While Dr. Byrnes claims that it is well known that his references will be forthcoming in later articles, it was not something that I knew. Therefore, I was expecting to see more than a few books and a couple of articles supporting his position.

Hundreds of references point to the benefits of a mostly vegetarian diet, and I will not be drawn into the defense of the most rigid diet, or distinctions between a healthy, mostly-vegetarian diet that includes some eggs and low-fat dairy products (or even occasional fish) and his supposedly objectionable vegan diet, when compared to the detrimental effects of the high meat diet advocated by Dr. Byrnes.

While I did not realize that Dr. Byrnes was opposed to taking dietary supplements, it is clear that he ignores their health value, and he misrepresents my position on this. A healthy mostly-vegetarian diet does not absolutely require dietary supplements to achieve basic levels of nutrition, but I recommend them for everyone no matter what their diets, based on the scientific support for their value in higher amounts for prevention and treatment of many diseases.

It is not my position that you have to take them unless you choose to be a strict vegan for reasons other than health, and I have no objection to that choice as long as the person recognizes the potential problems and deals with them - through supplements, if necessary. Nonetheless, several articles do suggest that adequate seaweed in the diet, and perhaps chlorella, can provide B12 for vegans, but I do not suggest relying on that source alone.

I never said that miscarriages are "normal" but that they are not uncommon, and that they are UNRELATED to a vegetarian diet, although they may be related to poor nutrition, even on an high meat diet (especially since this tends to be lower in folic acid than a vegetarian diet).

Dr. Byrnes' solution again is to go on an unhealthy diet to solve a problem that is not related to low meat intake - risk increased cancer, heart disease, accelerated aging, arthritis, diabetes, strokes, hypertension, and other diseases instead of dealing with the source of the problem (sometimes low thyroid, sometimes other health issues).

While homocysteine in some studies is elevated in some vegetarians, this is only a risk factor for heart disease, and not the disease itself. As the literature shows consistently lower heart disease in vegetarians, we have to be careful not to try to treat the lab test at the expense of the patient's health.

Humans are very much like gorillas in terms of metabolism, in spite of Dr. Byrnes' denials. The few larvae that they scratch up for "meat" do not relate to the levels of meat in the diet that Dr. Byrnes is recommending. To say that in captivity they eat more meat is rather meaningless, as when humans are given a selection of processed foods they will also choose them, as well as sugar and salt, as evidenced by the rise of junk in the diet and fast food restaurants.

I assume that captivity is not what Dr. Byrnes calls the natural habitat. When meat and butter were rationed in Denmark during the war, levels of heart disease and overall mortality went down. That people might choose meat when it is available does not mean that it is healthy.

Dr. Byrnes' glib dismissal of the vast weight of medical science by saying that "conclusions drawn from these studies remain controversial" is to ignore the clear risks of not paying attention to the current state of knowledge. He is wrong that science is not based on "majority" rule. No, it is not by vote, but by the weight of the evidence that conclusions are drawn, and this is something like majority rule. We cannot accept that one article disproves the information from hundreds of others.

It is not that exceptions prove the rules, but that because all studies are flawed to some degree, we have to accept the accumulation of evidence over years, and not depend on any one study to draw conclusions. That Dr. Byrnes can dismiss all studies that contradict his position and favor the one or two that he finds to support it is to wear blinders in order to remain undistracted by the truth.

Regarding ancient diets, independent of what people may or may not have done millions of years ago, the current evidence clearly shows that vegetarians have better health status in numerous parameters. In addition, contrary to Dr. Byrnes' claim, vegetarians have a better antioxidant status than meat eaters. Numerous studies support this, and in addition, the data you really want is the result of these differences in lower disease rates, which my references consistently support. Vegetarians have an enhanced natural killer cell activity - double the rate in non-vegetarians, and the authors of this study say that this perhaps explains the lower risk of cancer in vegetarians.

And it is not just one article that shows that vegetarians have better immune status, but numerous articles, and to suggest that this is controversial is only to recognize that no scientific conclusions are ever final, and we still make decisions on the best evidence and the weight of the evidence. Citing individuals who eat only meat for one year, or small groups that eat meat and do well, bears little weight compared to hundreds if not thousands of scientific articles, with both interventional and epidemiological studies, that show that a high meat diet is not as healthy as a vegetarian diet.

