Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Old Photos

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by MamaGrok View Post
    Even though I think the combination of "extended breastfeeding with very few solids" and "nutrient-poor mother's diet" leads to caries, if nothing else, I firmly assert, to my pediatric dentists' chagrin, that the solution is to fix the mother's diet, not to stop the breastfeeding.
    I breastfed both of mine and one has fantastic teeth - one filling at the age of 14 - and the other has terrible teeth and needed four fillings at the age of 12. But neither of them had any decay whatsoever as children. The older one needs a couple of baby teeth taken our because they refuse to make way for the adult teeth, and is getting braces; the younger one has perfect straight teeth that (despite needing the fillings) look like being well aligned. Mother-in-law observed similar issues with dad's siblings: one got fillings despite being religious about tooth care, the other had perfect teeth from the start. She think's its genetic luck. THOUGH we both moved between pregnancies and I wonder if the mineral content of the water during pregnancy may have contributed.
    If we’re not supposed to eat animals, how come they’re made out of meat? Tom Snyder

    Comment


    • Ooh, ooh, can we do me? I took pictures just for you! (I know you don't want this to derail the thread, but I can't resist! )



      I know some of my issues, but I won't prejudice you before you give me your unbiased opinion!

      Sorry about my scraggly beard, I know it disguises my chin a bit. Also, I don't think I was holding the camera completely straight-on to my face, because I'm pretty sure my nose does not point left like it looks in those pictures. But then maybe I just never noticed before.

      EDIT: I'm 23, btw.
      Today I will: Eat food, not poison. Plan for success, not settle for failure. Live my real life, not a virtual one. Move and grow, not sit and die.

      My Primal Journal

      Comment


      • Originally posted by geekgrrl View Post
        Sure, those broad islander faces look healthy and strong but europeans have been breeding narrow faces for centuries, well no doubt connected with their early adoption of agriculture, but I don't think you can say it's a generational thing. Maybe it's gotten worse in the last generation but not by much.
        Not very true about Scandinavians.

        Comment


        • This thread is great. My wife and I were just discussing a WAPF link that discussed how everyone has the genetic potential to be beautiful/handsome, but poor nutrition creates conditions that are suboptimal for human development. This leads to bodies/faces that are deemed unattractive. If you look at old national geographics, or WAPF photos of indigenous cultures with limited Western influences, it is almost impossible to find someone "ugly."

          Comment


          • Originally posted by geekgrrl View Post
            I think you'll find that narrow faces and noses are part of a general line of European features. Broad faces belong to African and Oceanic peoples.
            This is exactly what I thought until I read N&PD myself. Since doing that, I've paid special attention to every historic photo or painting I've seen (which has been a lot; we love to go to historic buildings & museums), and just looked more at the people around me in crowds (whether Wal-Mart or an airport or ski resort or college football stadium). I have, without a doubt, seen many, many people of European descent with broad faces, but they have universally been antique pics. These faces were the norm in the Civil War pics I've seen of ordinary people - look again at Clara Barton's photo for a great example. They became less frequent over the next few decades, and for all I can tell, ceased to exist among white Americans since the early 1900s.

            Since then, there have been many decently wide (not excessively tapering) heads in the general public, but now I am no longer seeing these at all in people under 30. At all.

            For examples, be sure to examine Barton, the death masks, and other pics throughout this thread, as well as the source itself. Some notes, though - I would absolutely expect Egyptian royalty to show signs of degeneration. Advanced civilizations throughout history produced a lot of grain, but it was very labor intensive until factories came about, and so I would imagine that only the highest of the upper class had access to a lot of it. It's well known that Egyptian royalty suffered the diseases of civilization. I wouldn't be surprised to see the same to some extent in ancient Rome, although the majority of the pictures in your link had superb facial structure. Magnus Augustus & Cicero had especially broad faces.

            Likewise, I might expect to see some signs of physical degeneration in the wealthiest (royalty) as the Renaissance wore on, but the portrait and death mask evidence we have shows broad faces continued to be very common in the upper classes, and again, photographic evidence shows it to be common in the common folk of America even in the early-mid 1800s. Finally, in Price's pictures of Gaelics, you don't see the *broad* faces, but you do see the fine cheeks, noses, eyes, dental arches, etc. Keep in mind, though, that some 60% of their diet was ... oats. Grains. They ate whole, nourishing foods for the balance, and the oats were fermented or soaked, but they were still grains. And again, without the processed food of civilization, they still had otherwise excellent structure. Their faces weren't narrowed, but more straight up and down instead of round and broad. (Some of them did still show broad faces. Check out Fig. 7)

            I think you're right that much of Europe had already experienced centuries of very slow, very moderate degeneration. It seems that the story is that the *human norm* is broad faces, and only degeneration changes that, but that Europeans, with the increased replacement of nutrient-dense foods with grains slowly increasing over the centuries, have had a change that was slightly less sudden than the rest of the world. But Price's pictures make it equally clear that the African and Oceanic peoples' faces are just as narrowed as ours now, in those places that have come to rely on modern foods in large quantities. See, for example, Fig 24 vs. 25, or 34, 37, 47, etc. in N&PD.

