Ex Navy Officer. Owner of Businesses. Digital Entrepreneur. Expat Living in Thailand. 5,000 Biting Blog Post on Everything since 2003.
Did the ADAs, the FDA, the Department of Agriculture and their major funders and lobbyists in the grain and pharmaceutical industries tie you to the Whipping Post in 2009 and beyond, going back forever?
Just like Greg Allman?
You don’t have to be tied up in 2010. And there’s my end of year message. (Though a few have requested a Rush number and I hate to disappoint, and so…)
That’s Lierre Keith, describing the email she gets from her book, The Vegetarian Myth (see previous link for reviews & to get the book). She’s talking about those 80% of vegetarians and vegans who fan-mail her; those relatively new to it (all life is style, nowadays), suffering from anxiety and depression.
Good for you, Lierre: best of all, cut off or cull the supply of new victims; double-edge-sword, create advocates for sensible eating as added leverage against The Myth! Many of the old-timers will sacrifice their own health for the sake of misery-loves-company. They confuse misery and bliss — like a damaged soul confuses love & hate.
Alright, let’s just admit there’s selection bias here. Certainly there are vegetarians and vegans who are fortunate — and I wish them well — to have no such problems, and they aren’t emailing Lierre. Prolly not fans of her book, either.
But the fact is there are those who suffer. And there’re those commenting on this blog and elsewhere, proclaiming how meat eating is so satisfying for them. That means something simple: the argument that anyone and everyone ought to Go vegan! is falsified. It should end. No, they do not have and so certainly should not proclaim to have the diet to end all diets. And Paleos should not claim that either. Everyone is individual. People fare differently; paleo is merely an excellent place to start. Our job is to convince them it’s the best place to start. That’s how we got here, evolved, so give that a college try, first.
Oh, I almost forgot. That bit is at around 56 minutes into her interview with Sean Croxton, right here. Go listen.
Via my good buddy Chris Highcock in Scotland, this is hilarious. And I love how they used computer-generated voices. Maybe I’m weird.
It raises the possibility of a decent New Year’s Resolution: maybe we all — especially us bloggers — ought to take ourseves a little less seriously.
Alright, back to serious nutrition & diet, next post. :)
This post is basically for the purpose of highlighting a couple of others’ posts on grains in case you haven’t seen them.
First, Mark Sisson took on the "Better Fed" and "Feasting on Grains" nonsense I posted on the other day.
Let’s suppose that Mercader’s dating estimates are correct. Let’s also suppose that the tools Mercader tested had indeed been used to prepare food, as the presence of other food residues suggest. First off, it doesn’t necessarily follow that the sorghum was also used as food. Tools, for prehistoric humans (if not for moderns as well) needed to serve multiple purposes, supporting not just food preparation but shelter construction and other daily living tasks. As one archeologist skeptic, Curtis Marean of Arizona State University in Tempe, explains, grasses were regular parts of “bedding” and “kindling.” Another critic, Huw Barton from the University of Leicester, questions Mercader’s assumption that the sorghum had been used for food based on the curious presence of the residue on tools not associated with food preparation, including drills.
See Mark’s entire post. And I suggest also reading the article Mark links to.
Next up is the always pointed & frank Dr. kurt harris, MD. While he doesn’t take on this piece of nonsense garbage that I and Mark did — probably because it’s just too stupid for his tastes — he takes on grains themselves: as poison garbage. And, too, he takes on the Weston A. Price Foundation (WAPF) for their silly insistence on what should really be termed ‘proper preparation of poison.’ Now, I certainly don’t want to become and enemy of WAPF, I’ve linked to many of their articles many times, and Price, as Kurt says, was a giant in nutrition. But I do not get this insistence on "neutralizing" what’s just toxic poison.
The larger point is this – The whole exercise of finding a way to justify eating gluten grains is beyond pointless.
We have here a class of plant proteins derived from the seeds of plants that do not want to be eaten and that we did not evolve eating – cereal grains. These gliadin proteins (glutenins and gliadins) have known effects on gut permeability even in those without celiac disease via the innate immune response. These effects are in addition to those of wheat germ agglutinin (WGA), a secondary plant compound found in wheat germ that is elaborated solely to discourage consumption of seeds by animals.
The WAPF position is that, rather than simply avoiding eating things with gluten, we should soak, sprout and ferment these noxious plant seeds and eat them anyway, in hopes that our preparation has hydrolyzed enough of the gluten to make short enough peptides that the immunogenicity is diminished.
