Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Stats Science

"Eskimo Diet" Lacks Support For Better Cardiovascular Health 166

Posted by timothy
from the quit-your-blubbering-and-eat-this-wheat-germ dept.
jones_supa (887896) writes Monthly Prescribing Reference reports that the "Eskimo diet" hypothesis, suggested as a factor in the alleged low incidence of coronary artery disease (CAD) in Greenland Eskimos, seems not to be supported in the literature, according to a metastudy published in the Canadian Journal of Cardiology (abstract). Researchers found that only one study directly assessed the prevalence of CAD or CAD risk factors, and that study showed that CAD morbidity was similar among Inuit and American and European populations. In most studies, the prevalence of CAD was similar for Greenland Eskimos and Canadian and Alaskan Inuit and for non-Eskimo populations. The original studies from the 1970s that formed the basis of the supposed cardioprotective effect of the Eskimo diet did not examine the prevalence of CAD. "The totality of reviewed evidence leads us to the conclusion that Eskimos have a similar prevalence of CAD as non-Eskimo populations," the authors write. "To date, more than 5,000 papers have been published studying the alleged beneficial properties of omega-3 fatty acids not to mention the billion dollar industry producing and selling fish oil capsules based on a hypothesis that was questionable from the beginning."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

"Eskimo Diet" Lacks Support For Better Cardiovascular Health

Comments Filter:
  • Isn't that a fairly racist term? I thought the prefered nomenclature is Inuit or Aleut.
    • by Anonymous Coward

      from wikipedia
      The primary reason that the peoples consider Eskimo derogatory is the questionable but widespread perception[10][13][14][15] that in Algonkian languages it means "eaters of raw meat."[1][16][17] One Cree speaker suggested the original word that became corrupted to Eskimo might indeed have been askamiciw (which means "he eats it raw"), and the Inuit are referred to in some Cree texts as askipiw (which means "eats something raw").[16][18][19][20]

      So I guess in this context it is not racist.

    • Re:Eskimo?! (Score:5, Informative)

      by buchner.johannes (1139593) on Sunday June 15, 2014 @05:04AM (#47239611) Homepage Journal

      Some Inuit in Canada and Greenland object very strongly, which is as good a reason as we need not to do it.

      This whole topic is a bit of minefield, it's fair to say. We can initially divide the Eskimo/Aleut people into three - the Inuit, the Unangax (Aleut), and the Yupik.

      The Unangax of the Aleutian Islands don't care to be called Inuit or Eskimo. They see themselves as distinct from Eskimos and don't mind being described as Native Americans; other Eskimo/Aleut people don't identify as being such. The Unangax are easily distinguished by their language (many borrowings from Russian, including the system of verb inflexions) and their religion (most are Russian Orthodox).

      The Yupik have no objection to being called Eskimos, and will use that term to encompass both themselves and the Inuit. The main groupings within the Yupik are the Alutiiq of the coast, the Yuit or Siberian Yupik, and the Yup'ik of Central Alaska.

      Then we come to the Inuit. The two largest groupings are the Canadian Inuit and the Kalallit or Greenland Inuit, both of which would prefer you not to call them Eskimos. (The Greenlanders are happy with Inuit to mean both themselves and the Canadians.) Ethnically speaking, two smaller groupings - the Iñupiat of the North Slope and the Inuvialuit of the Western Arctic - are also Inuit, although the Iñupiat would rather be described as Eskimo.

      I said it got confusing ...

      by "suze", from http://old.qi.com/talk/viewtop... [qi.com]
      further in http://old.qi.com/talk/viewtop... [qi.com]

      The word "Eskimo" is non-PC in Canada, much as it's fine in Alaska. The particular indigenous person of the north who was featured on QI was a Yupi'ik from Alaska - Sarah Palin's husband is one of those as well - and hence "Eskimo" rather than "Inuit" is the term to use. The plural of Yup'ik is Yupiit.

