Wed, 23 Jul 1997 09:01:04 -0500, Ward Nicholson <[log in to unmask]> said:


>Dean Esmay writes of Staffan's 2 refs on compression fractures and thinned
>bone cortices in archaeological Eskimo skeletons:
(snip)

But maybe there is a simpler answer. This may be a reach, as it is well
outside my field, but here goes:
 Porotic hyperostosis is excessive and  weak growth of the bone cortex,
which is symptomatic of iron deficiency anemia. Because of the large
quantities of iron in
meat, it does seem reasonable to investigate the possibility that cortical
thinning  might be the result of excessive iron in the diet. I will try to
do some reading on the subject this weekend.

>
>Dean, not to be contrary here but in the spirit of stimulating open
>investigation, are you sure your first impulse here isn't to try to find
>*insignificance* in the data rather than look for significance of the
>possible evidence? (Of course, I realize it's hard to evaluate it without
>actually seeing the studies yet.) That compression fractures may be common
>amongst us moderns--unless perhaps we have eaten Paleolithic diets for
>quite some time--given one would think our skeletons would probably be
>likely to be much lower than of average strength compared to earlier
>Paleolithic peoples, doesn't seem to me like much of an indictment against
>the evidence. Just wanting to stimulate some digging here. Other than your
>comments, I see Staffan's references have not exactly provoked a flurry of
>inquisitiveness that might call prevailing views here into question.

But it takes time to think about and check references. I still need to
refer back to the Hitchcox and Ho article, from a discussion several days
ago. The list lengthens. :-)


> As you
>suggested, we would need to look at the incidence of these compression
>fractures and thinned cortices in other hunter-gatherers to provide a more
>fair control group to compare against.

I think this is one of the hazards of selecting an extreme group.
Staffanson concedes that it is not possible to determine the longevity of
the Eskimo when on a traditional diet. Records were not kept.

What is of interest to me is the avid nature of their adopting cereal
grains. Some would point to the insulin highs, and suggest that the
manipulations of blood sugar were at the root of the Eskimo's enthusiasm
about the European diet. Perhaps.

But what if their avid interest is due to a psychoactive potential in these
foods? And what could we reasonably expect, if this group did demonstrate
an inordinate appreciation of the alteration of brain chemistry? We could
expect an addictive consumption of such foods. We could expect a very high
incidence of autoimmunity. We could expect dramatic rates of chronic
depression, learning disabilities, hyperactivity, and mental illness. We
could expect a propensity for alcohol and substance abuse.

I view the Maori, Austrailian Aboriginals, and North American Natives,
especially Inuits, as demonstrating exactly the kind of problems which were
demonstrated in earlier European adoption of glutenous grains in their
diets. This would explain the decrease, over time, of HLA B8 in Europeans,
as reflected the period of exposure to dietary grain consumption (Simoons).

I have been criticized for this view, with the suggestion that the genes of
the encroaching agriculturists supplanted those of the hunter-gatherer
culture. How then, can one justify the stability of the European Rh-
factor, through this same period of transition? (Simoons again) The counter
argument isn't supported by the facts.



best wishes,
Ron