Some other studies of the Masai suggest that they do not die of heart disease mainly because of their level of physical activity, but their very large arteries do have significant atherosclerotic plaque (Mann GV, Atherosclerosis in the Masai. Am J Epidemiol 1972 Jan;95(1):26-37). Also, I would need to know the average life expectancy in Eskimos before concluding that their apparent current health on native diets would persist for decades.

They also live very physical lives, and a large part of their animal food is fish. (While they have lower heart disease deaths than the American population in general, they do have more strokes.)

While it is correct that CLA from dairy fat inhibits tumor formation, the studies suggest that it is useful at less than or equal to only one percent of the diet, which fits easily into a low-fat, mostly vegetarian diet with small amounts of dairy product.

Lastly (as there is not time or room to present the entire rebuttal to Dr. Byrnes again, as many of his points are answered in my original piece and in those references), the estrogenic pesticides in meat are far greater than in produce, whole grains, and legumes. I recognize that non-organic vegetarian foods might have some of these, but the hazards are not the same, as Dr. Byrnes states; they are far lower on a vegetarian diet because the pesticides are not as concentrated as they are in animal products.

Myth's 3 and 4

Most of Dr. Byrnes' criticisms are directed at vegan diets, but he appears to lump all forms of vegetarian diets together. I still maintain that a diet with no meat or chicken is clearly a far healthier diet than one with these foods, and a vegan diet can be healthy with some minor adjustments for a few deficiencies. To criticize the entire diet because there may not be enough vitamin B12, even though there may be many other health benefits, is inappropriate.

While vitamin D status may be lower on vegan diets, the typical mostly-vegetarian diet is ample in vitamin D, as vitamin D is present in abundance in egg yolks and fish oils, but while there is very little in meat. Some studies even show that vegetarian women have better vitamin D status during pregnancy than omnivores. In addition, the higher protein content of diets containing meat and chicken increase the risk of bone loss through excessive urinary calcium excretion, and they increase the risk of kidney stone formation.

Vitamin A status is not a problem for vegetarians, even on a vegan diet. Dr. Byrnes is incorrect in his conversion factor of 6:1 for beta-carotene to vitamin A activity. The laboratory ratio is between 2:1 and 4:1, but the National Academy of Science has set the equivalence for dietary purposes at 6:1 to leave a margin of safety. This means that 25,000 IU of beta-carotene would supply about 6000 to 12000 IU of vitamin A activity, and this is simply little more than the amount supplied by two carrots.

As diets high in fruits and vegetables have abundant beta-carotene, the conversion is not generally an issue. Dr. Byrnes is right that sick people (hypothyroid, malnourished people) might not convert as efficiently, but high amounts of carotenoids may make up for that, and the solution is not to put sick people on an unhealthy, high-meat diet, but to treat their illness.

Michael Janson, MD

Michael Janson, M.D., is past-president of both the American College for Advancement in Medicine and the American Preventive Medical Association. He founded one of the first complementary/alternative medical practices in New England in 1976. He has lectured widely on the subjects of nutrition, complementary/alternative medicine, vitamin supplements, and chelation therapy. He has been on a mostly vegetarian diet since 1975.

Dr. Janson is the author of: The Vitamin Revolution in Health Care; Chelation Therapy and Your Health; All About Saw Palmetto and Prostate Health; and Dr. Janson's New Vitamin Revolution (Penguin-Putnam-Avery, 2000). He has written articles for many health magazines and newspapers, and he is a regular radio-show guest. He publishes a monthly newsletter, Dr. Michael Janson's Healthy Living, available free by Email (newsletter@drjanson.com) by placing "text newsletter" in the subject line. His website is www.drjanson.com.

---

RESPONSE BY STEPHEN BYRNES, PhD, RNCP

As a prefatory note, readers should be aware that the references for the second and third sections of my paper (as well as my entire updated paper) can be found here.

In the first place, I need to correct Dr. Janson's misconception that I am against food supplements. I am not opposed to them IF they are used for what they are: supplements. When they are used as replacements for nutrients that we could and should be getting in our diets, then they are being misused.

