However, I have to say that as I read more of this book, I'm somewhat disappointed. She has some great ideas that I'm definitely going to pay more attention to in my diet, like more fermented foods, and I think this book finally gave me the ammo to once and for all kick the potato chip habit. But the presentation she uses is so confusing, and worse, loaded with pseudo-science and poor reasoning, that I don't feel I can take too many of her assertions on faith.

The main thrust of her theory seems to be two-fold - first that pure, natural animal products are a normal part of the human diet and second that any kind of non-traditional food processing (any factory foods) are bad. OK, I can go with that. I know many people would disagree with the first part of her theory, and even if you do agree, it's REALLY hard to find pure pasture-fed animal products, even here in the Midwest. When you can find them, they are so expensive.

Not that I could even try to hit everything she covers in her book, but here are a few specific things that gave me pause -

- she says vegetarians 'Because grains and pulses [that's beans for us Americans] eaten alone cannot supply complete amino acids, vegetarians must take care to balance the two at every meal.' I didn't think ANYONE still believed that.

- she refers often to the nutritional work of a Dr. Weston Price. He's a dentist. OK, that doesn't necessarily mean he DOESN'T know much about nutrition (and keep in mind I wouldn't automatically assume any medical doctor knows anything about nutrition either), but it doesn't mean he DOES know anything either, yet she's clearly using his title of Dr. to try to give his words more weight. Why not just say 'Look, most people who know a lot about nutrition are self-taught'?

- she vilifies a certain Dr. Frederick Stare, former head of the nutrition dept. at Harvard, quoting him several times as saying silly things like Coca-Cola makes a good snack. Some of the things she has him saying were so silly I looked him up on the internet. He was head of nutrition dept. at Harvard, yes, but he was appointed in 1941 - I think we've ALL learned a good bit about nutrition in the 60+ years since then!! But she never mentions how old this info is in her book.

- she pans white flour in part because it's 'only' been in existence for about 400 years, yet defends feeding animal products to cows and chickens, referring to it as 'a practice that dates back almost 100 years'.

In my experience, this kind of sloppy argument means one of two things - either the writer doesn't really understand how to construct a sound bit of persuasive reasoning and is just so excited about their beliefs that they are being a little blind about it, or they are deliberately trying to mislead. I suspect it's just the first here, but still!

I don't want it to sound like I don't like the book, actually I do. I'm probably going to try a lot of her recipes and read further on many of the topics she's brought up. And I'll probably suggest the book to friends, with caveats of course. But I'm taking it with a BIG grain of salt.


Scientific Support for Traditional Diets. Wonderful   February 27, 2004
 601 out of 656 found this review helpful

This book by Sally Fallon (with Mary Enig, Ph.D.) is an inspiring polemic against both commercial, prepared food trends and some governmental and research leaders who appear to be making recommendations on nutrition under the influence of commercial interests.

My first impression of the book is that it shows exactly how hard nutritional science actually is. The authors are citing hundreds of technical works from both demographic and controlled experiment studies regarding thousands of different food components in their way to painting a complete picture of good nutrition. Their starting point in painting this picture is the common sense assumption that historical, natural diets are invariably more healthy than those laden with commercially processed foods. This assumption is backed up by demographic research done in the first third of the last century. This is the import of the `traditions' in the title.

It turns out that the potential allies of the authors' approach come from such different quarters as the Atkins diet advocates who endorse eating meat, eggs, and other proteins in preference to (processed) carbohydrates and the `Raw Food' wing of the vegetarian / vegan movement. The latter camp would wholeheartedly endorse the authors' issues with eating foods that retain their original enzymes to aid in digestion. I'm sure the vegans and the Atkins camp will not join forces any time soon, but their appearance in the same metaphorical room on the side of the authors' position is another indication of how multi-sided complex scientific theories can become.

I have no facts to confirm or challenge the authors' claim of corruption on the part of some academics in endorsing a nutritional position to back commercial interests. I will only say that it is irrelevant to the central tenant of the book, which in very simple terms is `Eat the way your great grandparents ate'. Some of the more important details are:

1. Avoid processed fats, starches, sugars, and proteins. They are not of no value. They are unhealthy.
2. Eat animal protein and their accompanying fats.
3. Eat whole grain products.
4. Eat foods prepared in such a way that avoids loosing important nutrients.

Almost all of the authors' statements on individual nutritional facts are backed up by published scientific research. One or two or even ten percent of their references may be flawed, but the overall weight of their evidence is truly impressive. The only problem I find in their characterization of the way things are today is in not giving full credit to medical science in lengthening our lifespans through the suppression of infectious diseases. This is likely to be the reason behind the increase in the frequency of deaths by degenerative diseases like cancer and heart disease, not a catastrophic loss of nutritional value in our diets. That is not to say their claims about the drop in the quality of our diet are not true. Always remember that these gals are making a case, they are not simply publishing scientific results.

