Degeneration, Teeth, Hair .. Did weston price miss something?

I am not writing this to inflame some sort of war, I actually am looking forward to learning from all the experienced folks here.

As I learned more and more from IH, I found myself wondering about the often cited Dr Weston Price. For instance he notice better teeth in aborigines and peoples that were not eating civilized foods. He found that raw milk, raw butter, cod liver oil were very beneficial.

I've read here a few views that I can summarize by saying they agree that these natives, as in Austalians, Eskimos, native americans .. these native folk ate mostly meat, no grain and little vegetables/fruits. As a result they had little or no hair loss, and great teeth.

Let me now play devils advocate here:

1- What if one tribe was healthy, with amazing white teeth and full heads of hair, but others were not. Maybe Price found only the healthy tribes.

I recently saw something on TV about a tribe that was recently "discovered" and the guys from that tribe had a TON of missing teeth! It is possible that their diet was bad even as an uncivilized tribe, or these were missing due to physical trauma.

2- Within these healthy tribes.. do we know what their average lifespan was? Maybe they did have great teeth but they died at an early age. Do we know their life span?

3- How can we know that such tribes did not suffer from modern day diseases, such as cancer and heart issues.. they may have had good teeth and symmetrical faces (anf great hair) but the elderly ones eventually died, and they probably died as a result of a heart attack, stroke or cancer. They did not autopsy them, document the death or any symptoms that preceded it..

Perhaps the Eskimos did have great hair eating only meat and animal fat, but are we neglecting other things such as how long did they live, what diseases did they have that were not documented anywhere??

4- Did we generalize and romanticize these tribes, because they are exotic and wild they must then be healthier. Were they really healthier than the modern American?

5- As people live longer now, we see more diseases.. maybe the natives did not have the percentage of diseases we see today because they simply did not live long enough to suffer these degenerative diseases.

So, how can we know for sure that the diet of these natives, (mostly hunter gatherers eating meat) was better than that of the farmer (eating grains and veggies + milk and meat)..

Can we rely on these observations to proclaim that eating meat only is better than eating vegetables or grains only?

I am not disagreeing with the views on meat or those of Dr. Price. I do not posses enough knowledge to even question these views. I am simply stating my thoughts, that clearly need to be addressed. I say everything I said above in great respect to everyone here and to Dr. Price's amazing research.

I just had to post these doubts up here, now you can help me see things the way you do. I'll be waiting for responses.
Thanks

You're not wrong in asking many of the questions you ask, but you are wrong in how you approach his research. The Weston Price research is not meant to conclusively prove anything, in fact most scientific studies aren't meant to prove any broad topic conclusively in the least. The Weston Price research says little by way of "do this, eat this, don't do this, don't eat this", he simply presented observations and put many of their principles into practice. His works, and the great vast majority of scientific research, are meant to further the process of understanding, not to end the process altogether by trying to provide definite conclusions.

I'll put my two cents in here in regards to your specific questions:

1- What if one tribe was healthy, with amazing white teeth and full heads of hair, but others were not. Maybe Price found only the healthy tribes. I recently saw something on TV about a tribe that was recently "discovered" and the guys from that tribe had a TON of missing teeth! It is possible that their diet was bad even as an uncivilized tribe, or these were missing due to physical trauma.

This is unlikely from an odds standpoint. One could argue he cherry picked the healthiest tribes to research, but in no way would he have compromised his research to make himself look right. Besides this, "health" means very different things to these kinds of people than it does for us, so your opinion of what is and isn't healthy might be very different the the reality in relation to their environment.

As far as the teeth go, it's likely that these people lose their teeth more to physical trauma than anything else. Old age would have a part in this too. What you should think about is that these people often have many teeth into old age, whereas a child could lose all his/her teeth to decay before their mid teens in our society, and this does happen relatively often.

2- Within these healthy tribes.. do we know what their average lifespan was? Maybe they did have great teeth but they died at an early age. Do we know their life span?

Life span in these places has more to do with issues of sanitation and emergency care than anything else. There are indigenous people around the world that are documented to live well into their 100's, but could die from a single infected tooth, a single broken bone, or from drinking water that someone poo'd near recently. Indigenous people live rough lives for their entire life, and are more likely to die once they reach the age where they can no longer provide for themselves as well than old folks in our society.

3- How can we know that such tribes did not suffer from modern day diseases, such as cancer and heart issues.. they may have had good teeth and symmetrical faces (anf great hair) but the elderly ones eventually died, and they probably died as a result of a heart attack, stroke or cancer. They did not autopsy them, document the death or any symptoms that preceded it..

Perhaps the Eskimos did have great hair eating only meat and animal fat, but are we neglecting other things such as how long did they live, what diseases did they have that were not documented anywhere??

Again, you're reading the research wrong. These people were not completely devoid of disease, no people on this planet are. These peoples were not presented to show that they were somehow supermen completely devoid of disease and bad health, they were presented to show they have no modern medicine or food, yet have far less occurrence of these diseases despite these things. They eat diets modern society would call unhealthy, have no modern medicines, yet manage to survive with less disease.