      Had the person been an Aleut, then again "Eskimo" might have caused offence. The Aleut are very sure that they are not Eskimos; while they don't object to "Aleut", they prefer one Unangax, two Unangax, three or more Unangan. (Note that most of the Eskimo-Aleut languages have what's called a dual number; this comes between singular and plural and is used when there are two of something. It's rare in European languages; Slovenian and Sorbian have it, and it's on the point of vanishing from Lithuanian.)

      The indigenous people of Baffin Island and such like places absolutely are Inuit, although "an Inuit" or "lots of Inuits" are always going to be wrong since "Inuit" is the plural. One Inuk, two Inuuk, three or more Inuit.

      While the people of the central Arctic would prefer Inuinnaq to Inuit, they won't get especially upset at the more general word. As for indigenous Greenlanders, the preferred term is Kalaallit, singular Kalaaleq. (There's no dual in Greenlandic.)

      Wikipedia is not informative on why/where it is considered offensive. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] But it has a nice map of the tribes.

      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        Alaskas perspective: http://www.uaf.edu/anlc/resour... [uaf.edu]

        Although the name "Eskimo" is commonly used in Alaska to refer to all Inuit and Yupik people of the world, this name is considered derogatory in many other places because it was given by non-Inuit people and was said to mean "eater of raw meat."

        Linguists now believe that "Eskimo" is derived from an Ojibwa word meaning "to net snowshoes." However, the people of Canada and Greenland prefer other names. "Inuit," meaning "people," is used in most of Canada,

        • Well of course they never considered themselves a group. The indians were also never a single group.

          When you do not know about the larger world and are ignorant of people wildly different from you you self divided into groups based on smaller differences.

          It does not matter that Eskimo people never considered themselves one people, now that they have been catalogued, they need one.

        • by Belial6 (794905)
          If we were going to get all hyper PC (and they were white), "Inuit" would be called a racist name. After all, if Inuit means "people", then being non-Inuit would mean non-people. Now, obviously this is ridiculous, but it does point out how ridiculous PC mentality can get.
      • by bitt3n (941736)

        Wikipedia is not informative on why/where it is considered offensive.

        The sad thing is, even in Canada many people don't realize how hurtful the "eskimo" epithet can be. To help spread awareness of the issue, I'm planning on partnering with my friend Dan Snyder to launch a public outreach program by buying the offensively ungrammatical Toronto Maple Leafs and rechristening them the Eskimos. Before every ice-hockey bout, we'll have a bunch of skating clowns attired in traditional garb and armed with harpoons chase down our mascot, Eskimodo the humpbacked whale, which should no

        • by PPH (736903)

          The sad thing is, even in Canada many people don't realize how hurtful the "eskimo" epithet can be.

          The politically correct reference in Canada seems to be 'First Nation'. That gets around upsetting one group by referring to them with the name of another.

          • by horigath (649078)

            No, “First Nations” does not refer to Inuit peoples, nor does it refer to the Metis. These three groups collectively make up what are called Aboriginal peoples in Canada by the constitution act of 1982. The other broad term you might use if you are not sure about, or are talking about several sub-categories or nations, is indigenous people(s). Or you know, just ask people how they want to be referred to.

            "Indian" still has weight as a legal term in Canada because it is the word that was generally

    • Interestingly enough, using the term "Inuit" to refer to a single group of people is racist, since "Inuit" translates as "people". If you refer to one group as "people" you are in essence saying no one else is a person.
  • half the arguments people use in support of wacky theories like the paleo diet. Or theories like carbohydrates causing heart disease independent of body weight.

    Amazingly, a single study counts when it does support their claims, but when it doesn't, you could point them to a thousand studies and they'd just say it's a global medical conspiracy.

    • by Anonymous Coward

      The big change in western diets, where fat was demonised and everyone started stuffing themselves with vast amounts of carbohydrates, happened in the mid-80s.

      So comparisons with western diets from the 70s has no relevance to modern diets. The fact they made that comparison suggests they are either rather stupid, or are being deceptive.

      • by mpe (36238)
        The big change in western diets, where fat was demonised and everyone started stuffing themselves with vast amounts of carbohydrates, happened in the mid-80s.
        So comparisons with western diets from the 70s has no relevance to modern diets.