I suggest wheat advocates who worship tradition pay for access to this short report published in GUT – I did – and then explain why a celiac, or indeed anyone with a gut should expose themselves to even microgram amounts of incompletely hydrolysed gluten when 5 out of 6 people without evidence of CS (Celiac Sprue) have evidence of an abnormal innate immune response using a highly sensitive assay.
[…]
You can live fine with zero gluten grains in your diet. Wheat flour is vitamin poor, has no nutritious fat that isn’t rancid, and the proteins in it are incomplete in their amino acid complement. There is absolutely no upside to eating wheat if you are not starving
So why engineer some convoluted preparation ritual in order to eat it? Why not just avoid it?
At any rate, see Kurt’s post to get the real scoop on what’s going on with grains, gluten in particular. And the comments have to be seen to be believed. Also in the comments, Kurt demonstrates why dairy is not at all in the same category as grains from an evolutionary, paleo diet standpoint.
Last year while vacationing up here at the cabin, I did a dozen reasonably substantive posts in one day — for fun (alcohol being a function of the last few, and just getting the last off by midnight — make sure to check out LSD Chicken). Here’s the wrap up post with the links to all 12.
This year I’m going to do something different. I’ve noted from emails received from so may new readers (500%+ at least from last year) that while they have gone through archives and read past stuff, they may not have gotten what I think are the best. So. I’m going to resurrect a choice few over the next few days, perhaps three or four per day.
Hope that doesn’t irritate the long-timers, but at least you know why. Heres’ the two I highlighted earlier to Facebook friends & Twitter followers.
From the archives: The Perverse Positive Feedback of Stress – http://su.pr/2QsWDn
180 Degree Errors: Excess Fat as a TUMOR. Archives, before I read GCBC – http://su.pr/3aWXUI
Thanks for your enormous support, folks. Over 500% increase in a year.
I’m humbled. More and more. You’re making me watch my Ps & Qs, goddammit!
I might have to put updates up as I continue to gather information (emails out to vetting sources) but I thought I’d put this up as a starter, maybe generate some conversation.
I’ve posted a lot about cholesterol and how and why I don’t generally see it as a problem for most people on a good (paleo-like) diet. In other words, the diet is the problem causing the inflammation markers, small dense LDL, low HDL and high triglycerides (fat in the blood, caused by sugar, not dietary fat). So fix the diet. The problem, of course, is that the standard from-on-high dietary advice is precisely what’s behind those aforementioned problems. A Paleo diet doesn’t seem to work for everyone to get the sort of lipid numbers I enjoy, so that leaves the question open as to whether "bad" lipids are generally only a concern with a bad diet of processed foods, high sugar and omega-6 polly unsaturated fats. That’s where I’ve placed my bet.
But what about familial hypercholesterolemia? Does that not substantiate if not prove the lipid hypothesis? After all, even children and infants afflicted with this genetic disorder get heart disease. But is it the high LDL itself, or what it’s able to act upon? For an amazing education in all things cholesterol, take a listen to Jimmy Moore’s recent interview of Chris Masterjohn who specifically addressed this disorder and argues that it’s rather like having a ton more cars on the road (LDL) and the real problem is that because they’re on the road so much longer that it makes them far more susceptible to oxidative stress; and combined with chronic inflammation caused by a nutritionally deficient, low fat, high sugar, high omega-6 diet, that’s the real underlying cause of the plaque buildup. Give it a listen.
Added later: Think of the causal chain mixup like this when it’s claimed that LDL is causal. It’s like having a gunman shoot you through the heart and you die, and cause of death is that your heart can’t stop bullets. So, when the underlying cause is inflammation and oxidized small-LDL, the "cause" is claimed to be that your heart can’t withstand small-LDL, inflammation and oxidation.
Now comes the added complication. Via reader Dexter I got a link to an article about this very recent study today. Be warned: it’s not a light read, at least not for me.
Strongest evidence yet that Lp(a) causes heart disease
Oxford, UK – New genetic research has identified two relatively rare single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) that explain just over a third of the variance in lipoprotein(a) (Lp[a]) levels in individuals of European descent. The work confirms unequivocally that Lp(a) is a causal factor for coronary disease, say Dr Robert Clarke (University of Oxford, UK) and colleagues in their paper in the December 24, 2009 issue of the New England Journal of Medicine.