The research also uses these people as a proxy for ourselves pre-industrial revolution. The reason why these people have very little cancer and heart disease is the same reason we, ourselves, had little 100-200 years ago. The cancer rate in the last 100 years has gone from 1 in 16 to 1 in 2. To say this is not of our own devices is insane, the Weston Price research points this out very well.

4- Did we generalize and romanticize these tribes, because they are exotic and wild they must then be healthier. Were they really healthier than the modern American?

Weston Price was a doctor and a scientist, not a novelist and diet guru. He did his research well before there was this widespread pop culture driven notion that Western society was the scurge of the health world, so there would have been no Good Morning America idiots to sell his notions to. Also, yes, they were really healthier than the modern American 70 years ago when his research was done in most senses of the word. As far as today's modern American, there are third world populations that are healthier than we are as a whole. Those people just aren't afforded the same emergency medical care and sanitation luxuries that we are.

5- As people live longer now, we see more diseases.. maybe the natives did not have the percentage of diseases we see today because they simply did not live long enough to suffer these degenerative diseases.

Age is not to blame for degenerative disease. It plays a part, but in the case of our society, not nearly as big a part as our environment. We are not more unhealthy because we live longer, we just live longer because we have myriad drugs that allow us to live longer with the degenerative diseases that our environment cause. If you pulled all those drugs off the market, Americans would be dying of cancer, diabetes, heart disease, and other diseases en masse in their 30s and 40s. How many people in this country are put on serious medications for serious conditions before the age of 30? If this same dynamic were true for indigenous tribes cut off from modern society, they would go the way of the dinosaur in a single generation.

We only seem healthier because our definition of health is the exact opposite of what it should be. Health does not mean treating your conditions and diseases well enough to live a long full life, health means never getting these diseases in the first place.

Can we rely on these observations to proclaim that eating meat only is better than eating vegetables or grains only?

Of course not, the research does not say that. The research shows that contrary to modern belief, there are tribes in this world that subsist on very little variety (something that the food pyramid would have you believe is deadly), yet live with exponentially less disease than we do. Anyone who tells you that there is one way, and no others, is probably trying to sell you something.

Most people have a toxic method of reading and interpreting science. This is not our fault per se, but more in how we are taught to think from a very early age. We're taught to read something, and use its information to make concrete conclusions that we regurgitate back to the people who teach us it. Science, however, does not work that way. Research, not least of which Weston Price's, is meant to expand the ideas it is based on, not contract it down to a few conclusions that you move no further from. Research is a beginning, not an end.

Anyway, I'm sure there are a few people here that could answer these things better than I can, but that's my take on it. Hope it helps.

TheFunkyStumpfighter -

I totally agree with you, VERY well written!

its very possible weston price have have cherry picked

teacup wrote:TheFunkyStumpfighter -

I totally agree with you, VERY well written!

Why do you agree?

To preface what I'm about to write, I'd like to say that this is nothing personal. I'm going to use this thread as a vessel to approach a problem I commonly see on this board: assertions that lack a source and underlying evidence. You yourself, TheFunkyStumpFighter, mentioned we have a "toxic" way of interpreting scientific data.

So, with this mentioned, TheFunkyStumpFighter, allow me to retort:

One could argue he cherry picked the healthiest tribes to research, but in no way would he have compromised his research to make himself look right.

Assumption. How do you know this? Remember, when you look for something hard enough, you're going to find it. Even if it doesn't exist. Remember that a lot of scientists want to stay biased but they do have agendas. They have careers to bolster.

Besides this, "health" means very different things to these kinds of people than it does for us, so your opinion of what is and isn't healthy might be very different the the reality in relation to their environment.

I agree with your interpretation of the cultural definition of health, but quite frankly, what they believe didn't matter to Dr. Price. He placed their health within our cultural framework and studied them from that perspective.

As far as the teeth go, it's likely that these people lose their teeth more to physical trauma than anything else. Old age would have a part in this too. What you should think about is that these people often have many teeth into old age, whereas a child could lose all his/her teeth to decay before their mid teens in our society, and this does happen relatively often.

Statements in bold need data supporting them.

Life span in these places has more to do with issues of sanitation and emergency care than anything else. There are indigenous people around the world that are documented to live well into their 100's, but could die from a single infected tooth, a single broken bone, or from drinking water that someone poo'd near recently. Indigenous people live rough lives for their entire life, and are more likely to die once they reach the age where they can no longer provide for themselves as well than old folks in our society.

This section is full of sweeping statements without any evidence or sources. How do we know the age of these indigenous people?

Again, you're reading the research wrong. These people were not completely devoid of disease, no people on this planet are. These peoples were not presented to show that they were somehow supermen completely devoid of disease and bad health, they were presented to show they have no modern medicine or food, yet have far less occurrence of these diseases despite these things. They eat diets modern society would call unhealthy, have no modern medicines, yet manage to survive with less disease.

