast iron, glass or good quality enamel.
17. Use only natural supplements.
18. Get plenty of sleep, exercise and natural light.
19. Think positive thoughts and minimize stress.
20. Practice forgiveness.

I can't say that I follow every single one of these guidelines 100% of the time, but incorporating as much of this advice as possible into my diet and lifestyle has literally turned my health around. Life-changing stuff. I was nearly vegan when I discovered the WAPF, so this was a huge change for me, and one that I am still transitioning into in many ways. I feel a million times healthier both mentally and physically, and chronic health problems I'd had since childhood cleared up completely.

Laurel Blair, NTP
www.dynamicbalancenutrition.com

[Shandi]

Thanks Laurel,

I'm glad that you pointed out the Furman's fallacy about steak and broccoli having the same amount of protein. I knew it wasn't correct, but verified it by seeing online comments, and a nutrition chart.
I enjoyed seeing your reference to Forks over Knives, which I'm inspired to check out, and the diet
recommended by Weston A Price Foundation. It makes a lot of sense to me.

I'd love to see Fuhrman's references for this claim. According to Nutritiondata.com, 100 grams of steak contains 34 grams of protein, while 100 grams of broccoli contains 3 grams of protein. In other words, steak is 11 times higher in protein than broccoli. How on earth did Fuhrman get that so incredibly wrong?

...
Laurel Blair, NTP
www.dynamicbalancenutrition.com

[Quintessence]

Fuhrman's reference is the USDA. What's thrown you off, and I should have said it, is that this is based on a PER CALORIE basis. Broccoli has about twice the amount of protein, per calorie, as steak. And, Fuhrman is a physician, and has treated folks with disease whom he put on his diet plan, and he recounts results in the book.

[Shandi]

If we're talking PER CALORIE, that's a different angle. How many people know this:

Mushrooms are 50% protein and in 2000 calories of rice there is about 50grams of protein.

We may have gotten sidetracked from Barry's original question about a diet that could help him lose weight.
I still believe that the low carb diet is most helpful, since carbs are the insulin triggers, and excess insulin signals
the liver to turn any excess blood sugar into blood fat, which is stored in your fat cells. Insulin tells the body to
keep the fat stored for awhile until the food energy is needed later.

Proteins stay with us longer, so we don't feel so hungry. I could never just eat cereal for breakfast, because a couple of hours later, I'd need to eat again. My body needs protein, especially in the morning. Sometimes I do eat broccoli for breakfast with some leftover chicken or beef.

Fuhrman's reference is the USDA. What's thrown you off, and I should have said it, is that this is based on a PER CALORIE basis. Broccoli has about twice the amount of protein, per calorie, as steak. And, Fuhrman is a physician, and has treated folks with disease whom he put on his diet plan, and he recounts results in the book.

[sharmie]

The Divorce Diet worked the best for me: Being too stressed-out and furious/griefy to choke anything down. Lost 15 lbs in about 5 days. I kept it off, too, until love re-entered the picture and I started cooking my brains out.

The other best diet, (now that all the above has quietly left the building), and this is only for me, is having a big bowl of popcorn around, sprayed with Bragg's and tossed with nutritional food yeast. Great snack, low calorie. For dinner, I have fruit and yogurt and some kind of fiber-y cereal mixed up together. It takes a long time to eat and it makes me happy. I eat an egg here and there, and some kind of vegetable every day, too. I drink a lot of green tea. I'm oral. It's satisfying.

I have played around with every diet out there. I think the trick is, to find something you like, that makes you happy to eat, and that doesn't do that big carb thing where you are hungry 15 minutes later. Get out there and walk around, too. That helps. Don't take any of it too seriously. It's fun losing 10 lbs. It's fun gaining 10 lbs, as long as it's not because you're eating/starving yourself into a stupor out of pain. Really, the only thing that matters is that some of the people you love, love you. And that you're not one of those drivers who thinks the road is a combat zone. Or that you don't have to smile back when someone smiles at you. You don't, actually, but I'm not going to make friends with you, probably.

[dancingstar]

I try likewise to live by Weston A. Price's dietary recommendations. It sits well with me after many years of self-study in nutrition and alternative healing practices (and Laurel's recommendations!). I've just started making my own bone broths and look now for pasture fed butters and raw dairy.

I'm curious about "unpasteurized wine". Where does one find that?

Judy

I advocate the diet recommended by the Weston A. Price Foundation. These are the dietary principles they stand by:

1. Eat whole, natural foods.
2. Eat only foods that will spoil, but eat them before they do.
3. Eat naturally-raised meat including fish, seafood, poultry, beef, lamb, game, organ meats and eggs.
4. Eat whole, naturally-produced milk products from pasture-fed cows, preferably raw and/or fermented, such as whole yogurt, cultured butter, whole cheeses and fresh and sour cream.
5. Use only traditional fats and oils including butter and other animal fats, extra virgin olive oil, expeller expressed sesame and flax oil and the tropical oils—coconut and palm.
6. Eat fresh fruits and vegetables, preferably organic, in salads and soups, or lightly steamed.
7. Use whole grains and nuts that have been prepared by soaking, sprouting or sour leavening to neutralize phytic acid and other anti-nutrients.
8. Include enzyme-enhanced lacto-fermented vegetables, fruits, beverages and condiments in your diet on a regular basis.
9. Prepare homemade meat stocks from the bones of chicken, beef, lamb or fish and use liberally in soups and sauces.
10. Use herb teas and coffee substitutes in moderation.
11. Use filtered water for cooking and drinking.
12. Use unrefined Celtic sea salt and a variety of herbs and spices for food interest and appetite stimulation.
13. Make your own salad dressing using raw vinegar, extra virgin olive oil and expeller expressed flax oil.
14. Use natural sweeteners in moderation, such as raw honey, maple syrup, dehydrated cane sugar juice and stevia powder.
15. Use only unpasteurized wine or beer in strict moderation with meals.
16. Cook only in stainless steel, cast iron, glass or good quality enamel.
17. Use only natural supplements.
18. Get plenty of sleep, exercise and natural light.
19. Think positive thoughts and minimize stress.
20. Practice forgiveness.

[Dixon]

I'd strongly recommend the fascinating book The Diet Myth by Paul Campos to anyone who's considering losing weight. His analysis of the research makes it clear that, except in extreme cases ("morbidly obese"), being fat is not a health risk. In fact, the healthiest weight for most people is somewhat fatter than the unnaturally thin ideal, and being underweight is more dangerous to your health than is being "overweight". We (including many if not most doctors) have been sold a load of BS by "experts" who have a huge financial conflict of interest because they make their money from the multi-billion dollar weight-loss industry.

For the vast majority of people, weight-loss diets don't work; that is, if your self-deprivation results in some weight loss, you'll regain it all and probably a bit more. Ultimately, most people who repeatedly do this "yoyo" dieting end up fatter than they'd be if they'd never dieted! Furthermore, these "yoyo" dieters have, on average, shorter lifespans and more health problems than those who don't diet at all, including people who are quite fat!

For most of us, the level of fatness that's natural for our particular body is fatter than we may think is attractive. This leaves us with a couple of options: torture and deprive ourselves into losing, then regaining weight repeatedly, thus probably shortening and decreasing the quality of our lives, or get over that insanity and accept our body's wisdom about what its natural weight is. The prescription: Forget about some arbitrary weight goal. Forget about your goddamn Body Mass Index (BMI). Instead, identify what a healthy diet is (a variety of mostly whole foods without too much carbohydrates or nasty chemicals) and eat it slowly, mindfully and thankfully in not-too-large amounts. Get plenty of exercise, sleep and love. Do this and your body will settle into the weight that's natural and most healthy for you.

[intheflow88]

Thanks Laurel for such a great summary of the Weston A. Price diet. That's the diet that makes me feel best too. Barry, as a general rule of thumb, the more nutrient dense food you eat, the less your body will crave excess food. Many people who diet skip meals thinking this will help them lose weight. They may lose some muscle weight, but eating 3 meals a day, and not skipping meals is best for a healthy metabolism, as the body stores fat when it perceives there is a famine.

For those of you unfamiliar with Dr. Weston A. Price, he was a dentist who spent most of the 1930's traveling the world to study indigenous cultures' diets. He was interested in the changes in the teeth and facial bone structure in the generations before and after the introduction of modern processed foods like sugar and white flour. He especially went looking for people who ate a vegan diet to see if he could find any with healthy teeth and bone structures, and he was not able to find any population maintaining health on a vegan diet. All of the healthy people he found ate some sort of meat, insect, or blood protein with animal fat.

He found that the wide upper palate and straight healthy caries free teeth were synonymous with people who ate these nutrient dense foods.

