3

votes

Is Weston Price wrong?

Answered on August 19, 2014
Created March 07, 2011 at 1:57 PM

As most know, the main difference between the WAP approach and paleo is that they allow for grains, as long as they are properly soaked and cooked. Given that they understand all of the other reasearch about whole foods, real food, additives, processing, etc, how did they get this wrong? Or, is it wrong? In other words, are they just selectively ignoring the truth about grains, or is the research in this area not so cut-and-dried?

Cf5c9ba3c06cf300ae23c52778dfd317

(545)

on April 01, 2011
at 01:15 AM

Darrin- how do you make your bread? Do you yeast it or do a sourdough? Are you actually grinding the spelt yourself?

1756b5b3b82c698e9cf719742b9a4d49

on March 31, 2011
at 07:08 PM

Upvote for mentioning spelt. In our larger family the cost of good meat was killing our pocketbook. We introduced first soaked dried fresh ground spelt bread and later unsoaked ground spelt bread. The kids and we all tolerated it well. And compared to the cost of other Paleo-ish foods, grinding spelt is dirt cheap and it gives you that "fullness" you might feel you lack eating just dairy, eggs, meat, and veggies. We tried more modern conventional wheat and it didn't work out as well.

Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25472)

on March 08, 2011
at 02:49 AM

todays Eikorn Wheats are not the wheat that WAP observed. That point is lost on many.

Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25472)

on March 08, 2011
at 02:48 AM

wrong? No......context. If your ancestors began eating grains in the fertile crescent 10000 yrs ago you actually might be well adapted to grains already. Yes it is possible to eat grains and be OK. But for most its not. You have to do the testing to know for sure.

D10ca8d11301c2f4993ac2279ce4b930

(5242)

on March 08, 2011
at 01:44 AM

And most importantly: minimal sugar. Also the wheat then wasn't the wheat that's consumed today. Wheat now has 50% more gluten than it did 50 years ago! Historically, humans have made food less toxic through cultivation. However we have moved toward a preference of yield over taste which has led us to encourage plants to evolve towards toxicity.

  • Aebee51dc2b93b209980a89fa4a70c1e

    asked by

    (1982)
  • Views
    6.5K
  • Last Activity
    1458D AGO
Frontpage book

Get FREE instant access to our Paleo For Beginners Guide & 15 FREE Recipes!

7 Answers

12
E91fd339d760ed76cc72570a679ebf5a

(2369)

on March 07, 2011
at 02:52 PM

I was just listening to a Sally Fallon lecture so I couldn't help but chime in and say:

Weston Price the man wasn't wrong. His research showed that people eating traditional diets that included animal foods and excluded refined flour/sugar, etc. had robust health. Some of these diets were mainly unpasteurized dairy and sourdough bread, others were mostly meat, and yet others were mostly vegetables. These people made the best use of whatever was in the environment, which usually involved fermenting stuff to extract the most nutrients and neutralize toxins and always involved some type of nutrient-dense animal product.

The WAPF approach is based on WAP's research of course. Whether or not it applies in our modern environment, where there are more toxins than ever, is another question.

D10ca8d11301c2f4993ac2279ce4b930

(5242)

on March 08, 2011
at 01:44 AM

And most importantly: minimal sugar. Also the wheat then wasn't the wheat that's consumed today. Wheat now has 50% more gluten than it did 50 years ago! Historically, humans have made food less toxic through cultivation. However we have moved toward a preference of yield over taste which has led us to encourage plants to evolve towards toxicity.

Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25472)

on March 08, 2011
at 02:49 AM

todays Eikorn Wheats are not the wheat that WAP observed. That point is lost on many.

9
4b97e3bb2ee4a9588783f5d56d687da1

on March 07, 2011
at 02:35 PM

WAP focuses on reducing the toxin load, we eliminate the toxin.

What I've seen with most people who even use "gluten free" breads and not the wapf lower gluten sprouted stuff, is higher cravings, higher bodyweight, higher inflammation.

Drop the Candy Cigarettes, steak tastes way better.

