Weston A. Price Diet Claims Checked Against the Evidence

Weston A. Price Diet Claims Checked Against the Evidence — scientific infographic poster

The Weston A. Price Foundation's booklet Timeless Principles of Healthy Traditional Diets ends with several lists of "myths and truths" about fat, cholesterol, meat, salt, soy, raw milk, fluoride and dentistry. This page takes those claims one at a time, says plainly what the booklet argues, and sets it beside what human studies actually show. Some claims hold up very well, some hold up in part, some are honestly debated, and a few are not supported by the evidence we have today — and we label each one in words so you can see which is which.

How to read the verdicts: Supported means good human evidence agrees with the booklet. Partly supported means one part of the claim holds and another does not. Debated means careful researchers still disagree, or the evidence points both ways. Not supported by current evidence means the best human studies do not back the claim as written. Every verdict carries an evidence tier — randomised trial, meta-analysis, cohort study, case series, animal or cell study — because a result in mice or in a dish is a hint, not proof that the same thing happens in people. We judge claims, never the people who made or quoted them.

Table of Contents

  1. Saturated Fat and Cholesterol
  2. Seed Oils, Margarine and Low-Fat Diets
  3. Red Meat, Eggs, Raw Milk and Salt
  4. Vegetarian Diets and Vitamin B12
  5. Soy Foods and Soy Formula
  6. Fluoride, Aluminium, Microwaves and Additives
  7. Root Canals and Amalgam Fillings
  8. What This Means for Your Plate
  9. Key Research Papers
  10. Connections
  11. Featured Videos

Saturated Fat and Cholesterol

This is the heart of the booklet's argument. It says saturated fats build cell membranes, support the immune system and bones, and "do not cause heart disease"; that dietary cholesterol is needed for the gut wall and a baby's growing brain; and that only oxidised cholesterol, as found in powdered milk and powdered eggs, harms arteries. It also quotes several researchers and a surgeon who doubted the diet–heart idea. Quotations are opinions, not data, so below we look at the data instead.

Claim: "Saturated fat does not cause heart disease"

What the evidence shows. The best test is to ask people to eat less saturated fat for years and count heart attacks. A 2020 Cochrane review pooled 15 such randomised trials with 56,675 participants. Cutting saturated fat lowered combined cardiovascular events by about 17% (moderate-quality evidence), and the bigger the cholesterol drop, the bigger the benefit. But it made little or no difference to deaths from any cause. In plain numbers, about 56 people would need to cut saturated fat for roughly four years for one of them to avoid a heart event.

The booklet is right that saturated fat is a normal, needed part of the body (your body makes it from carbohydrate), and right that eating less of it has not been shown to make people live longer. It goes too far in saying saturated fat has no effect on heart disease at all.

Verdict: Partly supported. Evidence tier: meta-analysis of randomised trials in humans.

Claim: "Cholesterol below 180 mg/dL raises the death rate"

What the booklet cites. It points to a 1992 paper in Circulation. The page reference it gives (volume 86, pages 1026–9) is actually a short health-policy commentary by Hulley and colleagues titled "Health policy on blood cholesterol: time to change directions," not a study. The data the booklet seems to mean are in the same issue: the US National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute's Report of the Conference on Low Blood Cholesterol: Mortality Associations (Jacobs and colleagues, 1992), which pooled 19 cohort studies.

What that report found. In men, total death rates traced a U-shape: higher at very high cholesterol (mainly heart disease) and also higher at low cholesterol (some cancers, lung and digestive disease, injuries). In women the line was flat. Crucially, most conference participants thought the low-cholesterol deaths were probably explained by confounding — for example, serious illness itself lowers cholesterol, so sick people turn up in the "low" group. They did not conclude that low cholesterol causes death.