Personally, when I was 13 and being told by my orthodontist that my face was too narrow because of the evolution of the human species, and that I needed 8 teeth pulled and braces because my teeth wouldn't fit in my narrow jaw, I thought something is odd about that. That's evolution?

Then as an adult I heard Weston A. Price describe the devolution that has occurred by those who have consumed processed foods. Their narrow facial structures that do not allow enough room for the pineal, pituitary, and hypothalamus glands to function normally, explain the increase in mental health problems and learning disabilities in our society. These are Gaelic children that Weston A. Price photographed. Note: the boy in the bottom left photo is a mouth breather because of the constriction in his nasal bones.

Also a narrow facial structure corresponds with an oval pelvic opening in women, making it harder for them to give birth than the round pelvic structure of those whose mothers consumed and fed their babies a primarily nutrient dense diet. To all the women who have strived for a natural birth and had to succumb to a Caesarian section birth, this may be why.

Fortunately, if a woman eats a high protein, good fat, and nutrient dense diet, and spaces her children by three years to allow her body time to replenish, she can turn around this devolution in one or two generations. The Weston A. Price Foundation especially works to educate mothers-to-be and new parents for this purpose. And for the rest of us, we can improve our energy and mental and physical health considerably by eating this way.

Weston A. Price and Sally Fallon have debunked the low fat fad, and "animal fat is bad" disinformation, because all of these cultures valued and ate animal fat as well as the things Laurel listed. For more information on Weston A. Price's findings please see her article.

I was a vegan for 7 years in my 20's and I count it as one of the biggest mistakes in my life, for my health seriously fell apart on this depleting diet, and candida and anxiety became big problems. I ate this strict way thinking it was healthy, but it felt like following a strange religion. Personally, I do not know any happy vegans. They simply aren't getting enough amino acids to support healthy brain neurotransmitters. In my practice, I differentiate between building foods (meats and fats) and cleansing foods (vegetables and fruits) and I help people balance themselves using these distinctions.

Susan Landes NMT

I advocate the diet recommended by the Weston A. Price Foundation. These are the dietary principles they stand by:

1. Eat whole, natural foods.
2. Eat only foods that will spoil, but eat them before they do.
3. Eat naturally-raised meat including fish, seafood, poultry, beef, lamb, game, organ meats and eggs.
4. Eat whole, naturally-produced milk products from pasture-fed cows, preferably raw and/or fermented, such as whole yogurt, cultured butter, whole cheeses and fresh and sour cream.
5. Use only traditional fats and oils including butter and other animal fats, extra virgin olive oil, expeller expressed sesame and flax oil and the tropical oils—coconut and palm.
6. Eat fresh fruits and vegetables, preferably organic, in salads and soups, or lightly steamed.
7. Use whole grains and nuts that have been prepared by soaking, sprouting or sour leavening to neutralize phytic acid and other anti-nutrients.
8. Include enzyme-enhanced lacto-fermented vegetables, fruits, beverages and condiments in your diet on a regular basis.
9. Prepare homemade meat stocks from the bones of chicken, beef, lamb or fish and use liberally in soups and sauces.
10. Use herb teas and coffee substitutes in moderation.
11. Use filtered water for cooking and drinking.
12. Use unrefined Celtic sea salt and a variety of herbs and spices for food interest and appetite stimulation.
13. Make your own salad dressing using raw vinegar, extra virgin olive oil and expeller expressed flax oil.
14. Use natural sweeteners in moderation, such as raw honey, maple syrup, dehydrated cane sugar juice and stevia powder.
15. Use only unpasteurized wine or beer in strict moderation with meals.
16. Cook only in stainless steel, cast iron, glass or good quality enamel.
17. Use only natural supplements.
18. Get plenty of sleep, exercise and natural light.
19. Think positive thoughts and minimize stress.
20. Practice forgiveness.

[DynamicBalance]

Fuhrman's reference is the USDA. What's thrown you off, and I should have said it, is that this is based on a PER CALORIE basis. Broccoli has about twice the amount of protein, per calorie, as steak. And, Fuhrman is a physician, and has treated folks with disease whom he put on his diet plan, and he recounts results in the book.

I personally think that measuring nutrients per calorie can be very misleading. To say that broccoli has twice the protein of steak would imply to a lot of people that broccoli is a good protein source. The reality is that you would have to eat almost 11 cups of broccoli to get just an ounce of protein. To put that into perspective, the average person needs two or more ounces of protein per day to meet their requirements. And that does not even take into consideration the differences in the quality of protein found in steak vs. broccoli. The fact is, steak is much higher in essential amino acids. It is a more complete protein.

The WAPF actually has a book review of Fuhrman's Eat to Live on their website, written by Chris Masterjohn, a researcher who I have tremendous respect for. I encourage everyone who is interested in the topic of nutrient-density to read it. Here's an excerpt from the review:

Fuhrman’s calculations of nutrient density suffer from three fatal flaws: first, he excludes from these calculations many nutrients known to be essential to the body while doubling the score of other putative nutrients whose physiological functions are uncertain; second, he fails to account for variations in the bioavailability of nutrients between foods; third, he groups all nutrients present in a food into a single score as if they were interchangeable, rather than acknowledging that different types of foods provide different types of nutrients.

His definition of nutrient density as nutrients per calorie can be valuable for someone whose first priority is to restrict calories, but it can be inappropriate for others. Rather than instructing the reader about how to judiciously use the ten percent of calories allotted to animal products to select the most nutrient-dense of these foods, Fuhrman dismisses their nutritional contribution as insignificant. Although the premise of Eat to Live—nutrient density—is solid, his assumptions in the application of this principle seriously diminish the value that this book will have to many readers and may even lead some down a path that will ultimately damage their health.

Not All Nutrients Count

Fuhrman lists five nutrient deficiencies his patients—especially the vegans—sometimes develop when following his regimen: vitamin D, vitamin B^₁₂, taurine, DHA and iodine. This should come as no surprise to his readers since vitamin B^₁₂ is the only one of these nutrients included in his nutrient-density ranking system. Vitamin D, DHA, taurine and iodine are not.

According to the explanation of this ranking system posted on Fuhrman’s web site,¹ he also excludes a number of other important nutrients. The B vitamins biotin and pantothenic acid, preformed vitamin A, and vitamins K1 and K2 are among those absent. Major minerals such as sodium, chloride, potassium, sulfur, and phosphorus are excluded. Essential trace minerals such as copper, manganese, boron, molybdenum, and chromium are nowhere to be found in Fuhrman’s list. Essential fatty acids like EPA, DHA and arachidonic acid are likewise absent. Finally, none of the eight essential amino acids is included in his ranking system.

Fuhrman excludes a whole host of essential nutrients from his list while including a number of non-essential nutrients. Some non-essential nutrients are actually required by the body but are not considered essential because we can synthesize them ourselves. Other non-essential nutrients are not required by the body but may nevertheless be beneficial because they can absorb free radicals—dangerous compounds with unpaired electrons that can wreak havoc on the cell—and thereby act as antioxidants. The selectivity with which Fuhrman includes non-essential nutrients heavily favors plant foods over animal foods and likewise favors compounds that play no essential role in the body and may even be harmful under certain circumstances over compounds that do play essential roles.

Fuhrman includes in his system carotenes and other pigments, the thyroid-suppressing agents found in the cabbage family called glucosinolates, and fiber. He also includes the oxygen radical absorbance capacity (ORAC) score. This is a measure of how well chemicals act as antioxidants in an isolated setting in a laboratory, not a measure of their effect within the body. Although we know very little about the importance of the chemicals that contribute to the ORAC score, Fuhrman actually doubles their contribution to his nutrient-density ranking.

These plant chemicals, whether they act as antioxidants in test tubes or in cells, are not essential nutrients. Each cell within the body synthesizes the master antioxidant glutathione, which neutralizes free radicals and also regenerates vitamins E and C.² The synthesis of glutathione requires either dietary cysteine, an amino acid that is only bioavailable from raw proteins, or vitamin B₆.³ Glutathione, in conjunction with several vitamins and enzymes, protects the cell from free radicals. These enzymes require selenium, iron, manganese, copper and zinc to function. Plant chemicals that contribute to the ORAC score may augment this defense system, but they are not an essential part of it and do not fulfill any role within it that the basic components synthesized within the cell and the other essential vitamins cannot fulfill.