While I think the authors have a strong case against processed foods, I find it difficult to fully endorse their next step. Their solution takes us close to the land of food extremists such as both traditional vegetarians and the more radical proponents of `raw' diets. What this means is that they raise up foods which are hard to find or difficult to prepare or are prepared in ways unfamiliar to American kitchens. This may not necessarily be a bad thing. It tends to appeal to my `Whole Earth Catalog' mentality of the home-brew lifestyle. But this lifestyle is simply not practical for the millions who work long, stressful hours followed by time devoted to kids and spouses.

My skepticism regarding their solutions is reinforced by some culinary misstatements such as the suggestion to refrigerate tomatoes after they ripen, to not add garlic to hot fat, and that artisinal breads are not good for sandwiches. The second and third statements are refuted daily by traditional Italian cooking practice. Their condemnation of all aluminum cookware and the microwave also seem more extreme than they need be.

What I take from this work is the very cautious and undramatic conclusion that the safest (and most interesting) culinary path lies in the study and emulation of historical diets. This gives a strong theoretical underpinning to my admiration of educators such as Mario Batali and Paula Wolfert who examine and promote historical cuisines based on the `what grows together, goes together'. This could easily be a subtitle of this book. It also gives support to practitioners such as Rachael Ray who promote fast cooking without resorting to overly processed ingredients.

I love a book that pulls together and validates a wide range of (my) opinions. While this book may not always be right, it is supremely valuable in its provocation to thinking. It is also supremely valuable in it's demonstrating the value of some less common foods such as sauerkraut, creme fraiche, and kim chee. This value doubles in that it actually tells you how to make this stuff. Lest it be overlooked, it is important to note that the lions share of the book is a fairly large cookbook of recipes with methods and materials that follow the book's doctrines.

At a list price of $25, the catalogue of vegetables chapter alone is almost worth the price of admission. I'm happy that here, the authors part company with both the advocates of `raw' and the old Adele Davis doctrine of saving veggie cooking water. They reinforce again the conventional wisdom of old school culinary practice which rarely leaves veggies raw. Some raw vegetables contain some bad things and cooking almost always makes the good things more available to digestion.

I recommend this book to everyone as the very next book you need to buy about food.


An Excellent Read & Cookbook   May 19, 2002
 199 out of 221 found this review helpful

This book is much more than a cookbook--it is a nutritional handbook and virtual encyclopedia of food history and food facts. The first 80 pages of the book concern themselves with nutrition basics. The sections on fats, proteins, and carbohydrates are accurate, well-referenced, and needed in today's fat-phobic world. Fallon and Enig (who is a well-known lipid biochemist) dispel the many myths about saturated fats and animal foods.

Recipes for every imaginable dish and drink are given, from appetizers and sauces to fermented fruits/vegetables and beverages. And it was SO nice to see a chapter on preparing wild game and organ meats--nutritious foods that have virtually disappeared from our modern diets (to our decided detriment). The substantial section on vegetables provides detailed nutritional info on each entry, as well as 2-3 tasty recipes.

One caveat: some of the recipes take a lot of work if you want to do them the way Fallon and Enig recommend. For example, they suggest soaking and then drying and grinding your own grains to make flour. Obviously, not everyone has time to do this. I wish there was more emphasis on alternatives for busy people such as myself. Nevertheless, there are still lots of simpler recipes to make and they are tasty and delicious.

The Resources section in the back is excellent and handy for people wanting to get started.

A word to the detractors below:
(1) Indians DO have very high rates of coronary artery disease, even the vegetarian ones, so vegetarianism is NOT a protection against this condition (J Indian Med Assoc 2000 Nov;98(11):694-5, 697-702).
(2) The claims that vegetarians live longer than omnivores (on a healthy diet) are also not supported by available data (R Smith and E Pinckney. Diet, Blood Cholesterol, and Coronary Heart Disease: A Critical Review of the Literature--vol. 2. (Vector Enterprises; CA)., 1991).
(3) The idea that eating animal protein causes calcium loss has been disproven many times over ((a) J Nutr, 1986, 116:316-319; (b) Amer J Clin Nutr, 1983, 924-929; c) J Nutr, 1988, 118(6):657-60; (d) Amer J Clin Nutr, 1999, 69:1:147-52; (e) J Bone & Min Res, 2000, 15:2504-2512; (f) Calcif Tiss Int, 1996, 58:320-5.
(4) The idea that eating a lot of butter or ghee (or other animal fats) contributes to or causes heart disease is false ( Lancet, 1994, 344:1195; (b) Science 2001 Mar 30 291:5513 2536-45).
(5) The idea that eating meat or animal fats contributes or causes various cancers is a popular idea that is not supported by available evidence (The Lancet, 1999, 353:686-7; (b) Aust J Nutr Diet, 1997, 54(4):S1-S44.