"This is the most convincing evidence so far that this protein [Lp(a)] is directly part of the pathway that causes heart disease rather than a bystander. If we can target it through treatment, we might expect to lower the risk of disease," coauthor Dr Hugh Watkins (University of Oxford) told heartwire.
Well I’ve known for sometime that high Lipoprotein(a) — Lp(a) — is a strong risk factor for CHD (mine is 4 mg/dl with "standard range" <30, so presumably low risk on that score), but that’s based on association, not causation. But now they’re saying it’s unequivocally causal. OK, good, and I’ll get to how you can naturally lower your Lp(a) in a bit. But first, here’s what really struck out at me, making my head spin around and around a bit. From the article.
In a press release issued by the British Heart Foundation [3], which describes Lp(a) as a "third type of cholesterol," senior author of the new paper, Dr Martin Farrell (University of Oxford), tries to put the findings into perspective: "The increase in risk to people from high Lp(a) is significantly less than the risk from high LDL-cholesterol levels. So Lp(a) doesn’t trump LDL, which has a larger impact. The hope now is that by targeting both we could get an even better risk reduction."
Say what? Here’s what I’ll state unequivocally: high LDL is only associated with CHD and even that’s tenuous because I have many times (check the cholesterol links above) demonstrated that very low LDL is also associated with CHD (as well as increased all-cause mortality, particularly in the elderly and slam dunk in women). So let me get this straight: the risk from high Lp(a) that they are calling "unequivocally causal" is a significantly less risk than a mere association?
What say you, experts? I’m confused.
At any rate, and again not a light read by any means, but one blogger and good friend, Dr. BG really stands out in blogging about Lp(a) and other risk factors.
Cardio Controversies: Lp(a) Dangerous at ANY Value (link removed)
Can Lp(a) create more damage than we previously thought?
Dr. Hecht has apparently showed it with his examination of lipoprotein, cardiac and metabolic parameter comparisons with the real measure of heart disease risk: EBCT-determined plaque burden. Lp(a) was 3rd after HDL and LDL particle diameter in being highly associated with coronary calcifications. See below. Free PDF HERE. Normally at TrackYourPlaque we consider Lp(a) greater than 20 mg/dl as a high contributor toward accelerated plaque burden. When I look at Dr. Hecht’s graphs, what I notice is that indeed this may not be true.
It appears to my observations that at ANY Lp(a) value, plaque burden is quite high reaching even 97th, 98th or 99th calcium percentile for CAD risk (of population norms) at severely low Lp(a) levels of 5 mg/dl or 10 mg/dl.
OK…what the heck?
I can make the same observations for my CAD (heart), PVD (peripheral), or CVD (stroke) patients and individuals with extensive diabetic complications. At any Lp(a), the extent of disease can still be quite pronounced.
What other factors are correlated to vascular damage?
1. Low HDL2b
2. High small dense LDL.
These THREE factors determine almost entirely the extent of disease. Both visionaries Dr. Davis and Dr. Hecht focus on these predominantly to control and halt the progression of calcifications.
How are these 3 metabolic parameters created in the first place?
–low fat SAD AHA low cholesterol low saturated fat diet
–saturated fat deficiency
–excessive carbs (>10 g/d, >20 g/d, >50 g/d, >100 g/d — depending on a person’s insulin and insulin sensitivity and pancreas/adipose/hormone status)
–inflammation (excessive omega-6 oils)
But she has a lot of stuff on Lp(a), so here’s a search link (link removed) for those wanting to dig super deep. For those of us wanting to cut to the chase, how best to lower Lp(a) and keep it low? You know what I’m gonna say, dontcha? You guessed it: high saturated fat from natural sources, i.e., animals, butter, coconut oil. The Doctor again, from another post (link removed):
Lp(a) Reduced By Saturated Fatty Acids and Raised by Low-Sat-Fat Diets
Benefits of Krauss high-saturated fat diet cannot be overstated. Saturated fats control CETP and thus control the amount of Lp(a) individuals produce. In fact, when an experiment group was put on a low fat, high veggie diet, Lp(a) increased significantly by as much as 9% (Silaste ML et al Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol. 2004 Mar;24(3):498-503. Free Full Text)
Additionally, the low fat diet produced HIGHER oxidized LDL (OxLDL) by 27%. Recall the small dense LDL are less resistant to oxidation than buoyant large LDL and transform to OxLDL rapidly.