In the many dealings I've had with vegetarians over the years, there is always a pattern of behavior in how they handle studies and/or clinical data. When the studies or data appear to support their health claims, the material is played up like there is no tomorrow. But when the studies or clinical data either question or flatly contradict their theories, one of four things typically occurs:

1. The conflicting studies and data are ignored;

2. The conflicting studies and data are derided as "isolated incidents" or "anecdotal evidence";

3. The conflicting studies and data are accused of being sponsored by the meat and dairy industries and, therefore, worthless;

4. The conflicting studies and data are said to be "obscure studies" or published in "obscure" and/or "not well-known" journals ( as if that, somehow, detracts from their truthfulness).

Obviously, none of these actions are appropriate. To date, Dr. Janson's handling of the opposing studies and data that I've presented falls mostly into #2. Well, I'm afraid his solution is unsatisfactory and it is definitely out of line with the scientific method. In his excellent book The Cholesterol Myths, Dr. Uffe Ravnskov clarifies the problem Dr. Janson (and other vegetarian apologists) are in:

"If a scientific hypothesis is sound, it must agree with all observations. A hypothesis is not like a sports event, where the team with the greatest number of points wins the game. Even one observation that does not support a hypothesis is enough to disprove it. The proponents of a scientific idea have the burden of proof on their shoulders. The opponent does not have to present an alternative idea; his task is only to find the weakness in the hypothesis. If there is only one proof against it, one proof that cannot be denied and that is based on reliable scientific observations, the hypothesis must be rejected." (1)

In my paper and responses to him so far, this is exactly what I have done: I've presented sufficient evidence from history, anthropology, and journal studies that directly question or contradict Dr. Janson's numerous claims. Dr. Janson is correct in saying that my opposing studies do not prove my position. What he is failing to realize is that they DO prove that something is amiss in the vegetarian dogma and the supporting "proof" presented.

Dr. Janson exhorts readers to ignore the historical and fossil records and to concentrate, instead, on supportive studies showing vegetarianism (or near-vegetarianism) in a positive light. Dr. Janson's reason for doing this is, to me, very obvious: He knows that if the historical evidence is allowed into the discussion, his nutritional house of cards will quickly fall apart.

If the studies that Dr. Janson quotes are true, that meatless (or near meatless), low-fat, high carbohydrate diets based on grains and legumes are healthier for the human race, then it stands to reason that history should show this. In other words, if the diet that Dr. Janson is espousing is a healthier way of eating, then the evidence over time should reflect this. But it does not -- it shows the exact opposite (2).

Since the testament of history does not support either Dr. Janson's claims or the studies that support those claims, there can only be one logical conclusion: Dr. Janson is incorrect and the studies are flawed in some fundamental way.

Readers should not be shocked at the latter part of my statement. Several meticulous critical reviews have shown up the shoddy premises and faulty reasoning behind the research which supposedly proves the phony Lipid Hypothesis, the mistaken idea that dietary saturated fat and cholesterol somehow "clog" arteries and lead to heart disease (3). Gary Taubes' recent article in Science also exposed the shenanigans behind the United States' wholesale adoption of low-fat/cholesterol, mostly vegetarian diets (4). For readers who do not want to pour over scientific papers, they can log onto Dr. Ravnskov's website at http://www.ravnskov.nu/cholesterol.htm and read the salient points there. For readers wishing to dig a little deeper, they can get Dr. Ravnskov's book The Cholesterol Myths or Dr. Allan's Life Without Bread (Keats Publishing; IL), 2000.

Dr. Janson's attempt to "prove" that reductions in animal foods and fats result in less heart disease by bringing up the example of Denmark in World War II are misleading to the extreme and, needless to say, do not offer historical support for his ideas:

"During World War II people in Finland, Norway, Sweden, and Great Britain died less often from heart attacks than before the war. According to Haquin Malmroos, a professor of medicine from Lund, Sweden, this is because people ate less animal fat.

"But other things of importance to the problem of heart disease occurred during the war. For instance, people's body weight and blood pressure went down considerably, fewer people smoked, and the lack of gasoline for cars and other machinery may have favored a healthier way of life. A common denominator of the war was lack of goods -- including a lack of rich food, for instance -- but also lack of other nutrients and of gasoline and of cigarettes..