You're assuming disease is wholly dependent on diet. What about exposure? I see the title of many of these chapter titles describe the group of people Dr. Price studied as "isolated." Hmm...

The research also uses these people as a proxy for ourselves pre-industrial revolution. The reason why these people have very little cancer and heart disease is the same reason we, ourselves, had little 100-200 years ago. The cancer rate in the last 100 years has gone from 1 in 16 to 1 in 2. To say this is not of our own devices is insane, the Weston Price research points this out very well.

Numbers are great, but not without a source. Furthermore, these types of numbers are pretty easy to refute, just by asking a couple of questions. First, has the technology and technique for diagnosing cancer improved over the last 100-200 years? Second, were researchers scouring the population for cancer diagnoses 100-200 years ago?

Also, I don't see how the Weston Price research points out anything about cancer.

Also, yes, they were really healthier than the modern American 70 years ago when his research was done in most senses of the word. As far as today's modern American, there are third world populations that are healthier than we are as a whole. Those people just aren't afforded the same emergency medical care and sanitation luxuries that we are.

Sorry, but you must provide some sort of data to support your statements in this section.

If you pulled all those drugs off the market, Americans would be dying of cancer, diabetes, heart disease, and other diseases en masse in their 30s and 40s.

Huh?

How many people in this country are put on serious medications for serious conditions before the age of 30?

A question you're supposed to answer, because we don't know what the definition of "serious" means as it pertains to medications and conditions. I consider major depression a serious condition, does someone on antidepressants count toward the number in the answer to this question?

If this same dynamic were true for indigenous tribes cut off from modern society, they would go the way of the dinosaur in a single generation.

Crazy hypothetical that doesn't make sense and isn't possible.

We only seem healthier because our definition of health is the exact opposite of what it should be. Health does not mean treating your conditions and diseases well enough to live a long full life, health means never getting these diseases in the first place.

I agree with you that our definition of "healthy" is a bit distorted, but I don't think you've captured a solid definition of health here either. Do you think I'll never get the cold or the flu, infections, etc. if I simply eat well? No. You're talking about these purported "diseases" caused by a poor American diet. You're choosing which disease we should lack to fit your definition of healthy. Might be a little more complex than just disease, might it? What if I'm disease-free but I can neither run a mile nor bench press 100 lbs, am I healthy?

Most people have a toxic method of reading and interpreting science. This is not our fault per se, but more in how we are taught to think from a very early age. We're taught to read something, and use its information to make concrete conclusions that we regurgitate back to the people who teach us it.

Again, nothing personal, but you've done nothing to help the less-versed people on this board read science properly. You've done the exact opposite. You later mention, accurately, that research is a beginning. It's a beginning to a dialogue between scientists where the words and sentences are often comprised of data from studies. However, when a scientist makes a case, they must support it with data. That doesn't often happen around these parts.

empty - thanks, right on! lots of assumptions, plus no one can prove that Price did not cherry pic healthy tribes..

Also, what if other tribes existed with the same exact diet that were sick to death due to genetic predisposition, they would have died off before Price had found them. maybe the tribes he found had better genes?

ezmbh wrote:Also, what if other tribes existed with the same exact diet that were sick to death due to genetic predisposition, they would have died off before Price had found them. maybe the tribes he found had better genes?

One can argue this has to do with natural selection, survival of the fittest.. Just as some men can eat ANYTHING and even be obese, and have diseases but not have any MPB symptoms perhaps these tribesmen had superior genes that they were healthy regardless what their diet was made of, as all the weaker ones simply died.

I hate to sound insensitive, but hear me out. Our modern civilization in general stops sickly individuals from dying, many people that may have not survived childhood or life in the jungle nowadays live pretty much normal lives, and they get to pass-on their genes... so natural selection of the best genes maybe compromised now, perhaps this has caused (or contributed at least) to the increase in modern day diseases?

I also have argued that maybe women mated with bald men as they associated baldness with age, security, stability, wisdom, wealth, lack of competition, gentleness (certain attitudes), etc.. spreading the baldness gene amongst populations more than others.

I am not denying that diet, health, lifestyle and much more all have a huge role. But these theories have been on my mind for a while as well. Are they plausible? All the males in my family have MPB so do I yet I refuse to think that it's a destiny.. It's also very exciting triumphing over what people or genes tell you you should be/do.

Good post TheFunkyStumpfighter.

Definitely wouldn't take it personal man, it's a forum. Anyway, on to it.

First and foremost, I prefaced with "here's my 2 cents", and ended with "that's my take".

Assumption. How do you know this? Remember, when you look for something hard enough, you're going to find it.

Of course its an assumption, it's a take on someone's personality. The burden of proof is on anyone saying Weston price had other motives, and if there's any proof of this at all I haven't heard about it. There is a reason why this very piece of work is praised in alternative medicine avenues, and slammed in the mainstream. Am I making an assumption on the personality of a man who I did not know? Sure, but if you can find me a safer assumption on him, or anyone in what we would now consider the alternative medicine scene, tell me about it. In fact, if you can find me anything anywhere calling into question his ethics, I'd be interested in seeing that too.