Many of the “antioxidants” in fruits and vegetables are actually potent inhibitors of enzyme activity. Some of them may reduce the levels of certain enzymes that some researchers believe promote cancer.⁴ Many of them, however, especially those found in onions, kale, broccoli, apples, cherries, berries, tea and red wine, are potent inhibitors of a process that takes place in the liver called sulfonation.⁵ Sulfonation is necessary for the detoxification of drugs and environmental pollutants and the normal activity of steroid hormones and thyroid hormone. Because sulfonation can also make some chemicals more toxic, researchers have proposed that the inhibition of this process could be beneficial. Perhaps because the absorption of these compounds from many foods is negligible, or perhaps because they have so many conflicting effects on our metabolic processes, they are not associated with either an increase or a decrease in the risk of cancer.⁶

Prudence dictates excluding these “nutrients” from any ranking system until further research can elucidate the true effects they actually have within our bodies; but rather than excluding them, however, Fuhrman counts each of them as two nutrients instead of one.

While Fuhrman doubles the score of plant chemicals that play no essential role in the body, he completely excludes many nutrients found in animal foods that do play essential roles. Creatine is vital for muscle function; taurine is essential to digestion and the functioning of the brain and retina; carnitine and coenzyme Q₁₀ are required for energy metabolism;⁷ carnosine functions as an antioxidant, protects DNA and proteins from being destroyed by sugars that run amuck, and plays important roles in the nervous system.⁸ None of these nutrients—not even taurine, which Fuhrman himself says is sometimes deficient in his vegan patients—is included.It should come as no surprise, then, that his chart shows green leafy vegetables to be superior to meat, eggs and shellfish. Were organ meats such as liver even included on this chart, they would probably fare just as poorly—not because they aren’t nutrient-dense, but because Fuhrman’s chart of nutrient density completely ignores more than two dozen of the nutrients that they contain.

This dubious method of determining "nutrient-density" is very similar to the way Whole Foods comes up with their ANDI scores. Simply leave out all of the nutrients found primarily in animal foods, and voila! Plant foods are suddenly more nutrient-dense. Masterjohn also addresses the nutrients per calorie issue I mentioned above:

Defining Density

Animal products not only provide micronutrients, but also provide proteins and fats, which make them dense in calories. Since Fuhrman’s ranking system defines density as nutrients per calorie, this pushes animal products even further down on the list. This system of ranking certainly has some value. Some nutrients are used up when we digest food, for example, so we want to consume more nutrients than we require for this process. The digestive requirement is not related to calories, however; starches and proteins contain many more bonds that must be broken down by enzymes compared to fats and sugars, and fermentation can dramatically change the digestibility of a substance without altering its caloric value. Some people may need to restrict total calories or calories of a certain type—those from carbohydrates, for example—and for these people a per-calorie nutrient density ranking may be very valuable.

Others, however, may find that they can only eat so much bulk. Bok choy, for instance, has four times more calcium per calorie than whole milk. Yet three and one half cups of whole milk per day will fulfill the recommended daily calcium requirement compared to six cups of bok choy. Many people may not be able to (or even want to) eat such a large volume of fibrous vegetables day in and day out.

Masterjohn also addresses the topic of Fuhrman's clinical success with his diet:

The most compelling argument Fuhrman makes for his dietary plan is his claim of clinical success. Thousands of patients have made themselves examples of this success, he writes, and out of hundreds who have come to him with preexisting heart disease, only one has had to undergo repeat surgery after adopting his regime, and none has died of a heart attack.

There must undoubtedly be a large degree of truth to this claim. Fuhrman’s diet completely excludes refined foods, including vegetable oils, and emphasizes foods rich in certain important nutrients, especially vitamin C and other water-soluble vitamins found in plant foods. Because Fuhrman prohibits added fats and oils, his patients will synthesize the fats they need from carbohydrates and other building blocks; the primary fatty acid the body synthesizes in this way is the saturated fatty acid called palmitate. The oil-rich whole foods he allows provide many antioxidants to protect against damage that free radicals can cause to the small amount of polyunsaturated fat within them. The saturated fats produced within the bodies of his patients are themselves very stable and are therefore also protective.

Fuhrman's diet is made entirely of whole foods, which is a huge improvement over the average American diet, and I'm not surprised that he's seen clinical success. That doesn't mean it is the healthiest way to eat in the long run. In fact, the diet he advocates is pretty similar to the way I used to eat, which was disastrous for my health. I regained my health by introducing nutrient-dense animal foods like butter, raw and cultured dairy, grass-fed meats and eggs, bone broth, liver, and cod liver oil into my diet. According to Fuhrman, I should have become less healthy based on the changes I've made, but the exact opposite has occurred. I feel better than I've felt in my entire life, and I get a sense of satisfaction from my food that was lacking before.

Thanks for reading,

Laurel Blair, NTP
www.dynamicbalancenutrition.com

[DynamicBalance]

If we're talking PER CALORIE, that's a different angle. How many people know this:

Mushrooms are 50% protein and in 2000 calories of rice there is about 50grams of protein.

We may have gotten sidetracked from Barry's original question about a diet that could help him lose weight.
I still believe that the low carb diet is most helpful, since carbs are the insulin triggers, and excess insulin signals
the liver to turn any excess blood sugar into blood fat, which is stored in your fat cells. Insulin tells the body to
keep the fat stored for awhile until the food energy is needed later.

Proteins stay with us longer, so we don't feel so hungry. I could never just eat cereal for breakfast, because a couple of hours later, I'd need to eat again. My body needs protein, especially in the morning. Sometimes I do eat broccoli for breakfast with some leftover chicken or beef.

Mushrooms are relatively high in protein for a vegetable, much better than broccoli, but they still pale in comparison to beef. While rice does contain protein, it also contains lots of phytic acid, which is an inhibitor of trypsin, an enzyme that digests protein. Unless the rice has been soaked or fermented to remove the phytic acid, it won't be a good source of protein.

I actually think that all of this discussion is relevant to Barry's question. A weight loss diet needs to be one that supports optimal health if it's going to provide any kind of lasting results. I agree that for a lot of people, low carb is one of the best ways to lose weight, although others don't do well on low carb. One misconception about low carb diets is that they are high protein diets. To be healthy, a diet should not contain more than 30% of calories from protein, and 10-20% is more optimal. A healthy low carb diet is a high fat diet. High fat diets have been shown in multiple studies to be better for weight loss than low fat or Mediterranean diets, and they also yield better improvements in markers for heart disease. Whatever kind of diet you choose, the most important thing is to make sure you're getting the nutrients your body needs to be healthy.

Protein in the morning is definitely key - you need that protein right away to manufacture neurotransmitters for brain function. And yes, it will keep you feeling full for longer. Just make sure you eat that protein with some healthy fat!

Laurel Blair, NTP
www.dynamicbalancenutrition.com

[DynamicBalance]

I try likewise to live by Weston A. Price's dietary recommendations. It sits well with me after many years of self-study in nutrition and alternative healing practices (and Laurel's recommendations!). I've just started making my own bone broths and look now for pasture fed butters and raw dairy.

I'm curious about "unpasteurized wine". Where does one find that?

Judy

Hi Judy!

Unless you know someone who makes their own wine, you probably won't be able to find anything unpasteurized. It's unfortunate that we don't have access to traditionally made alcoholic beverages. I try to limit my alcohol intake to special occasions for that reason.

Laurel Blair, NTP
www.dynamicbalancenutrition.com

[DynamicBalance]

I'd strongly recommend the fascinating book The Diet Myth by Paul Campos to anyone who's considering losing weight. His analysis of the research makes it clear that, except in extreme cases ("morbidly obese"), being fat is not a health risk. In fact, the healthiest weight for most people is somewhat fatter than the unnaturally thin ideal, and being underweight is more dangerous to your health than is being "overweight". We (including many if not most doctors) have been sold a load of BS by "experts" who have a huge financial conflict of interest because they make their money from the multi-billion dollar weight-loss industry.

For the vast majority of people, weight-loss diets don't work; that is, if your self-deprivation results in some weight loss, you'll regain it all and probably a bit more. Ultimately, most people who repeatedly do this "yoyo" dieting end up fatter than they'd be if they'd never dieted! Furthermore, these "yoyo" dieters have, on average, shorter lifespans and more health problems than those who don't diet at all, including people who are quite fat!

For most of us, the level of fatness that's natural for our particular body is fatter than we may think is attractive. This leaves us with a couple of options: torture and deprive ourselves into losing, then regaining weight repeatedly, thus probably shortening and decreasing the quality of our lives, or get over that insanity and accept our body's wisdom about what its natural weight is. The prescription: Forget about some arbitrary weight goal. Forget about your goddamn Body Mass Index (BMI). Instead, identify what a healthy diet is (a variety of mostly whole foods without too much carbohydrates or nasty chemicals) and eat it slowly, mindfully and thankfully in not-too-large amounts. Get plenty of exercise, sleep and love. Do this and your body will settle into the weight that's natural and most healthy for you.