Later cohorts. A 2020 study of 108,243 Danish adults again found a U-shaped link between LDL ("bad") cholesterol and death from any cause: people under 70 mg/dL had a 25% higher death rate (hazard ratio 1.25) than people at 132–154 mg/dL, and the lowest risk sat at about 140 mg/dL. The same paper found that any increase in LDL went with more heart attacks. So both halves are true at once: very low cholesterol is a warning flag worth investigating, and higher LDL still means more heart attacks.

A conceptual U-shaped curve of death from any cause against blood cholesterol, rising at both the low and high ends, drawn beside a separate line for heart attacks that rises steadily with cholesterol. TWO SHAPES, ONE BLOOD TEST conceptual shape only · not plotted data · cohorts named in the text death from any cause heart attacks low end rises: illness lowers cholesterol blood cholesterol (LDL), low → high risk → WHAT THE U MEANS the low end is a warning flag the 1992 conference judged it mostly confounding: sick people often have low cholesterol heart attacks climb all the way up in 108,243 Danes, any rise in LDL went with more heart attacks lowest overall risk: LDL about 140 mg/dL in that one cohort, not a target for everyone a U-curve in a cohort is an association. it does not show that low cholesterol kills, or that high cholesterol protects.

Verdict: Partly supported. The U-shaped association is real in several cohorts; the conclusion that a cholesterol under 180 mg/dL causes earlier death is not shown. Evidence tier: pooled cohort studies (association, not cause).

Claim: "The fat in artery plaques is mostly unsaturated (74%)"

What the paper found. The booklet cites a 1994 letter in The Lancet by Felton and colleagues. Its published abstract reports that the polyunsaturated fat (omega-6 and omega-3) in aortic plaques tracked the polyunsaturated fat in blood and body fat — a marker of diet — while saturated fat showed no such link. The authors suggested the trend toward eating more polyunsaturated fat should be reconsidered. The specific "74% unsaturated, 41% polyunsaturated" figures are not in the abstract, and we could not verify them.

What this kind of study cannot do is tell us what causes plaque. It measured what fats were sitting in plaques taken after death; it did not follow people over time. Plaques form around cholesterol-carrying particles, and the fat they carry reflects whatever you eat.

Verdict: Partly supported. The paper exists and leans the booklet's way; the exact percentages could not be verified, and composition does not prove cause. Evidence tier: small post-mortem comparison study.

Claim: "Only oxidised cholesterol harms arteries"

Oxidised fats and cholesterol are genuinely more damaging in laboratory and animal work, and avoiding highly processed, long-stored powdered foods is reasonable. But the trials above show that ordinary, unoxidised LDL cholesterol still tracks heart attacks. Verdict: Debated. Evidence tier: mostly laboratory and animal studies.

Back to Table of Contents

Seed Oils, Margarine and Low-Fat Diets

The booklet tells readers to avoid all hydrogenated fats and all industrial seed oils (soy, corn, safflower, canola, cottonseed, grapeseed, rice bran), to skip margarine, and to ignore advice to keep fat at 30% of calories. Our sibling article Traditional Fats vs Industrial Seed Oils covers the chemistry in depth; here are the verdicts.

Claim: "Avoid all hydrogenated and partially hydrogenated fats"

This is one of the booklet's strongest calls. Industrial trans fats, made when oils are partially hydrogenated, raise LDL, lower HDL and are strongly tied to heart disease, as summarised in a major 2006 New England Journal of Medicine review by Mozaffarian and colleagues. The US FDA later removed partially hydrogenated oils from the "generally recognized as safe" list. The booklet was warning about these fats long before that became official policy. See our Trans Fats page.

Verdict: Supported. Evidence tier: cohort studies, controlled feeding trials and reviews; regulatory action.

Claim: "Margarine eaters have twice the heart disease of butter eaters"

The booklet's source is a newsletter, not a study we could check. The idea fits the era when stick margarine was loaded with trans fat. Today's spreads in many countries are made without partially hydrogenated oil, so the old comparison no longer describes what is on the shelf. Butter remains a whole, traditional food; old-style margarine deserved its bad name because of trans fat specifically.