"Nobody knows which of these factors, if any, caused a decrease in heart disease. The explanation that people ate less animal fat is unlikely because it has never been possible to lower the death rate from coronary heart disease with a low-fat diet in the experiments of the same length as World War II." (5)

Additionally, rates of heart disease after World War II decreased in Switzerland, but animal fat intake there increased by 20%during the same time period (6). Clearly, then, the reduced intake of animal fat during World War II had nothing to do with the temporary decline in heart disease experienced in several European and Scandinavian countries.

Since Dr. Janson, or any other vegetarian (or near-vegetarian), cannot produce the population or historical data to support their numerous claims, the only logical conclusion one can make is that their claims are wrong. The historical and population data do, however, support the ideas that I have presented: a diet that is based on whole, unprocessed foods, including ample amounts of animal protein and animal fat, and avoids the trappings of so-called modern foods, is the best one for human health and is not associated with chronic diseases.

I should point out here, though, that the "mostly vegetarian" diet that Dr. Janson proposes is certainly healthier than the standard modern diet, but it is not better than one which includes more animal foods and fats. Dr. Price's research into traditional peoples clearly showed this. In terms of overall health, modern peoples on modern diets were at the bottom of the barrel, followed by more vegetarian native peoples, followed by more carnivorous native peoples.

CORRECTING DR. JANSON'S ERRORS

Atherosclerosis and the Masai

Dr. Janson's comments on the Masai deserve some comment. It is true that Dr. Mann's studies of this meat-milk-blood eating group revealed fatty streaking of their arteries, as well as atherosclerosis. Unlike Dr. Janson, however, Dr. Mann did not consider these things to place the Masai at a greater risk for heart disease. As a matter of fact, Dr. Mann did not discover myocardial infarction in any of the Masai he examined. Dr. Mann is on record as saying that the Lipid Hypothesis of heart disease, the mistaken belief that saturated fats and dietary cholesterol clog arteries and cause heart disease, is "the greatest scam in the history of medicine." (7)

It is true that Dr. Mann thought that the Masai were protected by their larger arteries, but the reason for this is most likely from their high physical activity, not some genetic gift (8).

It should be pointed out here, that atherosclerosis and fatty streaking of the arteries occurs in all peoples, regardless of their diets. These conditions are consequences of aging. Numerous population studies have demonstrated the universality of atherosclerosis and fatty streaking (9). To say or imply that these conditions occur because of meat-eating or that they can be prevented by following a vegetarian or mostly-vegetarian diet is wrong.

The Eskimo Diet

Dr. Janson would have us believe that Eskimos only ate fish and that this is the reason for their good health. Dr. Janson needs to be reminded again that fish are animal foods. Furthermore, although the Eskimo diet included large amounts of fish, it also included significant amounts of polar bear, seal, caribou, sea birds, seal oil, and walrus at various times of the year (10).

Dr. Janson's claim that he can't comment on Eskimo longevity because he's never seen data on it is simply a cop out. Numerous eyewitness accounts, from Stefansson (11) to Price (12), testify to the reality of the excellent health of the Eskimo, as well as their longevity. Price actually has pictures of elderly Eskimo in his book Nutrition and Physical Degeneration (13).

As with the Masai and other traditional peoples, degeneration only set in with the Eskimo when they turned from their native diets and adopted modern, processed foods (14). This is a testament to the reality of the healthfulness of traditional diets based on whole foods (which includes meat and animal fats), and the dangers of modern diets.

Protein, Calcium Loss, and Kidney Stones

Dr. Janson's statements that "the higher protein content of diets containing meat and chicken increase the risk of bone loss through excessive urinary calcium excretion and they increase the risk of kidney stone formation" is an oft-repeated but quite erroneous tenet.

The protein=calcium loss theory has been thoroughly tested and debunked by Dr. Herta Spencer and her colleagues (15). Several recent studies have actually shown that increased meat consumption contributed to stronger bones (16). Protein intake in the form of real meat has no effect on calcium metabolism. It is, rather, isolated amino acids and fat-free protein powders that can lead to imbalances. This is because the body needs the fat-soluble vitamins A and D found only in animal foods to properly absorb and utilize protein. When protein is consumed without vitamins A and D, problems ensue. The current nutritional fad of trimming visible fats off of meat and removing chicken skins before eating is, therefore, a recipe for osteoporosis and should be abandoned.