I'm so glad you brought this up, Dixon. Our ideas about ideal body weight are indeed skewed by the media and the weight loss industry, and our views of what is and is not attractive have changed a lot over time. We have the term "pleasantly plump" for a reason! Women in particular need a lot more fat on their bodies to be healthy than many of them would like. During pregnancy, the body draws on these stores of fat, particularly the fat in the thighs and buttocks, which is high in the fatty acid DHA, so important for brain development. In other words, women with better stores of fat in this area have smarter children. Some researchers believe that is the reason why most men find curvaceousness in that area so attractive! Nature has selected for that preference because it provides men with more intelligent offspring.

It's definitely true that going on crash diets to lose weight is counterproductive. First of all, these diets are designed for weight loss, not for maintaining health, so they are a short term fix at best. They do not address the original cause of the weight gain, so when the person returns to their normal diet, they tend to gain back all the weight they lost and more. Most of these diets rely on calorie restriction for their weight loss effects, and I've addressed the faulty ideas behind the calories in, calories out theory of weight loss in a previous article. The basic gist is that overweight is an issue of hormonal disruption, not one of lack of willpower. The body has a hormone, leptin, that maintains our weight at a certain "setpoint". Leptin is secreted by fat cells, so the more fat you have on your body, the more leptin you'll have. Leptin reduces the appetite and speeds up the metabolism, thereby keeping the weight near the setpoint. When a person gains a lot of weight, this is a clear sign that they are becoming resistant to leptin. This is why starvation diets do not work in the long run, because they do not address this problem. They also tend to make us feel deprived, which is no fun.

The answer is to provide our bodies with the nutrients they need to be healthy. When we support overall health, the body will naturally gravitate towards a healthier weight. Unfortunately, many people believe that animal products/fats are unhealthy, so they are missing out on the essential nutrients they contain.

Laurel Blair, NTP
www.dynamicbalancenutrition.com

[Wade]

A great source for very useful science-based information on nutrition is: https://nutritionfacts.org/

The dietary philosophy promoted by the Weston A. Price Foundation is a mixed bag but has less to do with the actual work and philosophy of Weston Price himself than many people realize, here are a couple of critiques:
https://www.vegsource.com/news/2009/...oundation.html
https://www.drfuhrman.com/members/Ne...WebVersion.pdf

Someone on this thread said they don't know any happy vegans. Perhaps that's because this person experiences distress when speaking to someone with a vastly different orientation on how to eat and live in this world. I know dozens of vegans, some who've been eating that way for 20 or 30 years. They are as happy as anyone else, some are a lot happier. I myself have found it incredibly rewarding, freeing and empowering to live a more cruelty-free lifestyle. I still find time to dance, hike, play music and enjoy what life has to offer. This change I made 5 years ago has definitely been better for my physical and spiritual health while at the same time, dramatically reduced my impact on the environment.

A powerful new thinker on these matters is best-selling author Colleen Patrick-Goudreau. Her podcast series is extrordinarily inspiring, even life-changing: https://www.compassionatecook.com/

Just because some people do ok on animal-based diets does not mean they are healthy. Some people smoke a pack a day and live to 100, does that mean we should all start smoking? This is called anecdotal evidence which is not the same as peer-reviewed science. Anecdotal stories are fine but they are not a substitute for controlled studies of large groups of subjects and statistical analysis of the data. The vast majority of science still supports that plant-sourced diets are healthier for humans than high fat, animal-sourced diets. Check out what the conservative American Dietetic Association and the Dietitians of Canada say about vegetarian diets:

• “It is the position of the American Dietetic Association and Dietitians of Canada that appropriately planned vegetarian diets are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and provide health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases.”
• “Well-planned vegan and other types of vegetarian diets are appropriate for all stages of the life cycle, including during pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, and adolescence. Vegetarian diets offer a number of nutritional benefits, including lower levels of saturated fat, cholesterol, and animal protein as well as higher levels of carbohydrates, fiber, magnesium, potassium, folate, and antioxidants such as vitamins C and E and phytochemicals. Vegetarians have been reported to have lower body mass indices than nonvegetarians, as well as lower rates of death from ischemic heart disease; vegetarians also show lower blood cholesterol levels; lower blood pressure; and lower rates of hypertension, type 2 diabetes, and prostate and colon cancer.

Wade Spital
https://www.meetup.com/northbay-vegan/
https://compassionatelivingoutreach.org/

[jherman]

Our favorite diet is no diet at all! Diets don’t work: you can starve yourself, restrict carbs, or count grams of this or that—and you may even lose a lot of weight—but eventually it will all come back, plus more. That’s right: dieting actually makes people fatter! If you don’t believe us, then read what Gina Kolata (NY Times science writer) says in her book, Rethinking Thin. Or read Paul Campos’s The Diet Myth.
-Anna and Jane

[Wendiki]

Three years ago, I was a bit overweight and suffered from low energy and some joint pain. I found it easy to lose the weight when I cut out the foods I knew were causing the problem; namely, high fat and sugary foods, including mayonnaise, cheese, chips, baked goods. I boosted the results when I took up running shortly thereafter. Just a couple of miles a day at a slow rate, but the weight melted off very quickly. It's not rocket science to take in fewer calories than you expend. My energy level soared, and my joint pain ceased completely.

Last year I converted to a 100% plant-base diet and have never felt better! My weight remains stable and within a healthy range, and my physician confirmed I was an extremely healthy 46-year-old, and not to change a thing. She told me she's not used to having any patients come in with a good attitude, a normal weight, who exercises and who isn't on any medications. In addition, my blood work confirmed that I wasn't lacking in any nutrients and had excellent cholesterol and triglyceride levels.

Needless to say, I'm sold! I eat a HUGE variety of wonderful foods that are easy to prepare, and my husband has since converted to a plant-based diet and dropped almost 30 pounds, and his cholesterol plummeted to normal levels (first time in a decade, and he's never been on medication).

We've watched Forks Over Knives with our respective families, and as a result, they've begun to make healthier choices as well. So for me and my family, a plant-based diet not only is delicious, it's healthful, and we never have to count calories or carbs or mix weird drinks or buy processed health bars or purchase expensive (and very unhealthful) commercial diet programs that are so heavily advertised these days.

Now I'm a happy and healthy gal!

~Wendy

[Quintessence]

Wendy's results have been duplicated by many, many people, some reported in Fuhrman's book Eat to Live, and her eating habits are just what he recommends. I have not been following it long enough to give the same report, but I have lost weight and felt great in the last 2 months I have been following the guidelines.Like another person said, diets don't work. But eating better food (plants!) that give you all you need with far fewer calories, so you can be filled up and not starving yourself --- that works.I am surprised, frankly, to find people on here defending red meat, poultry, etc., as part of recommended diets. 92% of calories in a rib-eye steak come from fat, 8% from protein. Is that how you want to get your protein?We have an obesity epidemic in this country, along with heart and other related diseases, readily traceable to such eating habits. See chart below!~ Jon

Three years ago, I was a bit overweight and suffered from low energy and some joint pain. I found it easy to lose the weight when I cut out the foods I knew were causing the problem; namely, high fat and sugary foods, including mayonnaise, cheese, chips, baked goods. I boosted the results when I took up running shortly thereafter. Just a couple of miles a day at a slow rate, but the weight melted off very quickly. It's not rocket science to take in fewer calories than you expend. My energy level soared, and my joint pain ceased completely.Last year I converted to a 100% plant-base diet and have never felt better! My weight remains stable and within a healthy range, and my physician confirmed I was an extremely healthy 46-year-old, and not to change a thing. She told me she's not used to having any patients come in with a good attitude, a normal weight, who exercises and who isn't on any medications. In addition, my blood work confirmed that I wasn't lacking in any nutrients and had excellent cholesterol and triglyceride levels. Needless to say, I'm sold! I eat a HUGE variety of wonderful foods that are easy to prepare, and my husband has since converted to a plant-based diet and dropped almost 30 pounds, and his cholesterol plummeted to normal levels (first time in a decade, and he's never been on medication). We've watched Forks Over Knives with our respective families, and as a result, they've begun to make healthier choices as well. So for me and my family, a plant-based diet not only is delicious, it's healthful, and we never have to count calories or carbs or mix weird drinks or buy processed health bars or purchase expensive (and very unhealthful) commercial diet programs that are so heavily advertised these days. Now I'm a happy and healthy gal!~Wendy

[Wendiki]

To continue my previous post: Really, it's about simplifying and taking control of one's life. Most people want a magic bullet.

I'm frequently asked how I can eat so much food and be fit and trim. When I begin to share, they often scrunch their nose and say, "What do you eat?" or "How do you get your protein or calcium?" followed with "Oh, I could NEVER do that."