Verdict: Partly supported (true of the trans-fat margarines of the past). Evidence tier: indirect, via the trans-fat evidence.

Claim: "Polyunsaturated seed oils cause cancer and heart disease"

In the Cochrane trials above, people who swapped saturated fat for polyunsaturated fat did not have more heart events — the swap was associated with fewer events, about the same as swapping to carbohydrate. That is direct trial evidence against the claim that these oils cause heart disease. Where the booklet has a point is in heat damage: oils rich in polyunsaturated fat break down faster when reused for deep-frying, and Americans do eat far more omega-6 than omega-3 compared with traditional diets. Cooking with stable fats and eating more fish and pasture eggs are reasonable steps; fearing a teaspoon of canola is not backed by human data.

Verdict: Not supported by current evidence (as a cause of heart disease and cancer); the concern about repeatedly heated oil is debated and rests mainly on laboratory work. Evidence tier: randomised trials (heart events); in vitro (oxidation).

Claim: "Coconut oil does not cause heart disease"

A 2020 meta-analysis of 16 clinical trials in Circulation found coconut oil raised LDL cholesterol by about 10.47 mg/dL compared with non-tropical vegetable oils, while also raising HDL by about 4 mg/dL; it did not change blood sugar, inflammation or body fat. No trial has counted heart attacks on coconut oil long-term. Coconut is a traditional fat in many tropical diets that also ate fish, fibre and little processed food.

Verdict: Debated. Evidence tier: meta-analysis of trials measuring blood lipids, not heart events.

Claim: "Children on low-fat diets suffer growth failure"

The booklet cites a 1989 report by Lifshitz and Moses describing 8 children, out of 40, whose growth faltered on an unsupervised low-fat, low-cholesterol diet — they were simply not getting enough calories, zinc and vitamins. That is a real warning about overzealous restriction. But a randomised trial in 663 children aged 8 to 10 (the DISC study, 1995) found that a supervised diet with 28% of calories from fat kept growth, iron stores and wellbeing normal over three years.

Verdict: Partly supported. Badly planned fat restriction can stunt a child; a well-planned moderate-fat diet did not in a trial. Growing children need full-fat, nutrient-dense food and enough calories — the booklet's practical advice. Evidence tier: case series (harm); randomised trial (safety of a supervised diet).

Claim: "Low-fat diets do not prevent breast cancer"

The largest test, the Women's Health Initiative trial, put 48,835 postmenopausal women on a low-fat eating pattern or their usual diet. Over 8.1 years, invasive breast cancer occurred in 0.42% versus 0.45% per year — a difference that was not statistically significant (hazard ratio 0.91). The authors noted a trend that might firm up with longer follow-up.

Verdict: Supported (no proven protection), with an honest caveat about the trend. Evidence tier: large randomised trial.

Back to Table of Contents

Red Meat, Eggs, Raw Milk and Salt

The booklet defends red meat as a source of vitamin B12, B6, zinc, carnitine and coenzyme Q10; calls eggs "nature's perfect food"; asks readers to drink raw rather than pasteurised milk; and says salt restriction is misguided because salt is needed for digestion and the nervous system.

Claim: "Beef does not cause colon cancer" — and "avoid processed luncheon meats"

In 2015 the World Health Organization's cancer agency (IARC) classified processed meat — ham, bacon, salami, hot dogs — as Group 1, "carcinogenic to humans", based mainly on colorectal cancer, and red meat as Group 2A, "probably carcinogenic", based on limited human evidence plus strong mechanistic evidence. The booklet's own Dietary Dangers list already says to avoid highly processed luncheon meats and sausage, so on processed meat it agrees with IARC. Its comparison of beef-eating countries and religious groups is the weakest kind of evidence: whole populations differ in hundreds of ways besides beef.