Not good.
For. Plaque. Burden.
OxLDL causes fatty/calcified organs: arteries (atherosclerosis); endothelium (hypertension); liver (NASH); pancreas (diabetes, MetSyn); thyroid (Hashimoto’s), visceral fat (obesity); etc.
Saturated fat lowers and controls Lp(a) and coconut oil is one great example (Muller H et al . J Nutr. 2003 Nov;133(11):3422-7. Free PDF HERE). In this study by Muller et al women with elevated Lp(a) in the 30s mg/dl were provided a coconut oil-rich diet (22.7% sat fat; 3.9% PUFA) was compared with a high PUFA-diet (15.6% PUFA !!yikes). Lp(a) was reduced 5.1% compared to baseline habitual diets with the high saturated fat diet whereas in the high PUFA diet, Lp(a) increased a whooping 7.5%. The difference between Lp(a) on the high sat fat compared to the high PUFA diet was 13.3%.
Here are the conclusions from those two study links above, respectively.
The question remains as to why the Lp(a) levels increased in response to the dietary changes. The basal levels of Lp(a) are primarily genetically determined, but some data suggest that Lp(a) may act as an acute-phase reactant under some situations.40 In a previous study, a diet high in SAFA was found to produce approximately 10% lower plasma Lp(a) concentration than diets high in oleic acid or trans-fatty acids.41 This observation is consistent with our study in that both diets led to lower SAFA and consequently increased Lp(a).
In conclusion, we found that a diet traditionally considered to be anti-atherogenic (low in saturated fat and high in polyunsaturated fat and naturally occurring antioxidants) increased plasma levels of circulating oxidized LDL and Lp(a). The question of whether the changes observed in the present study are, in fact, pro-atherogenic or anti-atherogenic remains to be solved.
And…
The connection between Lp(a) and atherosclerosis is not entirely understood. Different studies have provided strong evidence that Lp(a) level is an independent risk factor for developing coronary artery disease in men (47,48), but the question of causality continues to be debated. Recent data suggest that Lp(a) might be atherogenic (49), in particular when combined with other risk factors. High levels of Lp(a) combined with other risk factors such as the ratio of plasma total/HDL cholesterol have been shown to increase the risk for coronary heart diseases (50). It has also been reported that when substantial LDL cholesterol reductions were obtained in men with coronary heart disease, persistent elevations of Lp(a) were no longer atherogenic or clinically threatening (51).
In conclusion, the present results show that the HSAFA- diet lowered postprandial t-PA antigen and thus potentially improved fibrinolysis compared with the HUFA-diet. Diets with either high or low levels of saturated fatty acids from coconut oil beneficially decrease Lp(a) compared with a HUFA-diet. The proportions of dietary saturated fatty acids more than the percentage of saturated fat energy may be of importance if the goal is to decrease Lp(a).
Alright, so for us KISS folks, it all just comes down once again to a natural, Paleo-like diet plenty high in delicious and healthful saturated fats.
12/31/09: Welcome boingboing readers and a hearty thanks to Mark Frauenfelder for the feature. For those interested in the dietary and fitness aspects, check out the Overview, and also see results from some of the readers.
01/04/11: Welcome again boingboing fans, a bit more than a year later. Thanks to Sean Bonner for the link and congrats on his success. I still have no idea why it works so marvelously for some, marginally or not at all for others (though I think they are decidedly minority given the many comments and emails). At any rate, I had tweeted Mark Frauenfelder and emailed him about an update post I did just a few days ago, so this is opportune and coincidental. Here it is: A Most Successful Self-Experiement: Over 18 Months Soap and Shampoo Free. For those who might be interested in the other aspects of my "Free the Animal" life way…such as fat loss, strength gain, awesome sleep, getting off meds & more, stay tuned for a beginners primer at the top of the blog by Friday, 1/7.
~~~
Well it’s over six months, now, and I really don’t want to do this post.
Why? Cause it’s too weird, I fear. We don’t live in caves without modern convenience, I’d not want to, and I loath the possibility of paleo becoming a Luddite-esque religion. I blogged about that (The Paleo Principle is Neither Authoritative nor Dogmatic), and it got picked up by Sisson in a Weekend Link Love issue.
So, I guess, take this with a grain of salt. I’m merely reporting on my own experience.