Oh, really? But you can "do" Jenny Craig, Weight Watchers, NutriSystem, etc., and buy every home exercise gadget which turns into a coat rack, and then continue taking medications for high blood pressure, high cholesterol, etc.? And you think what I do is weird? Hello, I eat FOOD! I never go hungry!

The answers are out there. I wouldn't do this if it were difficult. I love life, I love food, I love eating! So simple. Why must people complicate everything?

Get educated, ask questions, go for a walk or jog (no gym membership needed), begin to wean yourself off of animal products, and incorporate lots of fruits and veggies into your daily diet. Learn a new plant-based recipe every now and then and have fun and experiment in the kitchen! Join a vegan group's potluck to try new dishes and meet others on the same journey!

Then go to your doctor and impress him or her when your BMI is below 25, your blood pressure is normal, your cholesterol is in check, your skin is clear, and you're feeling better than ever. No more fad diets, please. Just happy and healthy and loving life!

~Wendy

[DynamicBalance]

The dietary philosophy promoted by the Weston A. Price Foundation is a mixed bag but has less to do with the actual work and philosophy of Weston Price himself than many people realize, here are a couple of critiques: https://www.vegsource.com/news/2009/11/reflections-on-the-weston-a-price-foundation.html
https://www.drfuhrman.com/members/Ne...WebVersion.pdf

The first link above (vegsource.com) takes the reader to John Robbins' critique of the WAPF. In reading it, I was appalled to see John Robbins doing the very thing he is simultaneously falsely accusing the WAPF of doing: namely, distorting the research of Weston A. Price for his own benefit.

He begins by claiming that he has a great deal of respect for Price's research, then goes on to state his belief that the WAPF is inaccurately representing Price's work. As someone who is well acquainted with both Dr. Price's research and the WAPF's positions, I have never seen any evidence that the WAPF has misrepresented a single thing about Price. The examples Robbins gives actually reveal the extent of his own bias and willingness to omit essential information in order to bolster his position. I doubt that Robbins has actually looked into Price's research in detail. If he had done so, he would realize that Dr. Price's work in no way supports the vegan diet Robbins is pushing. In fact, let's go to a quote from Weston A. Price himself to get his views on veganism:

It is significant that I have as yet found no group that was building and maintaining good bodies exclusively on plant foods. A number of groups are endeavoring to do so with market evidence of failure.

Next Robbins moves on to attacking the WAPF's tone, characterizing them as "nasty" and "mean-spirited". Well, he's certainly entitled to his opinion, but in general I would personally characterize them as tactful, thought-provoking, and unflinching in the face of tremendous opposition and misinformation. There have been occasional comments made by the WAPF (Sally Fallon in particular) that could come off as a bit harsh, especially to those who disagree with them, and I personally would have chosen different words. But at any rate, one's personal opinion of the WAPF's tone is irrelevant to the issue of whether or not they are accurately representing Dr. Price's research and modern scientific findings.

In particular, Robbins accuses the WAPF of being hostile to vegetarians. He states,

"For another example, Price discovered many native cultures that were extremely healthy while eating lacto-vegetarian or pisco-vegan diets. Describing one lacto-vegetarian people, for example, he called them, "The most physically perfect people in northern India... the people are very tall and are free of tooth decay." Yet the foundation that operates under his name is strikingly hostile to vegetarians."

Sounds good, but there's one humongous problem with what he's said here. Weston A. Price never visited India. The wording Robbins uses implies that Price is describing people that he actually studied first-hand, which is extremely misleading. I'm also not aware of any groups Price studied that were completely lacto-vegetarian. The Swiss villagers were mostly vegetarian but ate meat and bone soup once a week. Some of the tribes in Africa were mostly vegetarian, but ate small fish, insects, and insect and fish eggs when they were available. These foods are extremely high in the fat soluble vitamins that Dr. Price found to be so essential for health. Pisco-vegan, a term that Robbins uses, seems like an oxymoron to me. Fish is an animal product, so people who eat fish are not vegans or vegetarians.

At any rate, the WAPF is not hostile to vegetarians. They have devoted a great deal of time and effort to educating people on how to maximize the nutrient-density of a vegetarian diet. Their Open Letter to Vegetarians is a great example: https://www.westonaprice.org/letters...to-vegetarians The WAPF does state that some people don't do well on a vegetarian diet, which is a true statement. From a nutritional standpoint, it is simply harder to obtain certain essential nutrients from a vegetarian diet than it is from an omnivorous diet. The WAPF is not inherently opposed to vegetarian diets as Robbins implies. They simply see omnivorous diets as superior nutritionally.

Robbins criticizes the foundation for their campaign against modern soy foods, calling them "vehemently and aggressively anti-soy", and uses this as an opportunity to claim they are distorting Price's research, since his book does not mention the word soy. In reality, the WAPF recommends using only traditionally fermented organic soy products like miso, tempeh, and soy sauce, while avoiding soy products that have not been fermented. Does that sound "vehemently anti-soy" to you? The fact is, Dr. Price did not mention soy because soy products were extremely rare in his day. Americans simply did not eat or even have access to tofu, soy protein powders, or veggie burgers back in the 30's. They did not give their babies soy infant formula. In addition, the WAPF has meticulously backed up their claims about toxins in soy with peer-reviewed research, much of which I have personally looked at to confirm that they are accurately representing the research. A quick search through the FDA's own Poisonous Plant Database yields a great number of studies on the toxic effects of (unfermented) soy.

Robbins includes an excerpt from a letter Weston Price wrote to his nieces and nephews, instructing them on how to eat to stay healthy. Here's what Robbins has to say about it:

In 1934, Price wrote a moving letter to his nieces and nephews, instructing them in the diet he hoped they would eat. "The basic foods should be the entire grains such as whole wheat, rye or oats, whole wheat and rye breads, wheat and oat cereals, oat-cake, dairy products, including milk and cheese, which should be used liberally, and marine foods." Yet the Weston A. Price Foundation aggressively promotes the consumption of beef, pork and other high-fat meats, while condemning people who base their diets on whole grains.

Apparently Robbins is not very familiar with Price's research (as he claims), or he would know that Dr. Price saw numerous examples of populations maintaining excellent health on diets that included "beef, pork, and other high-fat meats". He also seems unfamiliar with the fact that the WAPF promotes the liberal use of properly-raised dairy products, seafoods, and organ meats much more than they promote beef or pork. There is not a single recipe for pork in Sally Fallon's book, Nourishing Traditions. On the other hand, there are a wide variety of recipes for whole grains. The foundation has devoted a great many in-depth articles to educating the public about how to properly prepare whole grains for maximum nutrition. Grain-free and "paleo" diets are extremely trendy these days, but the WAPF has advocated the proper preparation of grains rather than removing them from the diet entirely. I have never seen any evidence of them condemning anyone for eating whole grains. Rather, they condemn those health authorities who push whole grains on the public without warning them about the phytic acid those whole grains contain. The misrepresentation in Robbins' essay is stunning.

Additionally, if Robbins had included the entire paragraph from Weston Price's letter that he took the excerpt from, it would have destroyed his entire premise. Price goes on to recommend that his nieces and nephews eat at least one egg or a piece of meat the size of an egg per day, to obtain adequate protein. Guess he must have overlooked that part.

Robbins then attacks the foundation for promoting cholesterol as a substance that is essential for health. Rather than go into any of the science, he simply makes an ad hominem attack, comparing them to those who still believe the Earth is flat, or those who don't believe heavy smoking causes lung cancer. In reality, Chris Masterjohn, blogger for the WAPF, is a scientist who has published peer-reviewed papers. His website, along with the WAPF's own website, go into great, great detail about the scientific evidence on the topic of cholesterol. Mary Enig, co-founder of the WAPF, is an internationally recognized expert on lipids. And of course, Weston Price himself found a great many examples of groups who ate tons of high-cholesterol foods and were in great health. Apparently Robbins is not interested in even discussing the science, preferring to see the issue as already decided.

Perhaps the most disturbing and callous part of Robbins' essay comes at the end, where he ridicules the foundation for the death of Stephen Byrnes, a former member of their Board of Directors. Byrnes died of a stroke at a relatively young age, and Robbins implies that this is due to his diet. However, Robbins completely leaves out a fact of major importance: Stephen Byrnes was HIV positive! Strokes are significantly more common in HIV patients than they are in the general public. Robbins' omission of this detail shows that he's willing to push his agenda at any cost.

In conclusion, I would like to encourage everyone to think critically about these kinds of things. Just because a celebrity like John Robbins says something is true does not make it so. It's disturbing that so many people simply repeat what they have heard from one source or another, without bothering to check a single fact. When I first learned about the WAPF, I was nearly vegan, and a lot of the things they were saying were shocking to me. I was not about to make drastic changes in my diet without thoroughly researching these topics and checking the WAPF's citations for their claims. In my research, I have never found a single example of the WAPF distorting anything. I consider them to be one of the most ethical and unbiased sources of health information that we have available to us in this day and age. So please, check the facts before you post such things. Don't just take someone's word for it; find out yourself!