Verdicts: "Avoid processed meats" — Supported. "Beef does not cause colon cancer" — Debated (fresh red meat is "probably", not "definitely", linked). Evidence tier: expert review of cohort, case-control and mechanistic studies.

Claim: "Eggs are nature's perfect food; don't cut back"

Three large US cohorts of more than 215,000 health professionals, followed for up to 32 years, found that eating at least one egg a day was not linked to heart disease once other habits were accounted for. The same 2020 BMJ paper pooled 33 risk estimates from 1.7 million people: one extra egg a day did not raise cardiovascular risk (relative risk 0.98). Eggs are rich in choline, lutein, vitamin A and high-quality protein. See Eggs and the Cholesterol Myth.

Verdict: Supported for typical intakes up to about an egg a day. Evidence tier: large cohorts and meta-analysis. (The booklet's line that egg substitutes cause "rapid death in test animals" is an animal claim we could not verify.)

Claim: "Raw milk is better and should replace pasteurised milk"

Raw milk does keep some heat-sensitive enzymes and has a loyal following. The safety record is the problem. A CDC review of US dairy outbreaks from 1993 to 2006 found that unpasteurised products caused 60% of outbreaks with known pasteurisation status — 1,571 illnesses, 202 hospitalisations and 2 deaths — and about 150 times more outbreaks per unit of product consumed than pasteurised dairy. People under 20 were hit disproportionately. Pregnant women, babies, young children, older adults and anyone with weak immunity face the most serious outcomes from bacteria such as Listeria, E. coli O157 and Campylobacter. See Raw vs Pasteurized Milk.

Verdict: Not supported by current evidence as a safe default; whole, full-fat and fermented dairy (yogurt, kefir, aged cheese) give most of the benefits without the gamble. Evidence tier: national outbreak surveillance.

Claim: "Restricting salt is unnecessary"

The evidence here truly points two ways, so the honest answer depends on who you are.

Verdict: Partly supported. For healthy people with normal blood pressure, ordinary home-cooked salting (with unrefined salt, as the booklet suggests) is reasonable. For anyone with high blood pressure, a past stroke or kidney disease, cutting sodium and adding potassium is backed by trial evidence. Note that potassium salt substitutes are not safe for everyone with kidney disease — ask first. See Sodium and High Blood Pressure.

Back to Table of Contents

Vegetarian Diets and Vitamin B12

The booklet says "do not practise veganism", argues vegetarians do not live longer, and says vitamin B12 cannot be obtained from plants such as blue-green algae or fermented soy.

Claim: "Vegetarians do not live longer"

The booklet's death-rate figures come from an article on the Foundation's own website, which we could not check against a peer-reviewed source. The two largest studies give different answers:

Both groups studied were unusually health-conscious, which makes it hard to separate diet from lifestyle. Neither study shows a meat-including whole-food diet shortens life.

Verdict: Debated. Evidence tier: large cohorts.

Claim: "Vitamin B12 is not reliably available from plants"

This one holds up. B12 is made by microbes and concentrates in animal foods — liver, clams, fish, meat, eggs and dairy. Many algae and fermented products contain B12 look-alike compounds that the body cannot use, and a 2014 review of plant sources identified dried purple laver (nori) as the most suitable natural plant source currently known. In practice, vegans need fortified foods or a supplement, and untreated deficiency can cause anaemia and lasting nerve damage. See Vitamin B12.

Verdict: Supported. Evidence tier: nutrient analysis and clinical deficiency data.

Back to Table of Contents

Soy Foods and Soy Formula

The booklet's "Myths and Truths About Soy" list argues that traditional Asian diets used soy in small, fermented amounts (tempeh, natto, miso, tamari); that modern soy blocks minerals, slows protein digestion, depresses the thyroid and disrupts hormones; and that soy infant formula exposes babies to large doses of plant oestrogens. It also mentions a soy-ingredient manufacturer that withdrew a GRAS (generally recognised as safe) application for isoflavones. The booklet itself favours small amounts of traditionally fermented soy over soy protein isolates. This site, like the booklet, favours traditionally fermented foods, including fermented soy such as natto, miso and tempeh, and does not recommend unfermented or industrial soy products (tofu, soy milk, soy protein isolate, soybean oil, soy formula); the verdicts below are about the evidence for each claim. The question is how strong each warning is.