        The craze actually started in 1977 in the US. Another part of the Low Fat, (very) High Sugars (primarily glucose) diet is the idea that unsaturated fatty acids are somehow better than saturated fatty acids. Which may well be where the omega-3 comes from.
        Another possible f
      • The biggest change happened in late 1800's / early 1900's when refined sugar and bleached flour became widely available. There are a bunch of interesting studies when native groups who ate traditional diets transitioned to high refined carb diets. http://ajcn.nutrition.org/cont... [nutrition.org]
    • Here is the article:
      http://ottawa.ctvnews.ca/polop... [ctvnews.ca]

    • The key is you have to live like the Eskimo/Innuit/PC-Word-of-the-day or the paleolith in order for these diets to work. ie. spend the bulk of your time outdoors, tracking, hunting, fishing, gathering fuel regardless of the weather. In reality, it is probably the overall and pervasive physical activity that makes these work rather than the nutrient mix of the food.
    • by gweihir (88907)

      These are not people that understand science. They think it is a big shopping-mall where they can chose what they like and ignore anything they do not like.

    • by JeffAtl (1737988)

      Meta-studies rarely have any scientific validity though.

  • by hazem (472289) on Sunday June 15, 2014 @04:35AM (#47239569) Journal

    A diet with all its componets is very different than supplement pills.

    My guess (without reading 5000 papers) is that if there is some kind of benefit from an "Eskimo diet" it would be from it being devoid of flour and sugar, and generally low in carbohydrates and industrially processed polyunsaturated fats.

    My personal experience is that by focusing on eating natural sources of fats and eliminating most carbohydrates (especially refined carbohydrates) for the last 8 months, I've lost a lot of exceess fat (60 pounds so far) and gained enough excess energy that I'm now regularly running in 5ks and even started competing in triathlons.

    I take vitamins because they are relatively cheap, but I'm not sure I see the point of fish-oil capsules, especially with the bad breath and indigestion that comes with them.

    As for CAD risk, I'm not sure. But by adopting a low-carb/high-fat diet (LCHF or "keto"), my cholesterol numbers (for what they're worth) have improved dramatically. My HDL is higher by a few points and my triglycerides are lower by more than 20 points, compared to when I used to be on a statin.

    • How do you know it's because you're consuming less carbohydrates, rather than just because you're consuming fewer calories?

      • by hazem (472289) on Sunday June 15, 2014 @05:04AM (#47239613) Journal

        That's a good question.

        In the past, I've tried to merely restrict calories and eat what the food pyramid recommends... plenty of "healthy whole grains" and limiting fats. I lost a tiny bit of weight and was miserable and hungry - and my cholesterol numbers actually got worse. I went to the gym every day but was tired and listless mosf of the time. And as soon as I eased up, I gained even more weight (over the equilibrium weight I was at before starting the calorie restriction).

        If you look at how metabolism works, fructose is only processed in the liver and the result is serum triglycerides. Dietary fats, however (at least as I understand it) are quickly taken up by chylomicrons and delivered to cells throughout the body, so they don't contribute much to trigylcerides as measured in the standard lipid panel. This is at least how I undersand it.

        My personal experience is just an n=1, but within the low-carb community, the predictions were that by adopting a an LCHF diet, I would lose weight, not be hungry but eat less, feel more energetic, and that my lipid panels would improve. I've found all of these things happened, as well as odd little things like no longer having indigestion and just having a desire to exercise and be more active.

        Do I KNOW this is from an LCHF way of eating? Not with absolute certainty, of course. But my experiences match the predictions and when I do endulge in a large amount of carbohydrates, I tend to feel not-so-great for a couple days.

        Frankly, I'm just thankful to have found a way of eating that allows me to lose the weight I've carried for decades while allowing me to be more energetic, and with all that, not suffer from hunger or feelings of deprivation. A year ago, I had conceded to my best friend that I would always be fat but I could at least be active and fat (I was already bike-commuting and hiking). But after a mere 8 months of this way of eating... eating "as much as I feel like eating", I now weigh less than I have in almost 2 decades and I've started racing (albiet slowly) in 5Ks and triathlons. And note, I adopted the diet and started losing weight (about 30 pounds) before I started any of the running.

        Maybe it's a "fad diet", I just eat like diabetics were told to eat in the early 1900s (https://archive.org/details/diabeticcookeryr00oppeiala) and how like most people were told to eat to lose weight until the 1960s or so. It's essentially "meat, eggs, and green veg" but avoid sugars and starches and most fruits. And I've never felt so good as an adult.

        So my n=1 is not "science" and maybe it's all placebo, but if so, it's a pretty darned good placebo. I'm down 60 pounds I never thought I could lose and doing crazy things like triathlons, which were also unimaginable, even a year ago.

        • The issue with n=1s is that they can always be contradicted. For example, I'm almost the opposite of you.

          I'm male. I'm 5'9" and weigh 118-120 lbs. I eat mostly bread and vegetables, rice, potatoes, with some meat and fruit. I can't stand most fat (most fatty acids taste like something rotting to me) and so I tend to have a very low fat intake. HCLF, effectively. I tend not to feel hunger much, so I use alarms to remind me when to eat. I'm active, I have stamina, and my biggest problem is keeping away from b
          • "I'm male. I'm 5'9" and weigh 118-120 lbs. I eat mostly bread and vegetables, rice, potatoes, with some meat and fruit. I can't stand most fat (most fatty acids taste like something rotting to me) and so I tend to have a very low fat intake. HCLF, effectively. I tend not to feel hunger much, so I use alarms to remind me when to eat."
            Are you about 25 years old and living in Europe? :)

      • How do you know it's because you're consuming less carbohydrates, rather than just because you're consuming fewer calories?

        These are not alternatives mechanisms, they are cause and effect. The theory of "low carb diets" is that they reduce your appetite, resulting in fewer calories consumed.

        • by hazem (472289) on Sunday June 15, 2014 @05:46AM (#47239685) Journal

          The theory of "low carb diets" is that they reduce your appetite, resulting in fewer calories consumed.

          This has been my personal experience. I started eating "low-carb/high-fat" last September and just crossed the -60 pounds mark. I still marvel at how I'm just not very hungry most of the time, even after missing meals or exercising for several hours... or how I can, indeed, go ride my bike vigorously for a few hours before eating any breakfast.

          I haven't counted calories at all, so from an objective sense, I can't give precise amount of wha I used to eat compared to what I eat now. However I'm certain I eat less from the mere fact that now I often miss meals (from not being hungry enough to bother) when before I might even eat 2 lunches, and snack much less than before (evidenced by the fact that I don't buy snacky foods much any more - when for example I was subscribed to Amazon to have boxes of KIND bars delivered to both my home and office). One of the best parts is that I can now take long bike rides after work (I've been a bike-commuter for a few years) and not have to rush home to eat dinner from crazy hunger.

          I believe the theory about low-carb and hunger is that carbohydrates stimulate insulin production. This causes cells in the body (fat and muscle) to take up blood glucose more than they would otherwise, thereby lowering blood glucose. This dynamic system has delays, so blood glucose will drop below the "normal" level and as a result you get really hungry in order to raise it back up again. As a result, you either eat more or feel lethargic due to lack of energy. This may explain the need/desire to snack between breakfast and lunch and after lunch in order to stave off the fatigue and "crash" that most people experience at these times.

          Some people go a bit nuts when I say I can eat as much as I want with this way of eating and still lose weight - as if they think I believe I'm violating the laws of physics. But the reality is that of course I'm obeying the laws of thermodymics - it's just that when I eat a diet low in carbohydrates, I just don't want to eat very much. And how can that be a bad thing? I'm getting fitter, feeling better, and all without being hungry or otherwise suffering.

          • by Rich0 (548339)

            I haven't counted calories at all, so from an objective sense, I can't give precise amount of wha I used to eat compared to what I eat now.

            I've tried both balanced calorie-counting diets and LCHF diets. I can vouch that the latter works FAR better.