I have put his practices to work in my own life with very good success. The proof that he wasn't blowharding is in the mirror every day for me.

I agree with your interpretation of the cultural definition of health, but quite frankly, what they believe didn't matter to Dr. Price. He placed their health within our cultural framework and studied them from that perspective.

He didn't put anything into any other framework besides the one he found it in. He could have brought with him all modern medicine had at its disposal, not least of which antibiotics, and placed them directly into our framework. He could have brought with him portable toilets, emergency medical supplies (suture kits, bone clamps, etc etc), and really put them into our framework. There is no cultural framework of health, only of the perception of health. True health is universal.

I mean this in the sense that you could call these people unhealthy for getting a cancer at the age of 50, and dying at 50, whereas someone in the modern western world can get cancer at 30 and live a full life thanks to modern medicine. We would call ourselves more "healthy" because of this, when thats not the case. If Weston Price had put these people into that "framework", he could have made his observations come off as far more convincing. He didn't though. all he did was make observations.

Statements in bold need data supporting them.

See "Two cents" and "my take". Also, allow teenager to never brush his/her teeth and see what happens to them. The statistics for cavities in children are out there, I'd rather not google myself. People in these primitive tribes, and all humanity up until a few hundred years ago, never brushed their teeth at all and managed to keep a lot of them. See CS's write up on it if you need more info, he did a pretty good job summing it up.

This section is full of sweeping statements without any evidence or sources. How do we know the age of these indigenous people?

Sweeping statements that lifespan increases have more to do with sanitation and emergency care than full on modern medicine? I didn't realize I needed to cite sources MisterE style to prove a point like this one. The burden of proof is on you if you wan't to call my "2 cents" wrong here, especially on a point that few people ever argue, I have no intentions on doing the googling myself.

As far as the actual age of these people claiming to live well into their hundreds while living in desolate parts of Eastern Europe and Asia, there's plenty of proof on that out there too. Again, if you want to tell me I'm wrong then you can do the google legwork. I don't care about proving you wrong, so I'm not going to look it up myself.

You're assuming disease is wholly dependent on diet. What about exposure? I see the title of many of these chapter titles describe the group of people Dr. Price studied as "isolated." Hmm...

No, I'm not. I'm assuming many diseases are mostly dependent on environment. I made that abundantly clear, especially the "I'm not drawing concrete conclusions" aspect that was at the very base of what I am saying.

Numbers are great, but not without a source. Furthermore, these types of numbers are pretty easy to refute, just by asking a couple of questions. First, has the technology and technique for diagnosing cancer improved over the last 100-200 years? Second, were researchers scouring the population for cancer diagnoses 100-200 years ago?

Also, I don't see how the Weston Price research points out anything about cancer.

Again, if you wan't to prove me wrong then you can do the legwork. Number are pretty great, but if you want to imply that I am not credible because I'm not citing sources in some forum post, then you can find the number that prove me wrong. I'm not here to prove anything to anyone, I'm here to share the things I've learned in the interest that someone will find it interesting and do their own research. I'm not going to argue semantics on numbers that are out there for everyone to see. Whether those numbers are dead on right or dead on wrong is on you to figure out for yourself, not for someone on a forum to tell you. Not least of which me.

Sorry, but you must provide some sort of data to support your statements in this section.

See "two cents" and "my take". I believe this without a shadow of a doubt, I never claimed you should.

A question you're supposed to answer, because we don't know what the definition of "serious" means as it pertains to medications and conditions. I consider major depression a serious condition, does someone on antidepressants count toward the number in the answer to this question?

I'm not going to argue the point here. If you really believe that prescriptions for once late in life conditions among younger and younger people are not on the rise, that is entirely on you. I have no interest in arguing the semantics of that.

Crazy hypothetical that doesn't make sense and isn't possible.

I don't knnow what you're picking apart here. If these tribes had the kind of health conditions relatively younger people in America have pretty routinely, and didn't have the kind of treatments we're afforded, they would die off. Probably not in a single generation (c'mon now, I made a fucking dinosaur reference), but they would certainly not be around too long. But you're right, the only way that could happen would be if you exposed these people to the same environmental circumstances as we have, then denied them treatment for what happens as a result. You, yourself, called it a hypothetical, and it is just that.

I

agree with you that our definition of "healthy" is a bit distorted, but I don't think you've captured a solid definition of health here either. Do you think I'll never get the cold or the flu, infections, etc. if I simply eat well? No. You're talking about these purported "diseases" caused by a poor American diet. You're choosing which disease we should lack to fit your definition of healthy. Might be a little more complex than just disease, might it? What if I'm disease-free but I can neither run a mile nor bench press 100 lbs, am I healthy?

I meant exactly what i said, you're the one taking my words and drawing massive conclusions. I made a single statement, that being healthy means never getting these diseases, not simply treating them. If you want to come to the kind of wild conclusions that you did based on that one sentence, you have every right to. Thing is, that's not what I said.