            Originally posted by geekgrrl View Post
            I breastfed both of mine and one has fantastic teeth - one filling at the age of 14 - and the other has terrible teeth and needed four fillings at the age of 12. But neither of them had any decay whatsoever as children. The older one needs a couple of baby teeth taken our because they refuse to make way for the adult teeth, and is getting braces; the younger one has perfect straight teeth that (despite needing the fillings) look like being well aligned. Mother-in-law observed similar issues with dad's siblings: one got fillings despite being religious about tooth care, the other had perfect teeth from the start. She think's its genetic luck. THOUGH we both moved between pregnancies and I wonder if the mineral content of the water during pregnancy may have contributed.
            Cavities are almost 100% due to diet. But genes play a role - they determine who, with insufficient diet, will get cavities. There is no one in my family with a history of terrible early childhood caries, yet all my children have had them, each one worse than the previous - until the last one, the only one to nurse from a well-nourished mama, after I read and finally implemented what I learned from Weston Price. Cavities after weaning, of course, depend on the individual's diet. After we changed our diet, not one of them has developed a cavity, despite constant problems up till that point. Cavities is apprently the way our family expresses certain nutritional deficiencies. Others may see it expressed in allergies, asthma, chronic ear infections - we're blessed to have no allergies at all and 2 ear infections total among five children so far. It's also very conceivable that one child in a family might see nutrient deficiencies expressed via cavities and another see expressed a different way.

            So dental structure depends on pre-conception and pre-natal nutrition, while cavities depend on *current* nutritional status.

            When I google 'renaissance paintings', I got this fun link:
            http://www.listal.com/list/renaissance-paintings
            Last edited by MamaGrok; 08-06-2011, 10:47 AM. Reason: oops, missed a few things!
            5'4" 39yo mother to five sweeties & married to their AMAZING DaddyGrok
            Current Weight: 175lb__________________________________Goal: 135lb
            Deadlift: 240lb________________________________________Back Squat: 165lb
            Bench: 130lb__________________________________________Pre ss: 85lb
            ***Winning a 20-year war against binge eating disorder***

            Comment


            • I meant to add, try googling dageurreotypes, very early photographs. Lots of great broad Caucasian heads there, and some more typical of late 19th & early 20th century heads.
              5'4" 39yo mother to five sweeties & married to their AMAZING DaddyGrok
              Current Weight: 175lb__________________________________Goal: 135lb
              Deadlift: 240lb________________________________________Back Squat: 165lb
              Bench: 130lb__________________________________________Pre ss: 85lb
              ***Winning a 20-year war against binge eating disorder***

              Comment


              • Bump for MamaGrok

                Originally posted by ozbuckley View Post
                MamaGrok, You mentioned that you are now able to breath through your nose at night since eating primally.

                I myself have trouble breathing through my nose at an stage of the day. How did eating primally allow the nose breathing for you?... i mean, has it allowed some sort of slight change in bone structure, or has it cleared up some nasal membrane infection (fungal), etc ?

                I have a poor facial structure I think, basically a small head overall (especially for a 6'2" guy), ...Ive had to have bracers so I think my nose breathing obstructions are sourced from a poor facial development.

                --

                Has anyone got experience with Craniosacral therapy?... basically bodywork of the cranium

                Comment


                • Hi, sorry I missed that oz. I'm on a phone so here's the short version. I think my extremely deviated septum (hich happened because of ppor nose structure) combined with some kind of chronic inflammation up in the shelves of the nose thst I never knew I had till it was gone and I.could breathe in a way I never. could before. The nose is still poor, but clear enough now to be functional, although I.still can't breathe as well as many others.

                  there were a few points where I was blowing blood out of my nose daily after a few weeks back on wheat and some other foods. And once blew some scary black stuff out after what felt like possibly 24 hours of the only thing resembling a sinus infection I've ever had. I wonder how long that had been in there, and what finally triggered the explosive process to get it out.
                  5'4" 39yo mother to five sweeties & married to their AMAZING DaddyGrok
                  Current Weight: 175lb__________________________________Goal: 135lb
                  Deadlift: 240lb________________________________________Back Squat: 165lb
                  Bench: 130lb__________________________________________Pre ss: 85lb
                  ***Winning a 20-year war against binge eating disorder***

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by MamaGrok View Post
                    When I google 'renaissance paintings', I got this fun link:
                    Renaissance Portraits list
                    LOL!! check out snoop dogg- hilarious!
                    My primal journal
                    25yo female, height 5'7"
                    goal weight: 60kg / 155lb
                    goal fat%: 20%

                    current weight: 70kg / 154lb

                    “The fact that a great many people believe something is no guarantee of its truth.”
                    ― W. Somerset Maugham

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by MamaGrok View Post
                      That's [extended breastfeeding] actually one of the very few primitive norms that have already begun to be rediscovered in the US. My five weaned between 2.5 & 3.5. There's actually quite a growing number of families practicing "extended" bf'ing now. The AAP has raised its rec's to "up to two years and as long thereafter as mutually desired" and the WHO has recommended a two year *minimum*, IIRC.
                      Oh, how interesting.

                      I've seen references to slight nutritional disturbance in the children of hunter-gatherers around 3. I can't recall the source, which annoys me—nor whether this was among prehistoric populations or modern ones. Prehistoric I think: I think this would detectable in bones from children. That would most probably correlate with being weaned—which is how it's been interpreted. Weaning can, presumably, be a strain on a small child even if fed breast milk that late. Where that would leave children having breast feeding stopped very much earlier and fed on vegan diets thereafter I shudder to think. As you remark green smoothies are not going to deliver calcium to small children—according to Price not to anyone under six. We need more phosphorous than we do calcium, too. (Infants 0 - 6 months: 100 mg daily, Infants 7 - 12 months: 275 mg, Children 1 - 3 years: 460 mg, Children 4 - 8 years: 500 mg, Children 9 - 18 years: 1,250 mg, source.) Where's that coming from in such a diet? Best dietary sources of phosphorous: meat, fish, dairy products. (There's some in wholegrain cereals ... along with phytates to bind it up.)

                      I feel inclined to say something portentous like "People have to realise there are consequences to their actions". It's not a game. I don't think this just applies to vegetarians (and I wish people who felt impelled to do that didn't do that to their kids). People who just keep eating the bread and jam, the snack bars, the ice cream ... they probably do know the food isn't exactly good and they may vaguely think that they'll put on weight, but they don't really think there are health consequences to eating that stuff. They think illness just happens. Some perhaps. But not all, not if you don't give it a helping hand.

                      Bone broth is crucial for minerals, but I don't think we can get enough without soil replenishment. This is even a problem with organic food. The numbers on Mg that you gave are shocking.
                      I think it depends to some extent on whom your organic certification comes from. The Soil Association in the UK requires farmers whose produce is allowed to carry their mark to test soil regularly and supply any mineral found to be in short supply. The Soil Assoc. have quite stringent requirements on many things: they aim for stewardship of the soil, kindness to farm animals, and a lot of other things—not just absence of pesticides and artificial fertilizers. However, I don't see their mark on produce so much these days. The term "organic" is now controlled be EU law, by which people in the UK have to abide, and the EU "organic" requirement are a lot looser. AFAIK, U.S. law is even looser, but I may be wrong there.

                      Of course, non-organic farming is doing incalculable damage:

                      You can get away with doing stupid things, if your scale is small. But, given the scale of corn in Iowa, that's one reason we got a dead zone.
                      ‪Big River: A King Corn Companion - Trailer‬‏ - YouTube

                      It makes you wonder if we're headed for worldwide population crash. That's been staved off, post-WWII, by chemical farming and selective breeding. It should have happened but didn't. But what happens when intensive agriculture starts destroying soil structure? If you put more marginal land in arable use, you erode it.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by TigerLily View Post
                        Lewis, Dr. Cate Shanahan was also interviewed on Underground Wellness. It's worth a listen. In that interview, she was talking about how the first-born is often the most physically attractive. Since hearing that, I've been looking around and observing, looking at pictures of my aunts and uncles, looking at movie stars, and there does seem to be something to this.

                        So much to talk about, they had to do two shows:

                        Deep Nutrition with Cate Shanahan MD 01/06 by Underground Wellness | Blog Talk Radio

                        MORE Deep Nutrition with Dr. Cate Shanahan 01/08 by Underground Wellness | Blog Talk Radio
                        Thanks again. I've listened to these now—twice to one of them.

                        Those are really relevant to this thread: "Marquardt Masks" (ratios of 1:1.618 and all that) and "Second sibling syndrome". So she has pictures of Paris Hilton and her sister and Matt Damon and his brother in the book and so on to show that often the older child has a better formed face than the younger, because evidently the mother simply hasn't recovered fully biologically between births.

                        And so many other interesting things to say. I bet her books are going to the top of a lot of people's "to read" lists.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by spakesneaker View Post
                          Does breastfeeding help the child wrt nutrition regardless of the mother's own nutritional state/deficiencies?
                          There's a saying you hear in computing (and hi-fi) circles "rubbish in, rubbish out". Doubtless it may be better than some other options (soy formula, for example), but if the mother hasn't got enough of the necessary nutrients in her body where are they going to be coming from? The pregnancy (and the breastfeeding) are going to plunder her body of what the child needs; if that's not being put back ...

                          Ron Schmid reports some interesting data in Traditional Foods are Your Best Medicine

                          Amazon.com: Traditional Foods Are Your Best Medicine: Improving Health and Longevity with Native Nutrition (9780892817351): Ronald F. Schmid N.D.: Books

                          (Aside: I think that's an interesting book, but maybe a little cranky in places. It's also no longer very new and badly in need of updating.)

                          Anyway, Schmid mentions a survey of mothers done in the U.S. back in the 30s. I haven't got the book to hand so can't check, but i think this was done by Francis Potteneger—the cats man.

                          There were four groups of children. I'm not sure of the exact ages, but I think they were very small—infants. One group had human breast milk, one had unpasteurized milk, one had pasteurized milk, and one had tinned condensed milk. Out of all four groups, only the second had optimal skeletal development in every case. I did a double-take when I read that. The reason proposed was that the nutritional status of the mother determined whether her milk was good enough or not: in some cases it was; in some not. In no case was pasteurized milk, let alone condensed milk, satisfactory. That sounds like a bombshell that's been sitting ignored in the archives for—what?—some eighty years?

                          Comment


                          • Here's a reconstructed face, based on the bones, of a woman from Anglo-Scandinavian York (Jorvik), who died around 1000 years ago:

                            What Did the Vikings Look Like?

                            Comment


                            • Since this thread started out about the increasing rate of obesity (the later bits about facial features were still interesting as well!), I wanted to add in another factor: activity level. On average, we are definitely less active than our grandparents and great-grandparents. Our not-far-back ancestors used to walk miles to school, work on farms, fetch water from a well or river, washed and made our own clothes, worked specializations that involved a lot of physical activity, rode horses, and so on.

                              Other factors would be pollution, habits people like to indulge in, etc. Smoking and alochol consumption can decrease a person's ability to use oxygen during development and repair.

                              Someone mentioned there is a higher incidence of disorders. I think more of these are revealed as humans are having longer and longer life expectancies on top of better medical care (by medical care, I mean identifying a health problem and taking steps to treat the problem). 200 years ago, most people with such disorders would have just died off. Plus, ancestors who had disorders wouldn't have lived long enough to produce offspring who might have carried the traits with them. These days, we have low mortality rates and we have resources for surviving with disorders.

                              And since we are talking about faces, I would love to show some pics of my face but what I have on my Droid were ruined by its blindingly bright flash. Here's an old pic though:

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Kristy2078 View Post
                                Since this thread started out about the increasing rate of obesity (the later bits about facial features were still interesting as well!), I wanted to add in another factor: activity level. On average, we are definitely less active than our grandparents and great-grandparents. Our not-far-back ancestors used to walk miles to school, work on farms, fetch water from a well or river, washed and made our own clothes, worked specializations that involved a lot of physical activity, rode horses, and so on.
                                Certainly people were more active in the past. However, the mainstream seems now to be offering "lack of exercise" as the reason why its dietary prescriptions fail. It's an attempt to stave off the recognition that the Emperor has no clothes. There's good reason to be sceptical on that. Active habits (of the right sort, at any rate) will make you stronger and healthier, but as for making you lose weight ... studies seem to show that assumption isn't true in practice. In fact, rushing out and pounding the pavement or taking aerobics classes probably means people then get hungry and look for a sugary snack ... see Mark's numerous posts on what he calls "chronic cardio".

                                I just don't think "lack of exercise" makes a good explanation for why those children in the 1950s school pictures earlier in the thread aren't fat. As Professor Lustig remarked in Sugar the Bitter Truth

                                ‪Sugar: The Bitter Truth‬‏ - YouTube

                                —there are now infants who can't yet walk, and even babies, who are overweight. That can't be down to "lack of exercise" because they wouldn't being doing exercise anyway.

                                But, sure, children should be walking to school and doing more sport and games outside.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X