Laurel Blair, NTP
www.dynamicbalancenutrition.com

[kamal]

Fact: The RDA for protein is 0.8grams for every 1000gram (1kilogram) of body weight.

Fact: Most people on a Standard American Diet (overweight as they are https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/overwt.htm)) still get way more protein they need.

Fact: Kwashiorkor, the official name for protein deficiency, is unheard of the U.S.

Fact: A balanced plant-based diet of whole grains, legumes, vegetables and fruits will provide more than sufficient amount of protein for anyone, including all the essential amino acids, phytonutrients, vitamins, minerals, and fiber. There is no balanced animal products-based diet.

Fact: All food-borne diseases are of animal origin. Tomatoes and spinach do not inherently have e. coli and salmonella. Those bacteria get on them only from animal sources.

Fact: Animal foods have been shown to cause heart disease (https://nutritionfacts.org/?s=heart+disease), diabetes (https://nutritionfacts.org/?s=diabetes) and cancer (https://nutritionfacts.org/?s=cancer). One can bing or google any of the research papers referenced in Dr. Greger’s videos to find the source of his information.

Fact: Plant foods will not cause disease but is crucial in preventing them and will reverse those caused by consumption of animal products (provided the animal products are eliminated). See nutritionfacts.org resources above.

Fact: Animal agriculture is unsustainable. It takes far more resources (fossil fuels, land, water, grains) to feed the same number of people on an animal-based diet than it does to feed the same number of people on a plant-based diet.

Fact: Free range grazing is causing the round-up of wild American horses to be slaughtered for the European meat market. https://www.wildhorsepreservation.org/news/2011/03/18/ranchers-fight-grazing-cutbacks-and-wild-horses/, https://www.ifaw.org/us/news/did-president-obama-just-authorize-slaughter-horses-us

Fact: Over 90% of the big fish pollution has been decimated since the 1950s and the oceanic ecosystem is in danger of complete collapse. https://articles.cnn.com/2003-05-14/tech/coolsc.disappearingfish_1_industrial-fishing-fish-numbers-longlines, https://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/24/us-worldbank-oceans-idUSTRE81N09S20120224 (if an organization like the World Bank is saying that we need to protect our oceans can you imagine how dire the situation really must be?)

Fact: Over half the fish sold in stores are mislabeled, meaning endangered fish are been sold as non-endangered ones. I.e. carrying around a “safe” seafood selector card doesn’t help. Isn’t is easier to say that I gave eating all sealife to protect some? https://latimesblogs.latimes.com/greenspace/2011/05/seafood-fraud.html

Fact: Over 95% of animal products come from factory farms where animals suffer intensive confinement, physical abuse and other forms of cruelty. I.e. 9 out 10 animal products come from tortured animals.

Even if you ONLY (meaning you NEVER, EVER eat animals whose welfare during upbringing might be in question) eat the happiest animals (really, isn’t it sadder for a happy animal to die at a fraction of his or her life) and pay through the nose for that privilege, what do you say to those who want to live it up like you but cannot afford a happily raised animal so eating resort to factory farmed animals?

BTW, dynamic balance sounds very much like an oxymoron. Just an observation. No offence is meant from this statement.

[Wendiki]

Barry's question related to weight loss diets. Believe me, I could jump right in here and debate the weighty (no pun intended) issues of animal agriculture, factory farming, animal rights, etc., but that's getting off topic.

Eating a whole-foods, plant-based diet works for me and hundreds of others I know. It's simple, delicious and very effective at helping one lose and keep weight at optimal levels.

There are many vegans out there who eat junk. Most of the time, they're high school and college-aged kids, who just haven't learned the importance of eating well, and live on a diet of chips, crackers, cookies, pasta and a whole host of highly processed, salty, oily and sugary foods. And they can be quite fat!

Now, I also love to bake and indulge in sweets and chips. But I NEVER feel guilty, because my weight always remains steady and I always feel good. For me, "living" means being healthy and happy. Food is a big part of life's celebration, and I always partake!

So to stay on topic, I must reiterate that eating lots of good foods such as veggies, fruits, beans, seeds and nuts, along with fewer processed foods and less oil, along with a bit of exercise each day such as a brisk 30-minute walk, will work WONDERS! Again, why complicate things? Sorry, there's much more to life than counting calories and feeling unwell.

All the other positive benefits I gain from eating a plant-based diet (such as less environmental impact and animal welfare) is just a big old bonus! I view it as the perfect dietary trifecta.

~Wendy

[Peace Voyager]

Proper food combination diets are very smart for folks of all sizes.

1)"The Beverly Hill Diet"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beverly_Hills_Diet

Hate the title, but love the concept. I got it in the late 70's, from the lady I worked for as a Nanny - in Beverly Hills.
No need to adhere to the hardcore parts of this; just knowing which foods digest well together, and those which don't, is a boost for everyone.

2)"Fit For Life" by Harvey Diamond
www.fitforlifetime.com

More food combo info.

3)"The Mars & Venus Diet and Exercise Solution" By John Gray
https://www.marsvenus.com/store/the-...tion-book.html
This diet and exercise program is for overall well being; not just losing weight. It also demonstrates the neurochemical differences from the mars/venus perspective.

In addition to local, pure, fresh: fruit & veggies, nuts, grains, etc.; do eat healthy fats; and limit carbs; keep the processed stuff rare, if ever. Really watch out for old oils, (not a good bulk buy, unless you really go through it fast), and in things like chips. Have only fresh juice.

I do like dairy, even though I know it's just good for baby cows; and clogs our species up. It's been a bit easier to reduce my intake knowing, (and I'm very sorry to say), it looks like the west coast dairy biz is being affected by the ongoing Fukushima radiation release. Maybe other areas as well. I heard the monitoring of it in CA has been reduced, or stopped.

I've got a weakness for sweets. When I let myself sin; I try to make it healthy sweets with honey, agave, etc. When the white sugar/corn syrup/fructose demons try to suck me in; I remind myself - it feeds cancer, and likely all other diseases.

FYI, If you have joint pain, try eliminating the nightshade family of plants from your diet. Then re-introduce them, one by one, to see if they make your pain worse.
https://arthritis.about.com/b/2006/0...hade-foods.htm

These are the 4 best wellness-care providers I know in Sonoma County.

Please tell them I said hello if you see them.

Wayne Anderson
https://www.gordonmedical.com/wayne_anderson.html

David Field
https://www.doctordavidfield.com/

Pindy Wong
https://petaluma.patch.com/listings/almond-grove

dhyana Center
https://www.dhyanacenter.com/

Here's to our good health!,

Colleen Fernald

Will work for:
Affordable
Wellness-care
For all!

California's Constitutional
Candidate for PEACE!
UNITED States Senate
June Primary 2012

[Alex]

Diet schmiet. I lost so much weight doing this I had to start eating crap again to not look anorexic. I did it originally as a cure, not to lose weight and now view it as lifestyle choice not a diet. I don't do it strictly anymore but I can’t deny the science or the personal success. I would do it again instantly if anything started to go wrong in my body or mind.

I found this 7 years ago after reading every book I could find and doing massive net research to figure out how to cure myself of a serious illness that still baffles the medical industry. Out of all of my research I chose the advice of this veterinarian. It worked. Big weight loss was the side effect.

Health and weight? According to Dogtor J, stop eating glue - wheat, casein, soy and corn and byproducts. “It is clearly the "big 4" that causes us to duplicate fat cells while excess calories is what FILLS those cells.”

So the cause of the symptom of extra weight? Lack of exercise too of course, and why we should be combining food and exercise all the time anyway is another ‘cause’ subject. But you'll lose a ton strictly quitting the glue and sitting still. The first couple weeks are full of lingering cravings but it goes away. The first 3-4 weeks are slow weight loss then it starts pouring off. Problem becomes, you lose weight so fast you get lot of flab without toning exercises.