I haven’t used soap or shampoo anyplace on my body for six months, save hand washing in advance of food prep. That’s it. let me just report my observations and leave you to judge.
I could go on, but ultimately you’re gonna self-experiment or not. But if you do, give it at least a month. Weirdness cleared up for me in two weeks or less, but we’re not all the same. I suspect that women who wash furiously and slather all manner of lotions might take a year or two to normalize.
Alright, I know this is out there and it has NOTHING to do with anyone’s success in a paleo plan and should not be taken as even necessarily desirable. I will surely not expect anyone to try it. And you can have at me if you want. I’m just saying that I’ve tried it, I waited a long time to mention it, and in the end, I’ll never use soap or shampoo on anything but my hands for the rest of my life.
Later, and maybe TMI: My wife now mentions more than ever before that "you smell good." OK, I had to post that only because some might worry on that score….
If you liked this or found it interesting, please tell your Facebook friends and/or Twitter followers by clicking the buttons at the top
Indeed Whole Foods does. Thankfully, they also sell a lot of good stuff, albeit expensive good stuff — and in an environment I find quite pleasing most of the time. Mackey in the New Yorker.
A year ago, Mackey came across a book called “The Engine 2 Diet,” by an Austin, Texas, firefighter and former professional triathlete named Rip Esselstyn. Basically, you eat plants: you are a rabbit with a skillet. Mackey had been a vegetarian for more than thirty years, and a vegan for five, but the Engine 2 book, among others, helped get him to give up vegetable oils, sugar, and pretty much anything processed. He lost fifteen pounds. This thinking about his body dovetailed with a recession that left many shoppers reluctant or unable to spend much money on the fancy or well-sourced food that had been the stores’ mainstay. Mackey, in a stroke of corporate transubstantiation, declared that Whole Foods would go on a diet, too. It would focus on stripped-down healthy eating. Fewer organic potato chips, more actual potatoes. He told the Wall Street Journal in August, “We sell a bunch of junk.”
Yep, Whole Foods isn’t really ALL whole foods but increasingly processed stuff with labels like "organic," "vegetarian," "vegan." The tofu processed "food" section is an abomination and probably — given the unfermented soy — worse than Hot Pockets. On the other hand of being fair, a vegan that gives up vegetable oils (go Nutiva coconut oil, John! You sell it and that’s where I buy it), sugar and processed food just might be reasonably OK. But at least understand Kleiber’s Law, and realize that we had to evolve eating meat to get a big brain and small gut, unlike our primate ancestors. And John? Read The Vegetarian Myth by Lierre Keith who spent 20 years as a vegan.
As to the environment, I suppose that in one respect it’s a sliding scale for me. Going to Costco is always depressing, and if not for the junk, the QUANTITIES in the shopping carts — though I realize that for some it’s the equivalent of a small restaurant supply. Next is the standard supermarket and I just marvel at the crap people fill their carts with (do I need to elaborate?). Next would be Trader Joe’s. Far better than the previous two. Then there’s Whole Foods. The environment is nice, and ditching the upscale crap, which is still crap, would be a very positive change.
I’m referring of course to this morning’s post which I’m not even going to link to. This is why I do this, folks and this is why I’m going to continue to defend the PRINCIPLES of the paleo and primal way.
Let’s go back to early November where Chris reported to me and I reported to you that since May of 2009 he had logged weight loss of 94 pounds (6 month’s time) doing the paleo / primal life way. And in the comments he was asked for photos and has complied. He’s put them on his own blog but I thought a nice montage would be appropriate. Here’s the before, mid-May ’09.
And this is at the end of Oct, ’09, compared with him in his barbershop quartet outfitting back in early May.
He’s gonna need a new costume soon, if not already. As he reports, his weight loss is 20 additional pounds from the photo on the right for a total of 106 pounds.
Go paleo. Go Primal. Rock on, Chris and a hearty congratulations. You deserve enormous credit, not just for your amazing accomplishment but for your willingness to share it and inspire and motivate others.
And thanks for turning the top entry on the blog to something so positive.
Well here’s the whole thread on his forum — currently at three pages worth of posts — about this post of mine and a couple by others (Castle Grok & Don Matesz). And in response to Nige, a valuable comment contributor here and author of his own excellent nutrition blog, pointing out the value of this blog to over 50,000 visitors per month, Lyle McDonald responds:
It only proves that most people are very silly and easily convinced by logical ‘sounding’ arguments.