An evidence ladder with five rungs from cell studies at the bottom to a systematic review of human trials at the top, showing that most of the booklet's soy warnings rest on the lower rungs while the best human evidence on thyroid found little effect. WHERE EACH SOY CLAIM STANDS higher rung = stronger evidence in people REVIEW OF HUMAN TRIALS SMALL HUMAN STUDY COHORT (ASSOCIATION) ANIMAL STUDIES CELLS IN A DISH soy and thyroid in healthy, iodine-replete adults: 14 trials, little or no effect soy formula gives babies a high isoflavone dose: 7 infants, blood levels 13,000–22,000× their oestradiol tofu in midlife and later dementia: an observational link, not confirmed as a cause soy causes infertility, lowers libido: mostly animal findings, including marmoset monkeys isoflavones stimulate cancer cells: laboratory cell cultures a lower rung is a reason to study something, not proof that it happens in people

Claim: "Soy depresses thyroid function; 30 mg of isoflavones a day can cause hypothyroidism"

A 2006 review in the journal Thyroid looked at 14 human trials and found that, with one exception, soy foods or isoflavones caused no change or only very modest changes in thyroid function in healthy people with enough iodine. Two real cautions remain: soy can reduce absorption of thyroid hormone tablets, so people taking them may need a dose check (but need not avoid soy), and people with low iodine intake or a weak thyroid have a theoretical risk based on cell and animal work.

Verdict: Not supported by current evidence in healthy, iodine-replete adults; a fair caution for people on thyroid medication or low in iodine. Evidence tier: review of human trials.

Claim: "Soy formula is like birth control pills for babies"

The measurement behind this is real. In a 1997 Lancet study, Setchell and colleagues found that 4-month-old babies fed soy formula took in about 4.5–8.0 mg of isoflavones per kilogram of body weight a day, 6 to 11 times the dose that has hormonal effects in adults. In 7 soy-fed infants, blood isoflavone levels were 13,000 to 22,000 times higher than the babies' own oestradiol. (The booklet phrases this as compared with babies on milk formula; the paper's comparison was with oestradiol.) Whether that exposure changes puberty, fertility or behaviour later in life is not settled: the most worrying findings come from animals, and isoflavones are far weaker than human oestrogen.

Verdicts: "Soy formula gives babies a high isoflavone dose" — Supported. "It causes early puberty or disrupted development" — Debated. Breast milk is first choice; when formula is needed, a cow's-milk-based formula avoids the question. Evidence tier: small human measurement study; animal studies.

The other soy claims

Back to Table of Contents

Fluoride, Aluminium, Microwaves and Additives

The Dietary Dangers list tells readers not to drink fluoridated water, to avoid aluminium in salt, baking powder, antacids, cookware and deodorant, to avoid MSG and aspartame, to skip ultra-processed foods and refined sugar, and not to use a microwave.

Claim: "Do not drink fluoridated water"

This is a live public debate, and this site supports people's right to informed consent about what is added to their drinking water — see Fluoride: Consent and the Law. Here is what the evidence says on each side:

Verdict: Debated. The dental benefit in the toothpaste era is smaller than once thought, the IQ signal at higher exposures is serious, and the evidence at today's US level is uncertain. That combination is exactly why consent matters. This site's position, which is a stance on consent and not a study finding: community water fluoridation removes each person's informed consent over a dose of fluoride, and we support ending it on informed-consent grounds while the evidence on neurodevelopment at higher exposures is reviewed. People who want to lower intake can use a reverse-osmosis filter; fluoride toothpaste (spat out, not swallowed) remains a separate, topical choice.