Also, I have not had the flu or cold in more than three years, and I would struggle to run a mile. Maybe you should give real living healthy a shot, then tell me what it can or can't do.

Again, nothing personal, but you've done nothing to help the less-versed people on this board read science properly. You've done the exact opposite. You later mention, accurately, that research is a beginning. It's a beginning to a dialogue between scientists where the words and sentences are often comprised of data from studies. However, when a scientist makes a case, they must support it with data. That doesn't often happen around these parts

help the less versed to read science? Here? The vast majority of people here have absolutely no issue in this regard, I'm not trying to teach anyone, so I have no need to provide any hard evidence for "my take" and my "two cents". What i am telling the OP is that his questions are valid, but the reasoning behind them is not, as he is not reading the study in the spirit in which it was written. It is the same thing I tell MisterE every time he draws conclusions on broad subjects using data taken out of its proper context. Telling the OP that the context in which he is drawing his conclusions is wrong is my main point here, and as someone with a decent amount of experience having to interpret scientific studies, I can tell you that I am absolutely right in saying this. If you think I'm wrong, then the burden of proof is on you, I couldn't care less about proving anything to anyone.

This study is one of the more highly regarded studies I can think of. If you truly believe that Weston Price had the resources to research and cherry pick tribes from around the world in the mid-1930's as a means of trying to make himself look good, then that's on you. I think you'd be hard pressed to find many people who know much of anything about him that would agree with that. But hey, there's people who call Linus Pauling a quack, so anything is possible.

I apologize of my first post came off as know-it-allish, I'm not claiming to have concrete answers. My intent was to share my "take", and "two cents" on a subject that I have spent a lot of time doing my own research on, and putting into physical practice with some decent success. If you wan't to spend time picking my statements apart and arguing semantics, that's just fine, but you have done nothing to actually prove me wrong, only to prove that I could be wrong (something I have zero problem admitting, which is why I thought I made sure that the post was my view, and that others here would be able to answer with more specificity). You've poked holes in quite a few things I've said, but knowing the things I've learned in these last few years thanks to people in places like this who have pointed me in the directions I've taken, you've only succeeded in showing people that what I have said is not hardly gospel, something that should be a given no matter who's doing the talking. I'm just pointing people in the same directions I was pointed in because the things I have learned in places like this, Earthclinic, and Curezone have worked very well for me. Considering I was facing death at 20, unable to afford any kind of medical treatment, and nearly 5 years later I am in the best shape of my life and looking forward to many more years of that still with no means of getting modern medical treatment, I can tell you that modern medicine has its place, but you can certainly be healthy as shit without it just by changing how you live. I can only say this because I have experienced it, but milligram of experience is worth any measure of semantical conjecture.

First and foremost, I prefaced with "here's my 2 cents", and ended with "that's my take".

Prefacing your writing with these phrases does not absolve you from the burden of proof. Contrary to what you believe, when someone writes something – on a forum or in a formal essay – they burden of proof asymmetrically leans toward their end when they draw conclusions out of thin air or use evidence that lacks an explicitly cited source.

Assumption. How do you know this? Remember, when you look for something hard enough, you're going to find it.

Of course its an assumption, it's a take on someone's personality. The burden of proof is on anyone saying Weston price had other motives, and if there's any proof of this at all I haven't heard about it. There is a reason why this very piece of work is praised in alternative medicine avenues, and slammed in the mainstream. Am I making an assumption on the personality of a man who I did not know? Sure, but if you can find me a safer assumption on him, or anyone in what we would now consider the alternative medicine scene, tell me about it. In fact, if you can find me anything anywhere calling into question his ethics, I'd be interested in seeing that too.

One of the major cognitive biases well researched by psychologists is confirmation bias. A subtype of this is the biased search for information*. Have you ever written a research paper or an essay that required research? I bet you spent a lot of time looking for items that supported your hypothesis and a lot less time looking for items that blew it out of the water. This is a standard bias many people suffer from while doing research, whether it be for alternative medicines or for indigenous cultures that have nice teeth.

I did not attack Dr. Price himself, but merely applied a common human trait to his own thinking. This is far less of a stretch than saying that he’s a stand up guy that should be trusted. Heck, even people with good intentions do a whole lot of bad, part of the reason why many anthropologists will present alternatives to the Peace Corps when you tell them you want to volunteer abroad.

I made a point to avoid criticism of Dr. Price’s research because I haven’t read much of it. Don’t have a lot of time. I’ll get to it soon. I can tell, though, from my limited experience with the book, that the reason why the mainstream slams it is because Dr. Price employed weak methodological practices** in conducting his study. You don’t have to read a whole lot to see that anthropologists – the experts in this type of study – would be appalled at the way he examines culture in his “study.”

Finally, there’s a reason why citations of a lot of really old studies, you know, those 50 years or so and older, have been relegated to the first couple paragraphs of newer studies. It’s because these people had different – perhaps great – ideas, but their science may have been so-so. It might be a good starting point, but you sure as hell don’t want to use it as your bottom line.

*The wikipedia article cites several studies confirming this bias. (pun = fun).
**I will read the book to confirm this link, although it seems pretty clear from a quick skim.