            I was able to lose weight on a balanced diet, and being a chemist who is a bit OCD I measured EVERYTHING that went into my mouth. What I will tell you is that while I did lose weight, I was always hungry. I was eating six small meals a day and while I was sitting at my desk at work I'd always be looking over to my bag of food just willing the clock to move so that I could eat my next meal. In the

            • Low carbohydrate diets may have benefits for the brain as well. They are now recognized as a powerful tool for treating epilepsy and there are reports that in cases it can actually cure the disorder. Some people with bipolar II have found that low carbohydrate diets can be more effective than drugs for managing the disorder. There is also evidence that low-carbohydrate diets can be used to treat Alzheimer's.

              The disturbing implication here is that if switching from a high-carbohydrate Western diet can fix br

          • The problem is that when it comes to reducing appetite, it's hard to separate the psychological factors from the physiological ones.

          • by Kelbear (870538)

            Thanks, that's an encouraging and illuminating insight on the low-card/high fat approach. I think I'll give it a try and see how it works out for me. I've lost some weight after resuming regular gym attendance, but I've been finding it really hard to stay under my calorie restrictions when I get pangs of hunger, low energy, and moodswings. Perhaps limiting the carbs to temper the peaks/valleys of my bloodsugar level is just what I need.

    • by TheLink (130905) on Sunday June 15, 2014 @06:22AM (#47239727) Journal

      I take vitamins because they are relatively cheap, but I'm not sure I see the point of fish-oil capsules, especially with the bad breath and indigestion that comes with them.

      If you're getting bad breath from your fish-oil capsules, it may be that they contain oil that's _rancid_ or oxidized.

      Bust open a capsule, if it stinks, it's rancid and you shouldn't be eating it anymore than you should be eating rotten fish. Or expecting it to convey health benefits anymore than rotten fish would. Fresh fish doesn't stink - might just have a mild fish smell. Same goes for fresh fish oil. If you eat sashimi or ikura you'd know what I mean.

      The big problem is it seems that rancid/oxidized fish oil is not that rare. That's why I don't have that much confidence in those fish oil studies - I don't see much checking on the oxidation/rancidity of the oil.

      So it may be that fish oil is good for you, but only if it hasn't gone bad.

      • by sFurbo (1361249)
        Fish oil start to stink way before it is actually bad for you. I'm not saying you should eat stinking fish oil tablets, but them stinking should not affect their effect on the body.
        • by TheLink (130905)

          I'm not saying you should eat stinking fish oil tablets, but them stinking should not affect their effect on the body.

          Citation please? What makes you so confident that's true? Fish oil oxidizes easily.

          The smell is at least partly due to oxidation: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu... [nih.gov]

          Effects of oxidized fish oil:
          http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu... [nih.gov] (affects lipid profile)
          http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu... [nih.gov] (but does not affect oxidative stress markers)
          See also:
          http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu... [nih.gov] (fish oil easily oxidized)
          http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu... [nih.gov]

          • by sFurbo (1361249)
            Isn't the smell fishy, as in primarily coming from trimethylamine from reduction of trimethylamine oxide? In that case, it would not be that closely linked to oxidation, though it might still correlate with it (as they both increase with storage).

            I don't have a citation (well, unless "personal communcation" is accepted). It was stated in a presentation about stability of fish oils, but that is not solid enough for the confidence in my original post. I am sorry for that.

            With regard to the manuscript yo
    • by careysub (976506)

      A diet with all its components is very different than supplement pills.

      ...

      Indeed so! In fact the lesson learned thus far from hundreds of epidemiological studies (with published papers in the tens of thousands) over the last 30 years or so is that no dietary supplement pill of any kind offers any benefit to the general population. Vitamin and mineral supplements provide benefit only when the taker is actually deficient in a nutrient being provided, and deficiency in any nutrient (but one*) is rare in wealthy nations.

      *That one is vitamin D, the only nutrient for which you can make

      • "That one is vitamin D, the only nutrient for which you can make a case for taking a supplement."
        Or, just spend a total of 20 minutes a day in the sun.

  • after so much BS over the years, I think we should disregard any further studies proclaiming great health benefits of (____) and just rely on common sense.

    Common sense tells me that the best things to eat for an animal species is what it's evolved to eat in its natural habitat. Pomegranates might be awesome food but not for lions.

    For humans, that would be 2 million years of eating nuts and fruits and clams and fish and some red meat on occasion.

    • by hazem (472289) on Sunday June 15, 2014 @05:16AM (#47239637) Journal

      Common sense tells me that the best things to eat for an animal species is what it's evolved to eat in its natural habitat.

      This sounds like the foundation of the "Paleo" diet. And while this makes sense, I'm not sure there have been many good studies demonstrating the benefits of this approach. Part of the problem is establishing what "paleo" humans actually ate.

      For example:

      For humans, that would be 2 million years of eating nuts and fruits and clams and fish and some red meat on occasion.

      This is an assumption, and maybe a good one. But look at societies like the Masai. They're fairly "aboriginal" and eat mostly red meat, blood, and milk and very little plant matter (they apparently consider eating plants a sign of weakness). Other aboriginal societies live on diets dominated by coconuts and plants.

      I think the problem today is that there are few sources of "original" food sources available. As a species we've domesticated most of the plants and animals we eat, changing them over time. So it's hard to rely on the concept of "eat what we ate a million years ago". The best we can do to determine optimal nutrtion now is try to conduct solid double-blind studies based on the foods we have available. Unfortunately that is expensive to do and most of the money in nutrition research comes from the food industry, which has a vested interest in the outcomes of the research they fund.

      That said, you probably can't go too wrong by avoiding processed and refined foods, eating animals that eat what they naturally eat, and eating plants that are grown with as few chemical interventions as possible.

      • by mpe (36238)
        I think the problem today is that there are few sources of "original" food sources available. As a species we've domesticated most of the plants and animals we eat, changing them over time. So it's hard to rely on the concept of "eat what we ate a million years ago". The best we can do to determine optimal nutrtion now is try to conduct solid double-blind studies based on the foods we have available. Unfortunately that is expensive to do and most of the money in nutrition research comes from the food indust
        • by hazem (472289)

          I agree.

          I have been eating "low-carb/high-fat" over the last 8 months, with a focus on natural and unprocessed foods (so essentially, meat, eggs, and green veggies). This fits well with people who eat paleo. The biggest divergence is that I use butter, cheese, and dark chocolate and try to avoid the moderately carb-rich foods that paleo people eat, like sweet-potatoes, and highly-carb rich foods like honey.

          But again, I think you can't go too wrong by eating a diet of mostly unprocessed and refined foods,

      • I sort of thought that we knew what they ate, and it was raw meat. You occasionally hear about people taking up "Paleo" diets and what they means is they eat raw meat exclusively, sometimes in any level of rot.

      • by Brulath (2765381)

        The TEDxOU talk Debunking the Paleo Diet [youtube.com] is pretty interesting from the standpoint of determining what our ancestors actually consumed, though it doesn't prove anything on whether the actual "Paleo Diet" rules are good or bad. It's given by an archaeological scientist who studies ancient health/diet. She points out a few examples of foods which didn't exist when our ancestors were around that are commonly included in the Paleo Diet, which is interesting.

      • The other elephant in the room is your genetics. Your ancestors may have done well on milk products, your neighbor - not so much. It's hard to determine what what your particular body's optimal requirements are. We're getting there, but it's going to be a while since we basically don't know jack about nutrition.

        Not to mention that, even with our BPA infused, high fructose corn syrup laden, human growth hormone injected and antibiotic treated food supply, we're still leading longer and healthy lives than

        • by Belial6 (794905)
          The fact that genetics is routinely ignored or outright dismissed is the first sign that our current view on nutrition is pseudo-science.
          • by mpe (36238)
            The fact that genetics is routinely ignored or outright dismissed is the first sign that our current view on nutrition is pseudo-science.

            The biggest problem with most governement sponsored nutritial advice is that it tends to be "one size fits all". Even including such daftness as people actually diagnosed with type 2 diabeties should eat vast quantities of glucose. When it would make rather more sense to tell anyone who shows signs of "insulin resistance" to cut back on this, even if their HBa1C is curre
      • Under a thousand years was enough to provide heart protection against a diet heavy in salted meat on the russian steppes. If the selective pressure is strong enough 50-70 generations of selection will deal with a lot of challenges.

        "Empty Food" probably can't be dealt with very well tho (i.e. just calories and nothing else).

  • by Anonymous Coward

    To date, more than 5,000 papers have been published studying the alleged beneficial properties of omega-3 fatty acids ... based on a hypothesis that was questionable from the beginning."

    Yes, and many of those studies confirmed the beneficial effects of omega-3 essential fatty acids. Many of these later studies focused on the Mediterranean diet.
    Furthermore, the omega-3 essential fatty acids are not called essential just for fun and profit. They are proven to be needed by the human body, in dosages that most

    • by mpe (36238)
      Yes, and many of those studies confirmed the beneficial effects of omega-3 essential fatty acids. Many of these later studies focused on the Mediterranean diet. Furthermore, the omega-3 essential fatty acids are not called essential just for fun and profit.

      The term "omega-3" covers a wide variety of fatty acids anyway. Alpha-Linolenic acid is one specific fatty acid, Which is specifically omega-3(cis), omega-6(cis) and omega-9(cis).
      Also chemists tend to count from the "alpha end" of such molecules. Thus
  • NEWSFLASH! JUST IN!
    Classic Eskimo diet only suitable for classic eskimo climate!

    Brilliant new scientist team finds out that 10 bazillion calories-per-day and lets-eat-tons-of-raw-meat-because-we-have-no-other-source-of-micronutrient-iron-and-vitamin-c-out-here-in-a-countryside-made-of-pure-ice escimo diet suitable for an arctic climate with regular temperatures of -30 Celsius and lower actually isn't suitable or very healthy at temperatures around +15C and raises risk of CADs.

    Gees, what an insight. How woul

    • by Optali (809880)
      Wrong. You got it wrong. Classical eskimo diet NOT suited even for classic eskimo climate. That's what it actually says, not so obvious but already known.... but it's OK as we need to hammer this otion into hte thick skulls of all these paleo-idiots and fish-oil smearers.
  • by m00sh (2538182) on Sunday June 15, 2014 @06:21AM (#47239725)

    In 2003, a thorough analysis of the incidence and available mortality statistics among Inuit populations in Greenland, Canada and Alaska by Bjerregaard et al, also concluded that the totality of evidence from various Northern areas makes a strong argument for high presence of CVD in Eskimos (Appendix A in Supplementary Materials).

    Is the current Eskimo diet the same as the traditional Eskimo diet?

    Do the Inuits in Greenland still eat blubber and not eat pizza, sugary drinks, hamburgers and chocolate whatsoever.

    If saturated fat CVD theory were right, the Eskimo diet would have significantly more CVD than the general population. However, it seems about the same. So, the saturated fats is bad for you part is still questionable even. Now, the whole Omega-3 is heart healthy is the one being put on question.

    • by drinkypoo (153816)

      Is the current Eskimo diet the same as the traditional Eskimo diet?

      Do the Inuits in Greenland still eat blubber and not eat pizza, sugary drinks, hamburgers and chocolate whatsoever.

      Answer, I don't believe they have a pizza parlor, but they do eat processed foods now.

    • In 2003, a thorough analysis of the incidence and available mortality statistics among Inuit populations in Greenland, Canada and Alaska by Bjerregaard et al, also concluded that the totality of evidence from various Northern areas makes a strong argument for high presence of CVD in Eskimos (Appendix A in Supplementary Materials).

      Is the current Eskimo diet the same as the traditional Eskimo diet?

      Do the Inuits in Greenland still eat blubber and not eat pizza, sugary drinks, hamburgers and chocolate whatsoever.

      If saturated fat CVD theory were right, the Eskimo diet would have significantly more CVD than the general population. However, it seems about the same. So, the saturated fats is bad for you part is still questionable even. Now, the whole Omega-3 is heart healthy is the one being put on question.

      And this is the problem with Doctors doing these studies. They don't believe in the low carb diet so they try to apply standard dietary rules to it. They think "A little pizza doesn't count" As anyone on a low carb diet knows... you can be on low carb and lose 30lbs. Eat pizza for one meal and you're gaining at least 10lbs back almost immediately. The carbs trigger some kind of storage reaction in our bodies that I dont think anyone understands yet.

      • by Optali (809880)
        What the hell has that to do with anything that's said in the study?

        The study is not about believing shit or not, it's about the INCIDENCE OF CARDIOVASCULAR DISEASES among a given population. The carbs trigger some kind of storage reaction in our bodies that I dont think anyone understands yet.

        Yes, it's called the Fucking CREBS CYCLE and it's the nightmare of any highschool student who wants follow a career in biology, medicine or biochemistry.

        The fact is that we understand it pretty well (besides some m

  • ... lipid hypothesis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L... [wikipedia.org]
    So I get that the "Eskimo Diet" doesn't improve cardiovascular health. But then it doesn't degrade it either. Then why all the "heart smart" low-fat, no-fat, low-cholesterol propaganda we're constantly bombarded with?
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U... [wikipedia.org]
    It seems Uffe Ravnskov may be right. Dietary cholesterol very likely has little or no bad effects on health. It is probably "good" for you. In fact, statin drugs used to treat CAD are far worse for your
    • Statins are

      1) Rather safe (so 'not far worse for your health' ...)
      2) Notably effective for SECONDARY prevention of coronary artery disease (CAD) If you have had heart attack #1, statins improve your chance of survival by 10-40%.

      Statins have NOT been shown - but have been alluded to:

      1) Decreasing CAD in people without known preexisting heart disease.
      2) Decrease all cause mortality in the general population with elevated cholesterol levels.

      These allusions are the problem. There is good scientific basis for

  • by PopeRatzo (965947) on Sunday June 15, 2014 @09:37AM (#47240113) Homepage Journal

    I'm on the Ubangi diet. I just cram the whole plate in my mouth.

    • by PopeRatzo (965947)

      Just in case somebody missed the reference:

      https://www.google.com/search?... [google.com]

  • ... in eskimo populations is rare. One is usually eaten by a polar bear before heart disease sets in.

  • The natives who follow this diet often die early due to liver failure, esp. the men. I think it is due to iron loading in the liver from over consumption of game meat and protein.

  • If a fatty diet with little vegetables is no worse than a regular diet, that is interesting enough on its own.

  • Native people of the extreme north really have sort of a miracle going on. And it depends upon how we view their situation. Before the Europeans had much contact these folks were very short on fruits and vegetables and grains of all kinds. So just how does a culture survive such a radical environment and have the energy to hunt and defend against the elements and predators while eating blubber and fish almost exclusively? The rest of us are told we have all of these great needs for a variet
    • by istartedi (132515)

      Actually according to wiki (yeah, I know, not authoritative) they had: " Grasses, tubers, roots, stems, berries, fireweed and seaweed (kuanniq or edible seaweed) were collected and preserved depending on the season and the location.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7]"

      Berries sound good. I wonder how they preserved them. They probably just dried them. Root crops definitely hold up well until the next season if you know what you're doing. Arctic raisins and carrots will supplement the meat and blubber enough probably.

      T

  • Even if this eskimo diet does work, I can't imagine there are enough of them to go around.
  • By the '70s, the Eskimos were already eating Twinkies like the rest of us. The important study of aboriginal diets, including Eskimos, was that of Dr. Robert Price in the early 1900s. This study was conducted when Eskimos were still consuming traditional foods. You can learn more about this at the still vibrant Price-Pottenger Nutrition Foundation ( http://ppnf.org/ [ppnf.org] ).

    In addition, you may wish to read the cover story of Time magazine which says to Eat Butter. Dr. Atkins advised this over 30 years ago and 30

  • I read a few acttually.

    And it makes all the sense in the world: Ketonic diets have never been found to be healthy.

    And even in the case that the Inuit's CAD incidence were lower it still could have been caused by special genetic adaptations to their diet... yet these guys have the same CAD incidence as the rest.

    Well, now the best part: Poking fund at the idiots who follow the paleo-diet, bwahahaaaa!!!

Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it is too dark to read.

Working...