Here’s Dogtor J’s basic reasoning on the cause and effect of the worst foods on most weight and health problems, in four long pages from the site with tons more corroborating data.

https://dogtorj.com/what-is-food-int...-sections-1-4/
https://dogtorj.com/what-is-food-int...-chapters-5-9/
https://dogtorj.com/what-is-food-int...chapters-9-12/
https://dogtorj.com/what-is-food-int...hapters-12-14/

A sampling of chapter titles:

2.0 BACKGROUND………………………………..………2
2.1 Why is a veterinarian writing this?……………..……..2

4.0 HISTORICAL EVIDENCE………………………………4
4.1 The History of Wheat…………………………….…….... 4
4.1.3 The Dark Ages and the Plague………………………4
4.2 The History of Milk………………………………….……6
4.2.2 The key ingredient in cow’s milk………………………7
4.2.3 The Dark Ages and Plague revisited………….……7

4.3 Soy Protein- The Third Big Mistake……………..……..7

5.0 MEDICAL EVIDENCE……………………………..….…8
5.1 How Gluten and Casein Harm the Intestine………….8
5.2 Malabsorption and Maldigestion……………….……….9
5.3 Casomorphins and Gliadorphins……………….……….9

6.0 THE IMMUNE SYSTEM-Good with the Bad………....14
6.1 How Perfect It Is………………………………….………..14
6.2 How Imperfect Our Judgment Is…………………………14

7.0 CONCLUSIONS THROUGH ILLUSTRATIONS…….15
7.1 The Definition of Pestilence…………………………….15
7.2 The Origin of Inhalant Allergies………………………..16
7.3 The Three Phases of Our Immunity’s Life……..………17

9.0 THE PATHOGENESIS OF DISEASE……….………..19
9.1 We’ve Been Set Up………………………………………19
9.3 Viruses and Food Proteins- The Missing Link………21
9.4 Hydrogenated Oils- The Great Facilitators………….22
9.6.2 The Progression of Symptoms………………..……….25
9.6.3 The Role of the Fast-food Industry………..….……..25
9.6.5 New Diseases vs. Old Immune Systems…….…….26

11.0 THE PARALLEL UNIVERSE…………………………..28
11.1 Cow Milk- The Who’s Who of What’s Bad….………28
11.1.1 Why You Hurt…………………………….………..…..28
11.1.2 Hormonal Effects…………………………….……….29
11.2 Those Pesky Amino Acids………………………..…….29
11.2.1 Glutamate, Phenylalanine, and Aspartate………29
11.4 Rheumatoid Arthritis- Inflammation and Pain……29
11.5 Artificial Sweeteners and Other Neurotoxins……..30

12.0 APPLIED KNOWLEDGE…………………………….32
12.1 Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s and ALS…………..……….32
12.1.1 Parkinson’s as the Perfect Example……..………33

13.0 THE “TRUE” ROLE OF GENETICS………..…..…..33
13.1 Genetics Over-emphasized……………………………33
13.1.1 Oh, no! We’ve Mapped the Human Genome……33
13.2 Where Do We Go From Here?………………………..34

After a while I got to a point where I didn't miss the stuff you think you can't live without. Your body starts to tell you quick when you've eaten some glue, but your taste buds change and you stop craving it and how much better you feel makes up for the rest.

Alexia

[Karl Frederick]

In my experience, balance tends to be dynamic, not static. It is achieved by regular adjustments towards an equilibrium point. In many instances, equilibrium/ balance is maintained on average through constant correction.

Despite your disclaimer, Kamal, I question the intent of your "observation," which seems to me to be anything but a neutral comment.

BTW, dynamic balance sounds very much like an oxymoron. Just an observation. No offence is meant from this statement.

[DynamicBalance]

Fact: The RDA for protein is 0.8grams for every 1000gram (1kilogram) of body weight.

This is a true statement, although I would like to note that RDAs fail to take into account the variations in nutrient needs between individuals.

Fact: Most people on a Standard American Diet (overweight as they are https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/overwt.htm)) still get way more protein they need.

This is also a true statement. As I mentioned earlier on this thread, excess protein (more than about 30% of calories) is not good for us either. Excess protein in the diet comes mainly in the form of low- or non-fat dairy products, lean meats, egg whites, protein powders, and processed foods made from isolated proteins. A person eating whole foods in their natural state should not be at risk for protein excess.

Fact: Kwashiorkor, the official name for protein deficiency, is unheard of the U.S.

Kwashiorkor is not the official name for protein deficiency. It is a disease that is caused in part by protein deficiency, but there is evidence that other micronutrient deficiencies and gut flora imbalance may play a substantial role as well. Protein deficiency by itself will not produce kwashiorkor. There are other kinds of protein deficiency, including marasmus, which presents with different symptoms than kwashiorkor. It is true that kwashiorkor is not a problem in the U.S., probably because the vast majority of people here have complete protein available to them. Most vegetarians here eat eggs, dairy, or both. In countries where kwashiorkor is a problem, staples of the diet are generally cereal grains or starchy tubers, and children are not struck with this condition until they are weaned from their mother's breastmilk, which contains complete protein.

While kwashiorkor and marasmus represent severe protein deficiencies, there are problems that can occur from more mild protein deficiencies. The same is true for most other nutrients. For example, severe vitamin D depletion causes rickets, but while rickets is rare in the U.S., vitamin D deficiency is not. Subclinical protein deficiencies can cause hormonal disruption and imbalances of neurotransmitters in the brain, among other problems. Protein deficiency can also occur among individuals consuming adequate protein when digestion is impaired, as in low stomach acid.

Fact: A balanced plant-based diet of whole grains, legumes, vegetables and fruits will provide more than sufficient amount of protein for anyone, including all the essential amino acids, phytonutrients, vitamins, minerals, and fiber. There is no balanced animal products-based diet.

A well-planned plant-based diet can indeed provide sufficient nutrients, provided that it includes certain nutrient-rich animal products. A vegan diet does not fit that description, and it is literally impossible to obtain enough of certain nutrients from a vegan diet.

Fact: Whole grains, legumes, nuts, and seeds contain large amounts of phytic acid, a substance that binds with minerals and prevents them from being absorbed. Unless these foods are treated to reduce the phytic acid, they are not good sources of certain macro and trace minerals.

Fact: Phytic acid also inhibits protein digestion by its inhibition of the enzyme trypsin.

Your statement about there being no such thing as a nutritionally-balanced animal based diet is false. There are examples of animal based diets which have sustained excellent health for their adherents. Some of these populations have been extensively researched.

Fact: All food-borne diseases are of animal origin. Tomatoes and spinach do not inherently have e. coli and salmonella. Those bacteria get on them only from animal sources.

Fact: A person with normal levels of stomach acid is protected from food poisoning. Bacteria, viruses, and parasites cannot survive the acidity of a healthy stomach. Widespread outbreaks of food-borne illness in this country are evidence for an epidemic of low stomach acid. In addition, they are evidence that our farming and food processing practices are not very wise.

Fact: Animal foods have been shown to cause heart disease (https://nutritionfacts.org/?s=heart+disease), diabetes (https://nutritionfacts.org/?s=diabetes) and cancer (https://nutritionfacts.org/?s=cancer). One can bing or google any of the research papers referenced in Dr. Greger’s videos to find the source of his information.

There are so many simple facts that directly contradict this statement. Heart disease, diabetes, and cancer were all extremely rare 100 years ago, back when Americans ate more saturated fat and cholesterol than they do now. Obesity rates were relatively stable until approximately 1977-78, when they began to increase rapidly. What happened in 1977? The U.S. government began advising Americans on how to eat.

And Americans have taken their advice. People were eating significantly less beef (-20%), lamb and veal (-60%), eggs (-12%), whole milk (-63%), butter (-8%), and lard (-47%) in 2000 than they were in 1970. Intakes increased in this same time period for legumes (+23%), nuts (+11%), corn products (+178%), poultry (+90%), fish and shellfish (+22%), skim milk (+150%), 1% reduced fat milk (+160%), unsaturated oils (+102%), fresh fruit (+30%), and fresh vegetables (+35%). For fruits, the highest increases came from berries (+109%), fresh grapes (+161%), and cantaloupe (+63%). The vegetables are particularly interesting. Intakes of escarole, romaine, and leaf lettuces skyrocketed (+1300%), along with broccoli (+365%), garlic (+460%), squash (+389%) and bell peppers (+229%).

These changes are a direct reflection of the dietary advice we've been given. And yet, in that same time period, rates of obesity, diabetes, cancer, and heart disease have continued to rise. If saturated fat and cholesterol from animal foods were truly one of the main causes of these diseases, incidences should have dropped, but they have not.

In addition, studies that claim to show ill health effects from consumption of animal products all suffer from the same fatal flaw. They all use conventional animal products. Animal studies generally use purified laboratory diets (isolated casein for protein, for example, instead of milk or cheese) to make it easier to reproduce results. These foods are not the same nutritionally to the foods I advocate eating, and I'm not surprised that they may be associated with health problems. I do not know of a single study that shows any problem with eating whole naturally-raised animal products.

Fact: Plant foods will not cause disease but is crucial in preventing them and will reverse those caused by consumption of animal products (provided the animal products are eliminated). See nutritionfacts.org resources above.