I have put his practices to work in my own life with very good success. The proof that he wasn't blowharding is in the mirror every day for me.

Wait – I thought you said research was a beginning? From your first post, you stressed that “practices” weren’t the purpose of the research.

He didn't put anything into any other framework besides the one he found it in. He could have brought with him all modern medicine had at its disposal, not least of which antibiotics, and placed them directly into our framework. He could have brought with him portable toilets, emergency medical supplies (suture kits, bone clamps, etc etc), and really put them into our framework. There is no cultural framework of health, only of the perception of health. True health is universal.

What you’ve said here is a misinterpretation of both my words and the Dr. Price study. By default, studying health through a (I cringe at this term, but here we go) “Western” frame means you are applying that frame upon your subjects. Presenting the results of his study in the cultural framework of his subjects would be either nonsensical or difficult for “Westerners” to understand. By “framework” I don’t mean replacing their environment with ours, I meant that he studies this other group with inherent cultural biases, in a mental sense.

The section I’ve placed in bold shows that you might not understand cultural perception as well as you think. “Health” is a highly subjective term, even within cultures. Our discussion has already shown that two people partaking in the same forum might disagree on definitions of health. The problem lies in what “health” is – it’s a symbol, just like all words. It constitutes many meanings that vary from language to language, culture to culture, and even between people that speak the same language and part of the same culture. Read Michael Agar's Language Shock for an introduction (and beyond) to this. Even if you think you can put together a solid “objective” definition of health, there will be groups of people who don’t value the items at the top of your list as much. Ursula K. Le Guin, in her novel The Left Hand of Darkness demonstrates how cultural differences manifest themselves using the alien Gethenians as her vessel. Yes, I know, that’s science fiction, but it aligns quite well with what you’d learn studying anthropology.

See "Two cents" and "my take". Also, allow teenager to never brush his/her teeth and see what happens to them. The statistics for cavities in children are out there, I'd rather not google myself. People in these primitive tribes, and all humanity up until a few hundred years ago, never brushed their teeth at all and managed to keep a lot of them. See CS's write up on it if you need more info, he did a pretty good job summing it up.

Again, those terms do not absolve you from providing proof for statements such as this:

it's likely that these people lose their teeth more to physical trauma than anything else.

You have no clue how they lost their teeth; don’t make assertions on the topic. Especially since what you’ve said goes far beyond the scope of your “two cents.”

a child could lose all his/her teeth to decay before their mid teens in our society, and this does happen relatively often.

In challenging this statement, I wasn’t entirely clear, my fault. I was challenging the second part of it, that “this does happen relatively often.” That needs a source, without a doubt.

You see, you do need to google it yourself and put it in your post. You can’t just say “do a search” – a phrase spoken far too often here – and leave it at that. You are obligated to provide the information - at least when challenged.

Sweeping statements that lifespan increases have more to do with sanitation and emergency care than full on modern medicine? I didn't realize I needed to cite sources MisterE style to prove a point like this one. The burden of proof is on you if you wan't to call my "2 cents" wrong here, especially on a point that few people ever argue, I have no intentions on doing the googling myself.

Seriously? This is starting to bother me (although I won’t cross the personal line yet). You absolutely have to provide data for a statement like this if I ask. Something you created in your mind might not have been created in my own. That’s how the world works. Remember- I didn’t say you were wrong, I was wondering what your evidence was for the statement. Do you want me to provide evidence that led me to ask you for evidence? Nonsensical.

No, I'm not. I'm assuming many diseases are mostly dependent on environment. I made that abundantly clear, especially the "I'm not drawing concrete conclusions" aspect that was at the very base of what I am saying.

“Mostly dependent on environment” is pretty vague, and I don’t think you did mean just that. What parts of the environment, which differ between the groups Dr. Price studied and ours, factor into these “many diseases?” Which do we need to change?

Again, if you wan't to prove me wrong then you can do the legwork. Number are pretty great, but if you want to imply that I am not credible because I'm not citing sources in some forum post, then you can find the number that prove me wrong. I'm not here to prove anything to anyone, I'm here to share the things I've learned in the interest that someone will find it interesting and do their own research. I'm not going to argue semantics on numbers that are out there for everyone to see. Whether those numbers are dead on right or dead on wrong is on you to figure out for yourself, not for someone on a forum to tell you. Not least of which me.

1. I won’t mention it again (well, I might), but you are absolutely wrong in assuming that I must provide a source before I can even ask for yours. You don’t even know if I’m trying to prove you incorrect yet. I don’t think you’re lazy, or lack credibility, but if you continue to take this approach, people will think you’re either lazy or without credibility, or both. You could be busy, I suppose. But scientists well researched in their fields (and regular people who are well researched in their areas of interest) will have evidence organized in their minds and on their computers or in bookshelves for times like these. Since you’re unable to procure your sources, it makes you look bad. It makes you look like you lack credibility. Finally, how the heck am I supposed to discover whether “those numbers” are “dead on right or dead on wrong” if you don’t even tell me where you got them from?