Claim: "Avoid ultra-processed foods and refined sweeteners"

Strongly backed. In a 2019 NIH inpatient trial, 20 adults ate either an ultra-processed or an unprocessed diet for two weeks each, with meals matched for calories offered, sugar, salt, fat and fibre. On the ultra-processed diet they ate about 508 more calories a day and gained about 0.9 kg; on the unprocessed diet they lost about the same. Verdict: Supported. Evidence tier: randomised controlled feeding trial.

Claims about aluminium, MSG, aspartame and microwaves

Back to Table of Contents

Root Canals and Amalgam Fillings

The booklet's "Principles of Holistic Dentistry" recommend avoiding root canals and having existing ones removed if they are suspected of causing disease, avoiding mercury (amalgam) fillings, widening the palate in orthodontics, and extracting teeth in a way that avoids leaving infected cavities in the jawbone.

Claim: "Root-canal-treated teeth cause disease elsewhere in the body; remove them"

History. The idea comes from the early-twentieth-century "focal infection" theory: that a hidden infection in a tooth seeds disease in distant organs. Price's dental volumes were among the major works of that era. The theory led to many extractions, and it fell out of favour in the following decades when later research did not confirm that removing teeth cured systemic illness.

Modern evidence. Today's research looks at apical periodontitis — chronic infection at the tip of a tooth root, whether or not the tooth has had a root canal. A 2022 meta-analysis of 15 observational studies found a weak link with cardiovascular disease in cross-sectional studies (odds ratio 1.53), but no significant link in the case-control or the two cohort studies, and warned that results were inconsistent. This is an association, and it concerns untreated or failed infection, not successful root canals. No trial has shown that removing root-canal-treated teeth improves heart disease, arthritis or any other systemic illness, while extraction carries its own costs: bone loss, shifting teeth, and the expense and surgery of implants or bridges.

Verdict: Not supported by current evidence. The sound core of the advice is to treat oral infection rather than ignore it — which a well-done root canal or an extraction can both achieve. Make that choice tooth by tooth with a dentist. Evidence tier: historical theory; observational studies (association).

Claim: "Avoid amalgam fillings; have them removed"

Amalgam is about 50% elemental mercury and gives off small amounts of mercury vapour. Two randomised trials published together in JAMA in 2006 tested this in children:

In September 2020, however, the US FDA recommended that people at higher risk — pregnant women and those planning pregnancy, nursing mothers and infants, children under six, people with neurological disease or impaired kidney function, and people sensitive to mercury — receive non-mercury fillings where appropriate. The FDA also advised against removing intact amalgam fillings in good condition, because drilling them out briefly raises mercury exposure and removes healthy tooth.

Verdict: Partly supported. Choosing non-mercury materials for new fillings, especially in high-risk groups, is consistent with FDA advice; routinely removing sound fillings is not. See Mercury. Evidence tier: randomised trials in children; regulatory review.

Back to Table of Contents

What This Means for Your Plate

Put together, the booklet's big food principles — whole foods, no trans fats, no ultra-processed foods, eggs and nutrient-dense animal foods, properly prepared grains and legumes — hold up well (the booklet, like this site, favours traditionally fermented foods, including fermented soy such as natto, miso and tempeh, and does not recommend unfermented or industrial soy). Where it runs into trouble is in some of its stronger "myths and truths" claims and in a few safety areas. The scorecard below sums up 18 headline claims from this page.

