Monday, February 07, 2011


In my last post on the introduction I wrote that Price had no idea that his concept of the role of genetics in reproduction was correct... well, upon a bit of reflection, I think I'll reverse that... I think he did know that he was correct. What he may not have been able to do is articulate it in 21st century terminology.

It is only very recently that mainstream science has begun to catch up in terms of thinking on genes and reproduction - and my feeling is that pop science might never get there. It's too easy to not want to take responsibility for our own good nutrition. I suppose there isn't agreement on what is good nutrition, but the proof is in the pudding, as they say: Does a person look healthy? Is a person diseased? The answers to these questions help our understanding of what is good nutrition.

For the past several months, Susan and Gordon's diet has been somewhere around 40-50 percent fat - almost all from our own pastured meats and our lard (the rest is from store-bought butter and from far away made virgin coconut oil).

Also, my wife reminded me that Adelle Davis, although in some ways was a product of her times, was most certainly enlightened as to her view on genetics and reproduction. Here's a quote that should show that and which really encapsulates succinctly the essence of this project:
The hereditary potentials of children rarely achieve their full expression. The controlling factor is often the nutrition of the genes and chromosomes, which is limited by deficiencies existing in either parent before conception. Such damage can be irreversible and last the lifetime of a child, yet not be obvious at birth. -Adelle Davis in "Let's Have Healthy Children" (New and Expanded 1972) p.15-16 

No comments: