Mime-Version: |
1.0 |
Sender: |
|
Subject: |
|
From: |
|
Date: |
Wed, 23 Jul 1997 14:46:53 -0400 |
In-Reply-To: |
|
Content-Type: |
text/plain; charset="us-ascii" |
Reply-To: |
|
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
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.)
|
|
|