There are a range of things that can lead to calcium loss from our bones (e.g., refined sugar, caffeine, alcoholism, magnesium deficiency, etc), but eating meat with its fat is not one of them.

Dr. Janson's theory that a high meat intake will lead to increased uric acid in the blood and then to kidney stones is another popular idea that is not supported by the science. Theoretically, the sulphur and phosphorous in meat can form an acid when placed in water, but that does not mean that is what happens in the body. Actually, meat contains complete proteins and vitamin D (if the skin and fat are eaten), both of which help maintain pH balance in the bloodstream. Furthermore, if one eats a diet that includes enough magnesium and vitamin B6, and restricts refined sugars, one has little to fear from kidney stones, whether one eats meat or not (17). Animal foods like beef, pork, fish, and lamb are good sources of magnesium and B6 as any food/nutrient table will show.

Furthermore, uric acid levels in people without certain metabolic disorders have been effectively reduced by a high-protein & fat/low-carbohydrate diet. This is because it is primarily sugar that elevates urate levels in the blood and not animal protein (18).

Lastly, if eating a lot of animal protein caused osteoporosis and kidney stones or kidney disease, where is the proof for it in traditional peoples who eat lots of animal protein in their native diets?

Vitamin D

Dr. Janson's section on vitamin D is misleading. He states that this nutrient is not found in meat, implying that there is no need to eat it. What he is not telling the reader is that lean tissues do not contain fat-soluble vitamins like vitamin D. The fat-soluble vitamins A and D are found in the animal FATS like cod liver oil, lard, beef tallow, egg yolks, etc. This, of course, underlines the need to include animal fats in our diets, along with the animal proteins.

On Dr. Janson's diet, it should be noted that the only way for people to get enough vitamin D each day is from cod liver oil which he appears to think is OK. It is not possible to get 400 IUs of vitamin D each day by eating eggs as one egg yolk only has about 25 IUs of vitamin D. I highly doubt that Dr. Janson would tell people to eat 15 eggs a day. For those people who live in areas where sunlight exposure is limited or who cannot access the sun when UV-B rays are present, cod liver oil is a virtual MUST supplemental food. I do not think Dr. Janson would be opposed to including cod liver oil in the diet which is a good thing, indeed.

Vitamin A and Betacarotene

Dr. Janson's section on vitamin A and betacarotene in his third reply needs considerable correction. According to the textbooks,

"Plants do not contain vitamin A; however, some plants are rich sources of previtamin A [beta and other plant carotenes]. The biological activities of vitamin A and previtamin A are not equivalent on a per weight basis. In humans, 6.0 mg of B-carotene is equivalent to 1.0 mg of retinol [true vitamin A]. The relatively low biological activity is due to the inefficiency in their conversion to retinol and their lower availability when present in foods. When B-carotene is provided in pure form (dissolved in some oil and swallowed) its value is still less than that of vitamin A. Here, 2.0 mg of B-carotene is equivalent to 1.o mg of retinol." (19)

So, my original statement that it takes 6 units of betacarotene from food to make 1 unit of vitamin A (in people who are able to make the conversion) is correct. The 2 to 1 conversion that Dr. Janson spoke of in his reply only applies to purified betacarotene dissolved in oil, NOT to food-derived betacarotene. His statement that a person could meet their daily requirement of vitamin A by eating two carrots is therefore false. Not that there is anything wrong with carrots (or other vegetables). Plant foods offer a range of nutrients and phytochemicals that provide benefit to our bodies. Despite their benefits, however, the fact remains that they are not sources of vitamin A and their carotenes are not adequately converted into vitamin A.

Dr. Janson's solution to the betacarotene-vitamin A conversion problem in people with hypothyroidism, diabetes, etc., is most unsatisfactory. He suggests giving these people who are unable to adequately convert carotenes into vitamin A (for various reasons) more carotenes to make up for their poor to nil conversion. How, exactly, is this supposed to help someone who cannot convert betacarotene into vitamin A in the first place? Furthermore, children cannot convert carotenes into vitamin A at all. How will Dr. Janson's protocol benefit them?

