Read this in: 
Dansk
Nederlands
Deutsch
日本語
Русский
Español
- The diets of healthy indigenous and nonindustrialized peoples contain no refined or denatured foods such as refined sugar or corn syrup; white flour; canned foods; pasteurized, homogenized, skim or low-fat milk; refined or hydrogenated vegetable oils; protein powders; artificial vitamins or toxic additives and colorings.
- All traditional cultures consume some sort of animal protein and fat from fish and other seafood; water and land fowl; land animals; eggs; milk and milk products; reptiles; and insects.
- indigenous diets contain at least four times the calcium and other minerals and ten times the fat soluble vitamins from animal fats (vitamin A, vitamin D and the Price Factor–now believed to be vitamin K2) as the average American diet.
- In all traditional cultures, some animal products are eaten raw.
- indigenous and traditional diets have a high food-enzyme content from raw dairy products, raw meat and fish; raw honey; tropical fruits; cold-pressed oils; wine and unpasteurized beer; and naturally preserved, lacto-fermented vegetables, fruits, beverages, meats and condiments.
- Seeds, grains and nuts are soaked, sprouted, fermented or naturally leavened in order to neutralize naturally occuring antinutrients in these foods, such as phytic acid, enzyme inhibitors, tannins and complex carbohydrates.
- Total fat content of traditional diets varies from 30% to 80% but only about 4% of calories come from polyunsaturated oils naturally occurring in grains, pulses, nuts, fish, animal fats and vegetables. The balance of fat calories is in the form of saturated and monounsaturated fatty acids.
- Traditional diets contain nearly equal amounts of omega-6 and omega-3 essential fatty acids.
- All indigenous diets contain some salt.
- Traditional cultures consume animal bones, usually in the form of gelatin-rich bone broths.
- Traditional cultures make provisions for the health of future generations by providing special nutrient-rich foods for parents-to-be, pregnant women and growing children; by proper spacing of children; and by teaching the principles of right diet to the young.
Thank you for this article! How long is the recommended proper spacing between children?
I wonder what would be categorized as “proper spacing of children”? Genuinely curious; I realize there will be variation, but on average, how much time between pregnancies would allow for the mother’s body to regain overall health and general nutrition (and then how might that look with extended and/or tandem breastfeeding)?
I happen to know that ‘proper spacing’ is 4 years and that is driven by the breastfeeding which is completely on demand and typically lasts for 4 years.
There isn’t one single citation in this article.
All of this information comes from Nutrition and Physical Degeneration (NAPD) or the abundant notes and records on which NAPD is based. Those notes etc are housed by the Price-Pottenger Nutrition Foundation in California (price-pottenger.org). You could read thru these resources and find these common characteristics for yourself. I suggest using a grid to keep track of the multiple facets. It will get pretty big, and full. You could also consider how these characteristics relate to current western ‘civilized’ practices, both in how people eat and what their state of health is. If you have citations for the characteristic recommendations of the SAD (Standard American Diet), ie, low fat or vegetable oil consumption, 300 grams of carbs per day, benefits of packaged & highly processed (artificial) foods, please post them. It’ll probably be faster & easier to go through Dr. Price’s voluminous work than to find substantiation for the SAD claims.
As to proper spacing of children, traditional cultures do not practice birth control; the proper spacing was therefore only regulated by the periods of abstinence from sexual activity observed in most cultures alongside of the fasting regiments. In the Christian East and West, husbands and wives would not come together again until 40 days after a male child, or 80 days after a female child, had been born. And then, they would not have come together on (Wednesdays, in the East and early West), Fridays, Emberdays, Lent, Advent (and, in some places, the Apostles’ Fast in June and the Lady Fast in August). Neither did they come together during menstruation (or pregnancy, for that matter). Apart from such periods of abstinence, traditional cultures do not “space” their children in a deliberate way. Long before I became a Catholic, I had to laugh at a certain kind of “all-natural” hippie, who would be meticulous about her diet, yet not bat an eye at the chemical and hormonal torture, or otherwise unnatural activities, involved in birth control.
Well actually, you are wrong about indigenous women and birth spacing practices.
In Australia, indigenous women had special communal circles that was strictly for women only. When a young woman approached puberty, she would join this circle and learn from the elder women.
She would learn, in detail, how to tell when she was fertile and when she was not. She would learn a lot about menstrual cycles and abstinence periods to control conception rates.
The information conveyed via traditional oral teachings is on a par with modern geneacologists who promoted the natural methods of birth control that Catholics promoted in the 1980’s and 90’s.
Perhaps, as a Catholic, you should educate yourself about traditional cultures and stop comparing them with the hippie movement of the 60’s.
Thank you, Brother! As a Catholic American woman I treasure learning about Catholic/European traditions, which we are not taught in school or at Church, unfortunately.
Generally in traditional cultures children were spaced between 3-4 years. Breastfeeding would have naturally helped accomplish this, unlike today when even with “on-demand” and a longer breastfeeding period reaching into the 2-3 year range, we are affected adversely by artificial lighting.
The admonition to avoid sexual activity throughout pregnancy and for 80 days after the birth of a daughter is neither biblical, nor healthy for either spouse. This certainly does not promote marital happiness or fulfillment, and goes totally against natural desires. However, the “purification” period is of course of utmost importance and thus following the Levitical laws for such protects the mother from infection and possible structural problems. In my opinion, the call for 80 days of abstinence is a misunderstanding of the intent of the law. We have always practiced the 47 day understanding of this law.
As a woman and a wife, I can not imagine going without the beautiful bonding and enjoyable experience of sex for much more than 2 months, although if needed a little longer. But many months? Nearly a year? And what is my husband supposed to do for that time with his sexual drive? Yes, of course couples can enjoy a non-intercourse physical relationship, but it certainly is nowhere near as satisfying as what God intended for the marital relationship. A year without sex might encourage the idea of polygamy. Hm…