I'm wondering if these acrid reviewers bothered to read the book or check its many references.

Also, a few reviewers commented feeling sick after eating some of the recipes. This is usually indicative of digestive weakness and may call for digestive enzymes or fermented foods before a meal to stimulate digestive juice flow. The book does suggest eating some fermented food either right before or with with a meal to facilitate digestion. Again, I'm wondering if the critics have bothered to read the book in any detail. Nausea shortly after eating can also mean that the meal has too much fat in it. Either the people made the recipe wrong or they cannot tolerate higher amounts of fats at one time and need to cut back.


A shoddy piece of work....   September 26, 2004
 138 out of 210 found this review helpful

As a frequent science writer and sustainable agriculture activist, I have seen the evidence that healthy soils contribute to healthier food and that pasteurization does little for dairy products except make way for anaerobic bacterial growth. However, Nourishing Traditions is a shoddy piece of work at best.

Circular logic abounds from the very cover, where those who are critical of its contents can only be labeled as diet dictocrats. Sadly, many of Fallon's claims are based upon secondary research references, as well as references to flat out folklore and "unpublished studies."

Just how far off the mark Fallon is, is highlighted by one of her references to an "unpublished study" concerning high egg consumption among pregnant Chinese women. For those who have never visited a country where people themselves don't have enough to eat, I can tell you that the livestock in these places typically fare far worse. The eggs in these countries are not like the orange-yolked pastured eggs available in many parts of the U.S. Instead, because the chickens in these countries live on scratch--usually garbage--they produce pale egg yolks that are low in several nutrients. A person living in one of these countries would have to consume larger quantities of these eggs just to get the same nutrients as a single pastured egg in the U.S. That Fallon takes this anecdotal observation out of context and uses it to justify high egg consumption for pregnant women in the U.S. is devious at best.

The book does highlight some of the lesser known cautionary studies about unfermented soy products and questions the amount of unfermented soy actually in an Asian diet. That said, having seen the original studies, I can vouch that their conclusions were not to throw the baby out with the bath water as Fallon advises. Despite her reliance on research studies to dismiss certain foods, Fallon is more than willing to accept panaceas pushed by multi-level marketers without providing any scientific references whatsoever, e.g. noni juice. She further goes on to endorse blue green algae, with no mention that several studies have shown it to have toxic properties.

There is no emphasis on exercise for weight maintenance and mineral absorption. No concession that her idol Price was visiting societies which performed large amounts of manual labor just to exist and could easily burn off the high amounts of calories they consumed.

Curiously, there is no mention of molasses itself as a mineral-containing sweetener, but plenty of mentions of why sugars without it are bad, except for European ones that are $5/pound. That, and mail-order raw honey. Though Fallon encourages folks to seek out local dairy, she doesn't encourage them to seek out local honey, which is far more prevalent.

As for the recipes, Fallon's "Asian" recipes are about as far away from traditional Asian cooking/processing techniques as you can get. Given this it probably shouldn't come as a surprise that despite her acknowledgement of pork's importance in several island cultures, she largely dismisses it as a protein source. Did her hero Price never visit any of the remote populations of China where pork is a traditional dietary component in both meat and fat forms? Not to mention that pork is part of Traditional Chinese Medicine. Gosh knows that pork consumption has held back China's population growth over the years....NOT!!!

But, the one that really killed me was after suffering through several pages dismissing inferior sugars and soda, she appears to do a 180 and list Orangina as part of a breakfast menu!!!

Any time someone starts labeling foods as good and evil, you should not just avoid buying their book, you should turn and run as far away as possible. Too bad more people didn't, especially this book's publisher.



Medical doctor looks at Nourishing Traditions   June 5, 2002
 123 out of 134 found this review helpful

I have been a practicing medical doctor for about 20 years. In that time I have pursued my interest in nutrition literally to all corners of the globe. I have read scores of books on nutrition and treated hundreds if not thousands of patients with nutritional advice and natural medicines. Of all the published nutritional information on the shelves today, by far the most informative, reliable, comprehensive, and useful is Ms. Fallon's Nourishing Traditions. When I first came across Nourishing Traditions a few years ago, I was amazed that one person was about to amass virtually the entire wisdom of traditional societies concerning nutrition into one book. I found ancient recipes, cooking techniques, food preparation insights that are simply not to be found anywhere else. I urge all those who wish to truly pursue their knowledge of nutrition and to regain their own health to do one thing. Buy Nourishing Traditions, read it thoroughly, take a deep breath, and embark on a new way of life. Thomas Cowan, M.D.