Dean writes:

>Well certainly I may be dismissing something I shouldn't be.  But again,
>multiple sources who lived among the Inuit around the turn of the century
>describe the eskimos invariably as a hearty, strong, upright people, with
>zero incidence of rickets and none of the stoopedness and late-life
>deformity that are so common among people who suffer from severe calcium
>deficiency.  All research on high meat intake to date has -failed- to show
>that it induces calcium loss--only plant proteins have this effect.

One thing I was remiss in not making clear before is that I am not
necessarily implying super-high levels of meat in the diet are problematic
in and of themselves. I'm not focusing on, nor arguing that point. Rather,
I am suggesting--actually just wondering--if the *lack* of much *plant*
food (and some kind of "factor" or effect thereof) might possibly be
problematic in diets like the Inuit's. I really have no idea; however, as I
mentioned the other day, the fact their diet is (or rather *was* before
cultural assimilation into the mainstream) at a polar extreme from the
Paleolithic "average," as currently reconstructed by the bulk of the
evidence available, gives me cause at least to *wonder*--in somewhat the
same way we have previously looked at the disparity of Neolithic diets from
the Paleolithic average as a red flag.

Of course since low levels of plant food in a Paleolithic-character diet
would automatically mean the slack would be taken up by animal flesh, I'm
not sure how you would tease these factors apart. I do think it is worth
looking into, however, just in the interest of making sure we are not too
glibly overlooking something.

Also, I think Paul Getty made a good point the other day in saying that
many if not most of the biological and physiological measurements we use
today to determine health status to a more precise degree simply could not
have been made of the Inuit 100 years ago, since the technology was not
available. Since remaining hunter-gatherer tribes are disappearing by the
year, we often do not have much choice but to go by the accounts of
observers decades ago. However, sometimes I get to wondering if these types
of accounts might not get tripped up from time to time by the "absence of
evidence is not evidence of absence" bugaboo. "Healthy appearance" can
sometimes be deceptive without objective measurements. (I know this all too
well from having been in contact with vegetarians supposed to be the
spitting image of health, only to hear later about blood tests coming back
in with evidence to the contrary.) That's part of my point here.

I suppose at this late date, archaeological evidence will now be the only
way we will ever be able to "go back" and assess some of these
hunter-gatherer group's health status more precisely at the biological
level, should archaeological assaying techniques ever develop to a
sophisticated enough to degree. It just seems a little too easy to me to
rely on decades-old personal accounts as the final word on the Eskimo, when
we wouldn't brook that as hard-clad scientific evidence on other questions.

Also, and this is a bit off the subject perhaps, but I am interested in
"the Eskimo thing" not just for what the ultimate answer turns out to be,
but just as much because of the psychological and behavioral issues that
surround it. For me, subliminal psychological issues often raise warning
flags. For example, it is interesting to note how the Eskimos have come to
have this huge legendary cultural status--among people of widely *varying*
opinions--and everyone wants to use them as the spoiler that proves their
point. I mean, it's almost comical at times, it's such a bandwagon. They
have almost come to serve as a big Rorschach blot for anyone with an
opinion about food or human nature or what-have-you to project an opinion
onto. Hang around long enough when the subject is food and health, and
someone is sure to bring up the Eskimo to prove their point no matter what
they believe.

I just think it odd that the bulk of the evidence shows homo to be an
omnivore, and we are plenty willing here to question the wisdom and dig for
studies of those attempting an all-vegetarian diet, but not so inquisitive
when it comes to an equal degree of critical scrutiny of the other extreme.
I have to wonder if most people with a pro-meat view just sort of breathe
easy about it , and don't really bother about having to take the question
too seriously or critically, because traditional Eskimos are all dead and
gone now, and there's little chance we will be able to get blood tests on
them any time soon. Then again, perhaps the behavior is more because some
of us (including myself) were vegetarians in times past, and we are now so
gung-ho for meat, we are swinging to the other extreme. I don't know, but
the behavioral elements in all this hullabaloo over the Eskimos are
entertaining at least. :-)

--Ward Nicholson <[log in to unmask]> Wichita, KS