2. I won’t mention it again (well, I might), but stop fixating on this whole “semantics” nonsense. I asked two somewhat rhetorical questions that were pretty obvious problems to the data you presented. And no, that doesn’t mean I was trying to prove you wrong, it meant I wanted you to give me sources to reassure me that those questions didn’t blow your numbers out of the water.

A question you're supposed to answer, because we don't know what the definition of "serious" means as it pertains to medications and conditions. I consider major depression a serious condition, does someone on antidepressants count toward the number in the answer to this question?

I'm not going to argue the point here. If you really believe that prescriptions for once late in life conditions among younger and younger people are not on the rise, that is entirely on you. I have no interest in arguing the semantics of that.

It’s not just semantics, it’s logical reasoning. Again, questions can help pull apart your statements. How do we know that rise isn’t due to better diagnostic techniques and technology? How do we know that rise isn’t due to broadening diagnostic criteria? Ultimately, you still need to provide some sort of numbers supporting your claim that more people are on “serious medicine” earlier on in life. To do so, you need to define what “serious” means in these cases. And I think you will have a hard time with that.

If you can’t handle the effect of opening a can of worms, don’t take the can opener out of the drawer.

I don't knnow what you're picking apart here. If these tribes had the kind of health conditions relatively younger people in America have pretty routinely, and didn't have the kind of treatments we're afforded, they would die off. Probably not in a single generation (c'mon now, I made a fucking dinosaur reference), but they would certainly not be around too long. But you're right, the only way that could happen would be if you exposed these people to the same environmental circumstances as we have, then denied them treatment for what happens as a result. You, yourself, called it a hypothetical, and it is just that.

Sorry, I was being a bit derogatory and cryptic here. What I meant to say is that this hypothetical helps no one and doesn’t support your argument. What benefit would it be to anyone, for example, if you said “reverting back to our pre-agricultural eating practices would save us from disease!” Too bad you’d have to undo 10,000 years of history. Same thing with this hypothetical: will these people ever be displaced from their current environment into modernity all at once, then have their lifelines severed all at once?

I meant exactly what i said, you're the one taking my words and drawing massive conclusions. I made a single statement, that being healthy means never getting these diseases, not simply treating them. If you want to come to the kind of wild conclusions that you did based on that one sentence, you have every right to. Thing is, that's not what I said.

I was wrong about the diet thing, don’t know where I drew that out of. Sorry!

However, you did make quite a “massive conclusion” yourself: that health = not contracting disease. Why? Sounds like one of those beliefs that you feel in your gut but you can’t rationalize. You have to provide a logical argument for that definition of health if you want other people to tag along.

Also, I have not had the flu or cold in more than three years, and I would struggle to run a mile. Maybe you should give real living healthy a shot, then tell me what it can or can't do.

You misunderstood my argument. I was simply stating that what “healthy” means is quite subjective. To present “health” through scientific study, you have to be able to quantify it in some way through an objective, established definition; you must operationalize the variable.

help the less versed to read science? Here? The vast majority of people here have absolutely no issue in this regard

You’re kidding, right? What about all the people who post one-liners in here and take what the regulars say as fact without challenging their underlying reasoning? You can tell from their questions and statements that they have no idea what you’re talking about and couldn’t interpret data from a study without a whole lot of help.

I don’t know you, you could have more experience researching in a formal setting, or you may have spent most of your time googling things. Either way, you need to understand something (and if the former is true you already do, although I doubt this): interpreting scientific study takes a shitload of training. I’m pretty young, but I’ve read hundreds of studies and half a bookshelf worth of scientific literature. No, that doesn’t make me great or anything. I’ve read heaps of material and still miss some big points made in books, flaws in arguments in newspaper articles, and holes in methodological strategies employed by scientists. So, maybe the reason I responded to your original message is that you mentioned how people’s way of interpreting studies was poisoned while exhibiting all of those bad habits yourself.

This study is one of the more highly regarded studies I can think of. If you truly believe that Weston Price had the resources to research and cherry pick tribes from around the world in the mid-1930's as a means of trying to make himself look good, then that's on you. I think you'd be hard pressed to find many people who know much of anything about him that would agree with that. But hey, there's people who call Linus Pauling a quack, so anything is possible.

Your first statement here is nigh laughable, but I’ll believe you if you can come up with a number: how many times has price been cited in a peer-reviewed journal? How many times has he been cited in the literature of medicine, medical anthropology, or anything else? I don’t doubt he’s been cited, but where did you get the notion that he’s this important?

Let me tell you something about studying other cultures. I know a few anthropologists personally, and a couple of them happen to be regarded as some of the best field anthropologists in the world. These people study all sorts of things: front lines of warzones in Africa, people you’d probably call “terrorists” in the Middle East, and global crime flows. What they don’t do is drop into the middle of things, spend a short amount of time gathering data, and jet out. They spend years upon years gathering data and developing a true human understanding of the people and their environment. How many years did Dr. Price spend with each group? Was it long enough to truly understand the reasons explaining the data he gathered? Those are questions I must answer myself, as I’ve shifted the burden of proof toward me. But perhaps you can help me a little in defense of the doctor who ran your “highly regarded” study.

