>>>1. One study of the Eskimos has showed them to have high rates of
>osteoporosis. [See Mazess RB, Mather W (1974) "Bone mineral content of
>North Alaskan Eskimos." American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, vol. 27,
>no. 9 (Sept. 1974), pp. 916-925.] This is a study I have looked at myself,
>and although it has been awhile since I've seen it, I believe this study
>>>was of Eskimos prior to acculturation, eating their traditional diet.
>
>But this incidence is long after the Inuit had adopted the Western diet,
>rich in sugar and laden with cereal grain.
>
>I agree that the Inuit and Native populations warrant serious study. But
>that examination has to be grounded in a historical understanding that
>separates the sequelae  of Euorpean eating habits from the results of a
>traditional diet.
>
>I hope this doesn't sound harsh. It is late.

Not at all, Ron. This is very interesting hear. I had wondered why no one
had commented on the information from this study which I had thought was
one of the better-known ones. It's not how I remembered the study depicting
their diet, but then I may well have assumed too much.

Would it be too much to ask of you, when you have time, to post references
for the studies or reviews of evidence of the Eskimo population that you
know of that you believe looked at them before their acquisition of Western
habits? (Or perhaps Ray Audette can, since I know based on what he has said
here on the list before that he seems to have studied traditional accounts
of the Eskimo more than most, or at least Stefansson's exploits.)

One thing that has been bothering me lately on the list, and my reason for
posting the refs to the above study (plus Lee Hitchcox's) is there are an
awful lot of flat unequivocal assertions being made right and left on both
sides of issues with no references given, when arguments get going, even by
individuals who are normally much better about backing up what they say.
Not that I would want to require posting of refs on every subject all the
time, because I know all too well how much time it can sometimes take, and
discussion might grind close to a halt otherwise (like it has on the
Paleodiet list), but on this particular subject given the controversy that
has long surrounded the Eskimo, I would think it would be more incumbent on
us to post a few more references. The Eskimos often seem to be a lightning
rod for pushing people's buttons and causing them to polarize their
position (pun intended) in unreasonable ways when they are not constrained
by the need to post refs for the source of their position.

>I hold both your writing, and your open-mindedness in high regard, Ward. I
>just wanted to point out what I view as a fatal flaw in this work,
>especially in Hitchcox and Ho.

I very much appreciate the corrections, Ron. When I have some time, I will
try to revisit the study, and the additional Hitchcox refs to see if I
indeed overlooked something, or if in fact the researchers just failed to
mention or weren't cognizant of what you relate. In any event, this is
exciting info that if true changes my viewpoint yet again. This is what I
find so interesting about hearing all the different viewpoints here. Sooner
or later the truth will out.

Paul Getty writes:

>I keep reading on this list about how perfectly healthy the eskimos were
>when they ate almost no plant foods.  How do we know that if we need to go
>back before the 1920's?  Were there studies of their cholesterol count or
>triglycerides or insulin levels. It is stated over and over again that
>people >who ate only meat were so much healthier than people who ate
>mostly plant >foods, but I'm skeptical.

I have to say that while I am a Paleodiet enthusiast through and through, I
still remain somewhat skeptical as well that the Eskimos are a perfect
example of health on a >90% meat diet, not because I do not believe it is
possible, but because the extreme nature of their diet compared to the
Paleolithic norm throws up a red flag for me. Also, I will repeat from an
earlier post that the Arctic was not colonized till I believe roughly 2000
years ago or so (again, someone please correct this if wrong, I don't have
references right at hand on this) maybe 4,000 at the outside, which hasn't
given them much time to adapt to their regime. On the other hand, I know
Loren Cordain has said that conditions in Ice Age Europe and Asia (from
115,000 to 10-15,000 years ago, roughly) for homo in northern latitudes may
have been very similar to today's Arctic, so it may be it is really not so
great a variation on late Paleolithic diets after all. Also one thing about
the Eskimos' dietary deviances from the Paleolithic norm as compared  to
Neolithic agricultural deviations is that the Eskimo aren't eating foods
that were never eaten before about 10,000 years ago (like grains), it is
more a matter of the balance of known foods shifting to an extreme.

It's not that I am not open to believing the Eskimo are shining examples of
health if sufficient evidence is presented, but that's just the problem: We
keep hearing people state this over and over again on the listgroup here
without references given, or little in the way of backup explanation. I am
getting of tired of all the flat assertions. What about lifespan for
instance? It is supposed to be shorter than average from what I know. Can
people provide some references as to why? Is it just trauma, the extremes
of the polar climate that are responsible, etc., such that if you factored
these things out they would be as long-lived as everyone else? Or was
lifespan longer pre-1900 or pre-1920 or whenever it was they started their
love affair with flour? What about the claims by Lee Hitchcox that the
Eskimo bruise easily, have a greater tendency to form blood clots, have a
high rate of hemmorhagic stroke? It sounds like from what you are saying,
Ron, that this is just an artifact of researchers overlooking all the flour
in their diets.

But since there is still doubt in my mind, I would like to see specific
point-by-point refutations of the above concerns to help eradicate the
doubt that remains, and which will probably continue to remain for me,
until someone here can explode them with detailed, substantiated
counterpoint. I would very much look forward to posting of this kind of
info. Thanks in advance to whoever will take the time to present a
convincing argument linked to an array of referenced evidence.

--Ward Nicholson <[log in to unmask]>