So, I guess that’s what he thinks of you all. Now go line up and buy his books.
While it’s certainly true that the level of visitors here doesn’t singularly mean anything in terms of validity, you will note that this isn’t a commercial site either (unlike McDonald’s). I spend no money on promoting this site — it is through people telling friends & family that it has grown 500% in the last year or so. And how about the quality of the visitors? You’ve all seen how many PhDs & MDs comment here. There’s at least a dozen combined, and these are people who are involved in diet and nutrition issues and have been for years. Then again, McDonald thinks Gary Taubes is "full of crap;" so whatever, I guess.
I’m doing this because I’ve taken off 60 pounds nice & slowly, have increased strength dramatically, and it’s been not only easy, but very enjoyable. So it’s sustainable for me for the first time in years of trying and failing and, I suspect for a great many others. Is it the only thing that will work? No. Will it work for 100% of people? I seriously doubt it, even if they do everything right. It has worked for 100% of my family members of about a half-dozen who’ve given it a shot with results of 20 pounds to over 40 pounds lost and in the case of my mom, gotten her off insulin for her type 2 diabetes.
Lots more success stories here.
And it’s a pretty easy approach for those who just want decent lean health. While I’m sure that McDonald’s various approaches work for those who apply them correctly, I’ve purchased and read one of his books and it’s a complicated, disciplined plan to follow. Will it work? I have no doubt that it will for some, perhaps many. But he seems to hold that the only way to recompose one’s body is through his methods, and if he doesn’t state that explicitly (I don’t know), then isn’t it implied when so much of what he does is to criticize others? Even approaches that work for lots of people? He must have a shortcut key for this phrase that ones sees over and over, directed at about anything that isn’t authored by McDonald.
…it’s total garbage and utterly stupid.
Everything, save Lyle’s stuff, is "crap." Oh, and you’re "very silly" for being "easily convinced" and doing something that works for you, sustainably long term, rather than follow some complex and arduous program from one of his books, excellent and effective as it might be.
The final point I’d make is that Lyle isn’t even a reader here and never will be. So what does he know about what I’m really out here advocating? Even one of his trolls that showed up over the last few days was ignorant of just about everything, arguing against things I’ve never said or suggested — and he actually came to the blog. Lyle wouldn’t stoop so low, because everyone’s a moron, except him.
Have you read his "Mean Forum," (Monkey Island) the one you have to register (free) to read? Wanna know what Lyle McDonald really thinks about you and just about everybody else? Be warned, however, if you’re offended by vulgar language and dirty pictures.
Now I’ll leave you all, so you can rush right out and buy his books.
Later: Oh, I almost forgot. Apparently Weston Price, author of Nutrition and Physical Degeneration, who travelled the world for better than 20 years to study what non-industrial peoples actually ate and to compare them with those who had migrated to civilization, is also full of crap, a moron, or whatever in McDonald’s eyes.
Like the paleo guys who like one of the researchers but not the other, becaue the one is anti-saturated fat. Which the cultists know is good in absolute terms. Because a dentist 50 years ago said so.
such goofs.
Did Price ever say that saturated fat is good "in absolute terms?" I wonder what McDonald actually knows about the cultures studied: "Some of the cultures studied include the inhabitants of the Lötschental in Switzerland, the inhabitants of the Isles of Lewis and Harris in the Outer Hebrides of Scotland, the Eskimos of Alaska and Canada, the Native Americans, among the inhabitants of New Caledonia, Fiji, Samoa, the Marquesas Islands, Tahiti, Rarotonga, Nukuʻalofa, Hawaii, the Masai, Kikuyu, Wakamba and Jalou tribes of Kenya, the Muhima of Uganda, the Baitu and Watusi of Rwanda, the Pygmies, and Wanande in the Congo, the Terrakeka, Dinka and Neurs of Sudan, the Aborigines of Australia, the inhabitants of the Torres Strait, the Māori of New Zealand, the Tauhuanocans, Quechua, "Andes Indians", "Sierra Indians" and "Jungle Indians" of Peru."
Did McDonald ever actually read the book or is he nearly completely ignorant about it and the depth of Price’s findings? Does he know anything about vitamin K2 Menatetrenone (MK-4) — "Activator X" — and its role in malocclusion, dental carries and periodontal disease?
Did McDonald expose his ignorance?