I can tell you that modern medicine has its place, but you can certainly be healthy as shit without it just by changing how you live. I can only say this because I have experienced it, but milligram of experience is worth any measure of semantical conjecture.

I agree on all points, and I applaud your success in this regard. However, remember that anecdotes are hard to use as evidence when you consider how much variance can occur case-by-case.

I'm not going to argue any of the semantics you're bringing up here, in all honesty I really couldn't care any less about arguing over something who's tenements I have actual experience with implementing. I made it through a few paragraphs of what you wrote, and I just don't care to go any further than that. Have fun with hard peer reviewed evidence, as though that means much of anything this day and age. I'd rather put things into practice than talk about them to someone who refuses to.

Both of you make interesting points in this thread.

In regards to evidence/backing up posts, I personally dont find that it is always necessary, especially when it comes it opinions and or personal experience. Even some of the more highly regarded posters here dont always do that. Im not arguining that it definitely has its place, especially when it comes to completely new info, concepts or theories, most on here will try to at least reference their sources when they make those kind of posts.

I would also like to point out that even the posters who post almost entirely personal experiences/opinions often have a lot to contribute to this forum.

I do value highly the very scientifically inclined and knowlegeable members on this board and I think for the most part there is good balance here. I also think that we should not forget this is a message board and not a medical scholarly journal.

TheFunkyStumpfighter wrote:I'm not going to argue any of the semantics you're bringing up here, in all honesty I really couldn't care any less about arguing over something who's tenements I have actual experience with implementing. I made it through a few paragraphs of what you wrote, and I just don't care to go any further than that. Have fun with hard peer reviewed evidence, as though that means much of anything this day and age. I'd rather put things into practice than talk about them to someone who refuses to.

That's fine, I can't make you care about anything. I thought there was a possibility of having an interesting dialogue about the original poster's questions and what it means to think critically with a little bit of science sprinkled into the context. You made it clear in your response to my reply that the dialogue I wanted would be replaced with mudslinging and misinterpretations.

It is unfortunate you would not read my entire post. I spent a decent amount of time re-reading your response and my own statements to make sure I was articulating myself properly. I even retracted some of my earlier statements that were incorrect and baseless.

You should understand that I never argued against your bottom line, which was that 1. our environment is pretty unhealthy and that 2. we overmedicate in order to compensate for our unhealthy environment. In fact, I totally agree. I was trying to understand better your argument for this bottom line in the context of Dr. Price's research. Ultimately, it seems you are not interested in supporting your claims, only making them.

You've overstretched yourself in amassing all of peer reviewed research and its proponents into a big pile of meaninglessness. I never stated that it was perfect, infallible, or the shining pillar of knowledge in this world. I believe we should be critical beyond a "peer review." Academia has a lot of flaws in its processes (a fact that's starting to cause real problems in the academic world - believe me) but the process of peer review at least maintains a standard of quality in methodological practice. Again, it seems you have very little familiarity with these processes, do not understand them, and yet still criticize them - based on what? Your intuition, the same intuition that lead to a blind trust in Dr. Price's methodological practices?

You appear to be begging for a dictionary definition of "semantics." Here it is:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/semantics

Ironically, I might get into a dispute of the meaning of "semantics" but that would be circular and get us nowhere. I do think the definition of health is important (hard to argue against this), but my point crossed the line from mere semantics to requesting objective definitions so that we can continue the discussion regarding the term "healthy," which is, without a doubt, a highly subjective adjective. I can see how it's easier to propose the "semantics" red herring rather than to respond to my points. I'm a busy person and you're probably busy too; you don't have the time to respond to me.

phoenix21 wrote:Both of you make interesting points in this thread.

In regards to evidence/backing up posts, I personally dont find that it is always necessary, especially when it comes it opinions and or personal experience. Even some of the more highly regarded posters here dont always do that. Im not arguining that it definitely has its place, especially when it comes to completely new info, concepts or theories, most on here will try to at least reference their sources when they make those kind of posts.

I would also like to point out that even the posters who post almost entirely personal experiences/opinions often have a lot to contribute to this forum.

I do value highly the very scientifically inclined and knowlegeable members on this board and I think for the most part there is good balance here. I also think that we should not forget this is a message board and not a medical scholarly journal.

Thanks for this level-headed comment. I'd like to say that I certainly don't expect a mass of citations per forum post. However, the original poster called into question the integrity of a study and the responses to those possible critiques contained bold claims lacking any evidence. Evidence provided had no source. When I asked for a source, or provided alternate possibilities that might confound the data, a little flip occurred called "demanding negative proof."

Ugh, how tedious life would be if we had to cite a history or science text, newspaper article, or online website every time we stated something. I don't want that. I just want a little bit of truth in this mess of near-infinite complexity we've created in this modern environment. Being critical and digging deep might help to untangle things a bit.