Dr. Janson is right in saying that people with hypothyroidism, diabetes, etc., need treatment for their disease. But treatment will only help those with gall bladder problems or hypothyroidism in their carotene-vitamin A conversion; it will not help diabetics.

Dr. Janson's recommendations are misleading, wrong, and potentially dangerous. People need to get REAL vitamin A from nourishing animal foods like cod liver oil, liver, butter, fatty fish, cream, full-fat raw cheese, and eggs. For an excellent summary article on vitamin A and its benefits, I direct readers to "Vitamin A Saga" located here.

Stephen Byrnes

---

References for Dr. Janson's Response

Dent CE, Gupta MM, Plasma 25-hydroxyvitamin-D-levels during pregnancy in Caucasians and in vegetarian and non-vegetarian Asians. Lancet 1975 Nov 29;2(7944):1057-60.

Rauma AL, et al., Vitamin B-12 status of long-term adherents of a strict uncooked vegan diet ("living food diet") is compromised. J Nutr 1995 Oct;125(10):2511-5.

Serum vitamin B12 levels in young vegans who eat brown rice. J Nutr Sci Vitaminol (Tokyo) 1995 Dec;41(6):587-94.

Carotenoids, antioxidants and ovarian cancer risk in pre- and postmenopausal women. Int J Cancer 2001 Oct 1;94(1):128-34.

Nagyova A, et al., LDL oxidizability and antioxidative status of plasma in vegetarians. Ann Nutr Metab 1998;42(6):328-32.

Erhardt JG, et al., A diet rich in fat and poor in dietary fiber increases the in vitro formation of reactive oxygen species in human feces. J Nutr 1997 May;127(5):706-9

Krajcovicova-Kudlackova M, et al., Lipid and antioxidant blood levels in vegetarians. Nahrung 1996 Feb;40(1):17-20

Krajcovicova-Kudlackova M, et al., Levels of lipid peroxidation and antioxidants in vegetarians. Eur J Epidemiol 1995 Apr;11(2):207-11

Malter M, et al., Natural killer cells, vitamins, and other blood components of vegetarian and omnivorous men. Nutr Cancer 1989;12(3):271-8

Toohey ML, et al., Cardiovascular disease risk factors are lower in African-American vegans compared to lacto-ovo-vegetarians. J Am Coll Nutr 1998 Oct;17(5):425-34.

Dwyer JT, et al., Nutritional status of vegetarian children. Am J Clin Nutr 1982 Feb;35(2):204-16

Specker BL, et al., Effect of vegetarian diet on serum 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D concentrations during lactation. Obstet Gynecol 1987 Dec;70(6):870-4.

Breslau NA, et al., Relationship of animal protein-rich diet to kidney stone formation and calcium metabolism. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 1988 Jan;66(1):140-6.

Nieman DC, et al., Dietary status of Seventh-Day Adventist vegetarian and non-vegetarian elderly women. J Am Diet Assoc 1989 Dec;89(12):1763-9

Krajvcovivcova-Kudlavckova M, et al., Nutritional status in adults on an alternative or traditional diet. Cas Lek Cesk 2001 Mar 15;140(5):142-6.

Chen H, et al., Dietary patterns and adenocarcinoma of the esophagus and distal stomach. Am J Clin Nutr 2002 Jan;75(1):137-44.

Grant WB, An ecologic study of dietary and solar ultraviolet-B links to breast carcinoma mortality rates. Cancer 2002 Jan 2;94(1):272-81

Bairati I, et al., Dietary fat and advanced prostate cancer. J Urol 1998 Apr;159(4):1271-5.

Nutritional Biochemistry and Metabolism, ed M.Linder, Elsevier Medical Press

---

References for Dr. Byrnes's Response

1. U Ravnskov. The Cholesterol Myths. (New Trends Publishing; Washington, D.C.), 2000, 12.

2. (a) MN Cohen. Health and the Rise of Civilization. (Yale University Press; CT.), 1989; (b) See the evidence presented in my last response posted at http://www.powerhealth.net/debate/page4.htm#response. c) J Diamond. The Worst Mistake in the History of the Human Race. Discover Magazine, May 1987, 64-68. I have this article in electronic format and would be happy to send it to any readers. Please send requests to DrByrnes1@hotmail.com.

