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.
Therefore I am inclined to wonder just how significant the data on the
inuit fossils is -- just what it looks like compared to other primitive
humans, just how compelling the thinning is (to make a fictional number up,
5% difference in Bone Mineral Density would probably be statistically
significant but would not be particularly compelling), and so on.

As I say, I do need to read the references.  This may be very important
data and I may be wrong about everything.  (A reminder we all need to hear
fairly often I think.)