questioning Weston Price Foundation

As you probably know WAPF is a nonprofit organization that tries to
promote the work of the dentist Weston Price and his finding about
dental health and native nutrition. The foundation is mostly supported
and funded by farmers and food artigians

WAPF makes some bold statements that are not even supported by Weston
Price work itself.
For example the diet WAPF suggest to consume or the diet samples of the
members of the foundation are very different from the diet suggested by
Price in Nutrition and Physical Degeneration

Maybe their most important claims are that vegetable oils caused heart
disease and heart disease doesn't develop when the fat consumed is
saturated, that the highest the amount of the animal food in the diet
the better (they often call animal food "super healthy" or other
generic terms but fail to recognize the importance of plant foods) and
that our first priority should be to consume fat soluble vitamin in
megadoses; eating huge amount of (on diet that can be as high as 80%
fat) fatty meat and saturated fat would allow us to get megadoses of
vitamin A, D and E

I try not to be dogmatic or ethical as far as my nutrition is concerned
and just want to do what's right and healthy for my body. It is my
objective impression, after reading all the articles published in the
WAPF website, that their arguments tend to be based on selective
literature quoting and tend to embrace a small number of studies
proving their points and ignoring many other studies and evidences

As a researcher once said: "By picking and choosing individual studies
carefully enough, you can prove just about anything you would like."

An important fact about health research is that conclusions are not
based on few one-sided evidences but on both evidence pro and against a
certain theory. The globality of the evidence is therefore analyzed in
order to get a larger and more complex picture.

I think that such larger picture would never allow such absolutes as
those of WAPF or Pritikin to name another one. The importance of
acknowledging an emerging larger and more complex picture from all the
studies not just the ones one likes also allows researchers not to
remain jammed in black and white thinking but aknowledging more shades

That being said I'd like to know if anti-WAPF in here have educated and
scientifically sounds proofs that WAPF argument about heart disease,
saturated fat, fat soluble vitamins and an almost carnivorous diet are
flawed and based on selective literature picking

I think if this can be done it will be very interesting for many that
read this ng or in the future its archives. Many people just keep for
themselves their opinions, many just read with disbelief the articles
published in the WAPF website, people that know their physiology and
biochemistry and can point out what is wrong with those conclusion but
they never get a chance to share their knowledge with others.

I think it's important to avoid subjective and zealous comments like
"it's nonsense" and "they're nuts" "it's just common sense that ..."
and base the debunking on science and correct physiological principles
instead. Many people on this board are very educated and can explain
with scientific details what's wrong with certain theories.
(I remember people like J-Tanzman, Steve Harris and Runswimm that could
provide the finest and most complex scientific and physiological
details about an health topic)

Also I hope WAPF supporters won't reply as this is supposed to be a
thread for debunking (if possible, I'm not saying it is ...) the
premises of WAPF diatery suggestions. There's no need to provide the
arguments to support them, since they're all in the WAPF website for us
to read.