6
4aa3281b2b5c6ec066c82675ee3df5f7

on March 07, 2011
at 07:38 PM

I ate what I knew as a Weston Price diet for years. I just didn't eat grains, legumes, and non-fermented dairy. Grain soaking is to much work and still didn't feel that good. Legumes make me feel really bad and dairy unless goat or fermented doesn't feel right either. I didn't know it was called paleo. One of the things about grains that I really don't like is they are a huge hassle to grow on a small, non-industrialized scale. I lived on a farm that grew grains all by hand. I mean you scattered the grain after processing it with mud. Then you scythed it down dried it out. Winnow, hull it, and winnowed again. Then on top of that you have to soak, sprout, or grind and re-dry. It takes up a lot of acreage and it's hard on the soil. I thought from a locally based food economy it seamed like a lot of work for something not that great in the first place. You could have that land supporting a mix of live stock, orchards, vegetables, and wild plants and animals. Which is a lot more food and for the most part a lot easier to harvest/maintain. This may not matter nutritionally but I thinks it's a valid point if you want to have a chance at a sustainable, healthy community. Based on a local food economy and that is the only real way to have a society that eats a paleo i.e. healthy diet on a large and inclusive scale. Agriculture is hard work. Grain based agriculture is even harder work and that effects health too.

6
E35e3d76547b18096a59c90029e7e107

(15613)

on March 07, 2011
at 02:43 PM

I think the answer is straightforward: that there's a continuum. As we know, different people may tolerate grains to different degrees and to be tolerated is not to be optimal. Hence, prepared grains will indeed be more tolerable, to different degrees for different people and it's an open question where on the continuum from poison to tolerated to optimal they lie for these different people.

For my own part, I can't see any particular reason to go to the bother of including these foods that, but for extensive treatment, wouldn't be tolerable. Nor do I apply much weight to the observations that some people do fine on treated grains. I've been in great health (so far as I know) eating mostly unprepared wheat germ and soy milk (cost-effective student days), yet I now think (based on my 'nutritionistic' analysis) that these foods are probably far from optimal. I think it's unduly optimistic to think that foods which seem tolerable (but which have many potentially worrying elements) are unproblematic.

4
66e6b190e62fb3bcf42d4c60801c7bf6

on March 07, 2011
at 02:18 PM

i think that wheat- especially the mutated strain that we get- and other gluten grains are a nonstarter because they don't get broken down with soaking and sprouting. i think it gets less cut and dry with other grains. though they have lectins and other potentially malevolent proteins in them, many of these can be lessened drastically by soaking and sprouting. being that most people won't take the time go through that process, i think eliminating it outright is how most people approach grains in paleoland.

2
Cf5c9ba3c06cf300ae23c52778dfd317

on March 08, 2011
at 01:26 AM

Read Dr. Harris's post "Avoid Poison or Neutralize it?"

Weston Price wasn't "wrong", he was just reporting the objective observations. Grain-consuming societies that Price observed weren't eating anything resembling the hybrid genetically bastardized dwarf mutant wheat that is so ubiquitous in our food supply. Even now, some people who can't eat wheat can "tolerate" things like spelt, emmer, kamut and/or rye & barley. Whether or not it's actually doing them any favors... I doubt it.

Cf5c9ba3c06cf300ae23c52778dfd317

(545)

on April 01, 2011
at 01:15 AM

Darrin- how do you make your bread? Do you yeast it or do a sourdough? Are you actually grinding the spelt yourself?

1756b5b3b82c698e9cf719742b9a4d49

on March 31, 2011
at 07:08 PM

Upvote for mentioning spelt. In our larger family the cost of good meat was killing our pocketbook. We introduced first soaked dried fresh ground spelt bread and later unsoaked ground spelt bread. The kids and we all tolerated it well. And compared to the cost of other Paleo-ish foods, grinding spelt is dirt cheap and it gives you that "fullness" you might feel you lack eating just dairy, eggs, meat, and veggies. We tried more modern conventional wheat and it didn't work out as well.

1
0b177701d919967125bad776fc0f1edc

(140)

on March 07, 2011
at 03:57 PM

yes. food today isn't our ancestors food. and the indiginous cultures that Price studied didn't get thier grains from the market, if they even ate them and when they did get it along with sugar from the western culture, their bodies broke down showing illness and bone malformation. it was only when they returned to their native diet that health was restored.

the foundation hasn't caught up to the severly inflammaotry foods and how this modern processing is ravaging our bodies. sprouted grains can cause even more of a reaction. not only that, but it is the secondary or 'go to' foods that mimic at the cells receptor sites and are causing a continued issue with leaky gut and we aren't even looking there yet!

Answer Question


Get FREE instant access to our
Paleo For Beginners Guide & 15 FREE Recipes!