3. (a) U Ravnskov. The questionable role of saturated and polyunstaurated fatty acids in cardiovascular disease. J Clin Epidemiol 1998; 51: 443-460; (b) WE Stehbens. Coronary heart disease, hypercholesterolemia, and atherosclerosis. I. False premises. Exp Mol Pathol, 2001, Apr;70(2):103-19. (c) WE Stehbens. Coronary heart disease, hypercholesterolemia, and atherosclerosis. II. Misrepresented data. Exp Mol Pathol, 2001, Apr;70(2):120-39.

4. G Taubes. The Soft Science of Dietary Fat. Science, 2001, Mar 30 291:5513 2536-45. See also "The Oiling of America" posted at http://www.westonaprice.org in the "Facts About Fats" section.

5. U Ravnskov. The Cholesterol Myths, 27-29.

6. E Guberan. Surprising decline of cardiovascular mortality in Switzerland: 1951-1976. J Clin Epidem Comm Health, 1979, 33:114-120.

7. GV Mann. Coronary heart disease -- Doing the wrong things. Nutrition Today, July/August, 1985, 12-14.

8. U Ravnskov. The Cholesterol Myths, 36-37.

9. (a) HC McGill and others. Lab Inves, 1968, 18:(5):498; (b) D. Groom and others. Ann Int Med, July 1961, 55:1:51-62; (c) WF Enos and others. J Amer Med Assoc, 1955, 158:912; (d) W Laurie and others. Lancet, Feb 1958, 231-232; (e) WB Robertson. Lancet, 1959, 1:444; (f) T Gordon. Pul Health Rep, 1957, 51:270; (g) OJ Pollack. Lancet, 1959, 1:444.

10. (a) V Stefansson. Adventures in Diet, part three. Harper's Magazine, 1936, January, 178-189; (b) WA Price. Nutrition and Physical Degeneration. (Keats publishing; CT), 1989, 68-72.

11. V Stefansson. Adventures in Diet, parts 1,2, and 3. Harper's Magazine, Nov & Dec 1935; Jan. 1936.

12. Price, op cit.

13. Price, op cit, 64-66.

14. (a) J Day and others. Anthropometric, physiological, and biochemical differences between urban and rural Masai. Atherosclerosis, 1976, 22:149-192; (b) PS Martin. Eskimos: Shocking Example to us All. Primitive Diet vs. Junk Food. Let's Live, 1977, 45:25-28; c) O Schaeffer. When the Eskimo comes to town. Nutrition Today, 1971, 6:8-16.

15. (a) H Spencer and L Kramer. Factors contributing to osteoporosis. J Nutr, 1986, 116:316-319; (b) Further studies of the effect of a high protein diet as meat on calcium metabolism. Amer J Clin Nutr, 1983, 924-929; c) Do protein and phosphorus cause calcium loss? J Nutr, 1988, 118(6):657-60.

16. (a) RG Munger and others. Prospective study of dietary protein intake and risk of hip fracture in postmenopausal women. Amer J Clin Nutr, 1999, 69:1:147-52; (b) MT Hannan and others. Effect of dietary protein on bone loss in elderly men and women: The Framingham Osteoporosis Study. J Bone & Min Res, 2000, 15:2504-2512; c) C. Cooper, and others. Dietary protein and bone mass in women. Calcif Tiss Int, 1996, 58:320-5.

17. (a) V Rattan and others. Effect of combined supplementation of magnesium oxide and pyrodoxine in calcium-oxalate stone formers. Urol Res, 1994, 22(3):161-5; (b) NJ Blacklock. Sucrose and idiopathic renal stone. Nutr Health, 1987, 5(1): 9-17.

18. C. Allan and W. Lutz. Life Without Bread. (Keats Publishing; CA.), 2000, 100-101.

19. T. Brody. Nutritional Biochemistry. Academic Press; CA., 1994, 400-401.

---

Return to Table of Contents #297