People are eating way more dark leafy salad greens and other colorful vegetables, dramatically reducing their consumption of animal fats and increasing vegetable oils, and eating more grains and legumes. So why are the rates of disease still going up?

Fact: Animal agriculture is unsustainable. It takes far more resources (fossil fuels, land, water, grains) to feed the same number of people on an animal-based diet than it does to feed the same number of people on a plant-based diet.

I hear this kind of statement all the time, and it only applies to the industrial model of agriculture. Grass-based farming is a completely different story. Cows should not be eating primarily grain. It is an unnatural diet for them and is definitely unsustainable. It does not take any fossil fuels or grain to raise a cow on grass. Contrast that to the monocultures we use to grow grain, which use obscene amounts of fossil fuels at nearly every step of the process, and which pollute our rivers and oceans with the runoff from synthetic pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers, all of which are derived from fossil fuels. In fact, as Michael Pollan has pointed out, if this form of agriculture were not subsidized by the government, it would be prohibitively expensive to grow grain in this manner because of the tremendous fossil fuel input. Small mixed farms are actually beneficial for the environment, because the manure can be used as fertilizer, eliminating the need for synthetics. The organic matter in the manure adds to the quality of the soil, and manure contains trace minerals that are not added to synthetic fertilizers, which in turn increases the nutritional value of foods grown on that soil.

Fact: Free range grazing is causing the round-up of wild American horses to be slaughtered for the European meat market. https://www.wildhorsepreservation.or...d-wild-horses/, https://www.ifaw.org/us/news/did-pre...hter-horses-us

The problem you're describing applies only to "free-range" cattle raised on public land. This is subsidized agriculture. I am personally opposed to subsidies and would never buy meat from a subsidized farmer or encourage anyone else to do so. The farmers and ranchers I support are raising livestock on their own lands. Why buy from out-of-state ranchers when we have so many local people providing for us right here?

Fact: Over 90% of the big fish pollution has been decimated since the 1950s and the oceanic ecosystem is in danger of complete collapse. https://articles.cnn.com/2003-05-14/...bers-longlines, https://www.reuters.com/article/2012...81N09S20120224 (if an organization like the World Bank is saying that we need to protect our oceans can you imagine how dire the situation really must be?)

Overfishing is definitely a big problem, I agree with you there. As the CNN article mentioned, overfishing became a problem with the rise of industrial fishing. Small-scale, local fishing operations are better stewards of the environment, and we should support these people whenever possible. I encourage people to avoid the large ocean fish (tuna, shark, swordfish, marlin, etc.), both because of the overfishing issue, and also because large fish are high in mercury. Personally, I don't eat much seafood because of radiation concerns, and when I do, I stick to smaller fish and shellfish.

Fact: Over half the fish sold in stores are mislabeled, meaning endangered fish are been sold as non-endangered ones. I.e. carrying around a “safe” seafood selector card doesn’t help. Isn’t is easier to say that I gave eating all sealife to protect some? https://latimesblogs.latimes.com/gre...ood-fraud.html

This is another serious problem, and again, I would encourage people to support only local seafood companies that have more accountability to their communities.

Fact: Over 95% of animal products come from factory farms where animals suffer intensive confinement, physical abuse and other forms of cruelty. I.e. 9 out 10 animal products come from tortured animals.

Even if you ONLY (meaning you NEVER, EVER eat animals whose welfare during upbringing might be in question) eat the happiest animals (really, isn’t it sadder for a happy animal to die at a fraction of his or her life) and pay through the nose for that privilege, what do you say to those who want to live it up like you but cannot afford a happily raised animal so eating resort to factory farmed animals?

This misconception, that properly raised animal products are inherently more expensive, is a huge stumbling block for many people who would like to eat food that is humane and healthy. It's a complicated issue. First of all, there is no inherent reason that it would cost more to raise animals the right way. Like I mentioned before, when you raise a cow on grass, you are saving a tremendous amount of money that would have been spent on grain and fossil fuel input. The only reason conventional meat costs less is because of the subsidies that pay for the growing of GMO grain. The Omnivore's Dilemma paints a very clear picture of this situation.

An equally disturbing problem is the insane regulations that small farmers must follow in order to sell their products. These regulations have been designed by and for industrial agribusiness, in order to eliminate the competition. The regulations drive up the cost of products tremendously. Essentially, without all of the government intervention in the market, doing things the right way would be cheaper.

Is humanely-raised meat really so much more expensive? I assumed that was true for a long time. When I finally set foot inside a Safeway, I was shocked to see the prices of conventional meat, some of which were the same or higher than what I pay for grass-fed, organically-raised meat. So much depends on the individual's eating habits. If, for example, one has their heart set on eating T-bone steaks for dinner every night, they're going to find grass-fed beef pretty expensive. On the other hand, conventional T-bones and other steaks are prohibitively expensive for me as well. So what should a person do, if they want to eat only the highest quality meat?

The answer is to take a cue from the past. Our ancestors did not dine on steaks day in and day out! Weston Price reported that the Indians he studied in Northern Canada actually threw much of the muscle meat to their dogs, while saving the fattier meats, glands, organs, bones, and marrow for themselves. Our ancestors ate the entire animal. They could not afford to let anything go to waste. Unfortunately we have strayed pretty far from that practice, and we now throw away the vast majority of the nutrition contained in an animal's body. Our eating habits have become unwise, as well as disrespectful to the animal who has given it's life so that we may be nourished.

My first suggestion is to purchase as close to the whole animal as possible. Get bone-in, skin-on whole chicken legs instead of boneless skinless chicken breasts, for example. Or even better, buy the whole chicken! You will be saving a ton of money per pound, and you'll also be getting more calories due to the presence of the skin. After you've eaten the chicken, you'll have bones with which to make bone broth. Broth is the secret to making quality meat affordable, because it acts as a protein sparer, allowing us to absorb more protein from the same amount of meat. With bone broth, you can make wonderful and economical soups and stews with lots of vegetables, perhaps some grain and beans, and a small amount of meat. Broth allows one to stretch the same amount of meat much farther. If you buy the whole chicken, you also get the benefit of the organ meats, which can be fried up and eaten or added to the broth. With beef, some farmers offer a box deal where you get a variety of cuts for a reduced price, and I encourage people to take advantage of that kind of offer. My farmer sells a box that comes to $6/lb, which is very reasonable, and it includes many cuts that are usually much more expensive.

My second suggestion is to take advantage of the fact that the most nutritious parts of the animal are usually the least expensive. Tougher cuts of meat are full of connective tissue and need to be stewed for hours to become tender. But that connective tissue is a nutritional goldmine! It contains gelatin that helps you digest your food and has many healing properties, along with amino acids that make protein more complete, as well as providing support for detoxification. Tougher cuts also tend to be the most flavorful. Similarly, bone-in meats are more nutritious than boneless, but contain an abundance of alkaline minerals. Grass-fed liver is cheaper than any cut of meat, and is so packed with nutrition that some consider it to be nature's multivitamin.

There are some animal products that are (as long as we have a regulatory system that bows to industrial agribusiness) going to be more expensive when produced properly. Dairy products are one of the worst examples. At the store, grass-fed raw milk costs $16-18 per gallon! If you must have raw milk, try to find it from a local farmer who is charging less. Or see if you can volunteer a couple hours a week in exchange for some milk. A cheaper option would be to buy organic, low-temp pasteurized, non-homogenized milk from grass-fed cows (we have this locally available now from St. Benoit, as well as Straus milk which is partially grass-fed), and culture it at home to make kefir or yogurt. There are yogurt cultures you can buy that work at room temperature so you don't need a yogurt maker. Even though the milk is pasteurized, culturing it improves the nutrition tremendously and reintroduces beneficial bacteria and enzymes.

The bottom line for me is that you are getting so much more nutrition from properly raised animal products than you are from even organic versions. Pasture-fed eggs have been proven to be far superior nutritionally than regular eggs. Even though they cost half the price, I consider the regular eggs to be the rip-off. And grass-fed beef has a balanced ratio of omega-3:omega-6. Is it really worth it to pay a little less for a nutritionally unbalanced product? And that's not even considering the environmental and moral costs.

Clearly there are going to be people who will have trouble affording quality animal products. I encourage those people to be creative in finding ways to incorporate the most affordable and nutrient-dense animal products (butter, cheese, eggs, tallow, organ meats, bone broth, marrow) into their diets. And don't stress if you have to make compromises sometimes. Just do the best you can given the circumstances you find yourself in. Eating healthy on a budget takes resourcefulness and a willingness to play around and try new things. But the results are well worth it.

Thanks for reading,

Laurel Blair, NTP
www.dynamicbalancenutrition.com