A scorecard of eighteen claims from the booklet, each given a coloured verdict: six supported, five partly supported, three debated and four not supported by current evidence. THE BOOKLET'S CLAIMS, SCORED 18 headline claims from this page · human evidence only SUPPORTEDSUPPORTEDSUPPORTED SUPPORTEDSUPPORTEDSUPPORTED PARTLYPARTLYPARTLY avoid trans (hydrogenated) fats avoid ultra-processed foods avoid processed meats eggs are fine to eat daily B12 does not come reliably from plants low-fat diet won't prevent breast cancer saturated fat is harmless to the heart cholesterol under 180 raises death rates low-fat diets stunt children's growth PARTLYPARTLY DEBATEDDEBATEDDEBATED NOT SUPPORTEDNOT SUPPORTED NOT SUPPORTEDNOT SUPPORTED salt restriction is unnecessary avoid amalgam fillings coconut oil is heart-safe vegetarians do not live longer do not drink fluoridated water seed oils cause heart disease, cancer soy causes hypothyroidism raw milk is safe to drink root canals cause body-wide disease each section above gives the study, the tier and the nuance behind its verdict

Safe to follow as written

Modify before following

Ready to start? Getting Started turns the principles into a shopping list and a 7-day menu.

Back to Table of Contents

Key Research Papers

  1. Hooper L, Martin N, Jimoh OF, et al. (2020). Reduction in saturated fat intake for cardiovascular disease. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. — PubMed PMID: 32827219
  2. Jacobs D, Blackburn H, Higgins M, et al. (1992). Report of the Conference on Low Blood Cholesterol: Mortality Associations. Circulation. — PubMed PMID: 1355411
  3. Johannesen CDL, Langsted A, Mortensen MB, Nordestgaard BG (2020). Association between low density lipoprotein and all cause and cause specific mortality in Denmark: prospective cohort study. BMJ. — PubMed PMID: 33293274
  4. Felton CV, Crook D, Davies MJ, Oliver MF (1994). Dietary polyunsaturated fatty acids and composition of human aortic plaques. The Lancet. — PubMed PMID: 7934543
  5. Bouvard V, Loomis D, Guyton KZ, et al. (2015). Carcinogenicity of consumption of red and processed meat. The Lancet Oncology. — PubMed PMID: 26514947
  6. Drouin-Chartier JP, Chen S, Li Y, et al. (2020). Egg consumption and risk of cardiovascular disease: three large prospective US cohort studies, systematic review, and updated meta-analysis. BMJ. — PubMed PMID: 32132002
  7. O'Donnell M, Mente A, Rangarajan S, et al. (2014). Urinary sodium and potassium excretion, mortality, and cardiovascular events. New England Journal of Medicine. — PubMed PMID: 25119607
  8. Neal B, Wu Y, Feng X, et al. (2021). Effect of Salt Substitution on Cardiovascular Events and Death. New England Journal of Medicine. — PubMed PMID: 34459569
  9. Orlich MJ, Singh PN, Sabaté J, et al. (2013). Vegetarian dietary patterns and mortality in Adventist Health Study 2. JAMA Internal Medicine. — PubMed PMID: 23836264
  10. Appleby PN, Crowe FL, Bradbury KE, Travis RC, Key TJ (2016). Mortality in vegetarians and comparable nonvegetarians in the United Kingdom. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. — PubMed PMID: 26657045
  11. Setchell KD, Zimmer-Nechemias L, Cai J, Heubi JE (1997). Exposure of infants to phyto-oestrogens from soy-based infant formula. The Lancet. — PubMed PMID: 9217716
  12. Messina M, Redmond G (2006). Effects of soy protein and soybean isoflavones on thyroid function in healthy adults and hypothyroid patients: a review of the relevant literature. Thyroid. — PubMed PMID: 16571087
  13. Taylor KW, Eftim SE, Sibrizzi CA, et al. (2025). Fluoride Exposure and Children's IQ Scores: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. JAMA Pediatrics. — PubMed PMID: 39761023
  14. Bellinger DC, Trachtenberg F, Barregard L, et al. (2006). Neuropsychological and renal effects of dental amalgam in children: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA. — PubMed PMID: 16622139

Further Studies Discussed Above

  1. Hulley SB, Walsh JM, Newman TB (1992). Health policy on blood cholesterol. Time to change directions. Circulation. — PubMed PMID: 1516172
  2. Mozaffarian D, Katan MB, Ascherio A, Stampfer MJ, Willett WC (2006). Trans fatty acids and cardiovascular disease. New England Journal of Medicine. — PubMed PMID: 16611951
  3. Neelakantan N, Seah JYH, van Dam RM (2020). The Effect of Coconut Oil Consumption on Cardiovascular Risk Factors: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Clinical Trials. Circulation. — PubMed PMID: 31928080
  4. Lifshitz F, Moses N (1989). Growth failure. A complication of dietary treatment of hypercholesterolemia. American Journal of Diseases of Children. — PubMed PMID: 2718985
  5. The Writing Group for the DISC Collaborative Research Group (1995). Efficacy and safety of lowering dietary intake of fat and cholesterol in children with elevated low-density lipoprotein cholesterol: the Dietary Intervention Study in Children (DISC). JAMA. — PubMed PMID: 7723156
  6. Prentice RL, Caan B, Chlebowski RT, et al. (2006). Low-fat dietary pattern and risk of invasive breast cancer: the Women's Health Initiative Randomized Controlled Dietary Modification Trial. JAMA. — PubMed PMID: 16467232
  7. Langer AJ, Ayers T, Grass J, et al. (2012). Nonpasteurized dairy products, disease outbreaks, and state laws – United States, 1993–2006. Emerging Infectious Diseases. — PubMed PMID: 22377202
  8. Sharpe RM, Martin B, Morris K, Greig I, McKinnell C, McNeilly AS, Walker M (2002). Infant feeding with soy formula milk: effects on the testis and on blood testosterone levels in marmoset monkeys during the period of neonatal testicular activity. Human Reproduction. — PubMed PMID: 12093826
  9. Tan KA, Walker M, Morris K, Greig I, Mason JI, Sharpe RM (2006). Infant feeding with soy formula milk: effects on puberty progression, reproductive function and testicular cell numbers in marmoset monkeys in adulthood. Human Reproduction. — PubMed PMID: 16476680
  10. White LR, Petrovitch H, Ross GW, Masaki K, Hardman J, Nelson J, Davis D, Markesbery W (2000). Brain aging and midlife tofu consumption. Journal of the American College of Nutrition. — PubMed PMID: 10763906
  11. Watanabe F, Yabuta Y, Bito T, Teng F (2014). Vitamin B12-containing plant food sources for vegetarians. Nutrients. — PubMed PMID: 24803097
  12. Iheozor-Ejiofor Z, Walsh T, Lewis SR, et al. (2024). Water fluoridation for the prevention of dental caries. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. — PubMed PMID: 39362658
  13. Hall KD, Ayuketah A, Brychta R, et al. (2019). Ultra-Processed Diets Cause Excess Calorie Intake and Weight Gain: An Inpatient Randomized Controlled Trial of Ad Libitum Food Intake. Cell Metabolism. — PubMed PMID: 31105044
  14. Noites R, Teixeira M, Cavero-Redondo I, et al. (2022). Apical Periodontitis and Cardiovascular Disease in Adults: A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis. Reviews in Cardiovascular Medicine. — PubMed PMID: 35345267
  15. DeRouen TA, Martin MD, Leroux BG, et al. (2006). Neurobehavioral effects of dental amalgam in children: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA. — PubMed PMID: 16622140
  16. National Toxicology Program (2024). NTP Monograph on the State of the Science Concerning Fluoride Exposure and Neurodevelopment and Cognition. — NTP fluoride assessment
  17. U.S. Food and Drug Administration (2020). FDA issues recommendations for certain high-risk groups regarding mercury-containing dental amalgam. — FDA announcement, September 24, 2020

PubMed Topic Searches

  1. PubMed: Saturated fat and cardiovascular disease trials
  2. PubMed: Soy formula and isoflavone safety
  3. PubMed: Fluoride exposure and children's IQ

Back to Table of Contents

Connections

Back to Table of Contents