Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Osteoporosis in pre-contact Eskimos ???

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    1



    Actually traditional people know a whole lot more about eating. We are just understanding why they do what they do.


    Whenever there is a conflict between what medical science says, and what natives do (and have been doing it for a very long time), then always believe the natives. There may be a few instances where they maybe wrong, but the wrong will not be very off the mark. But medical science may possibly be saying the opposite to what is good.

    Comment


    • #17
      1



      Anand, I totally agree.


      Another bit from Native American diets that I found interesting.


      http://whatscookingamerica.net/History/Smelt.htm


      Here are some relevant excerpts:


      "To Native Americans, the return of the eulachon (smelt fish) meant the beginning of spring and a renewed food supply, literally saving lives and earning them the name "salvation fish" or "savour fish." They were the first fish to arrive in the river after a long cold winter when most of their stored food supplies had been depleted. Unlike other fish oils, eulachon lipids are solid at room temperature, with the color and consistency of butter. These fish are almost 20 percent oil by weight, allowing a fine grease to be rendered from their bodies and creating a high-energy food source that could easily be transported and traded with other tribes farther inland.


      The Indians of the Northwest were known for their great wealth, and nutritious ooligan oil was one of their most valued trade goods.


      The valuable and nutritious end product is used on many foods; salmon, halibut, herring roe, and berries, similar to the way butter is used. The grease was used for trade with other First Nations that did not harvest oolichan."


      Bottom line here is what we know on this board. Fat forms a majority of the calories. If Native Americans added fat to dried meat to make pemmican and added fish grease on top of their fish, then the fat %s would be a lot like many people here reporting on their journals (ie 60-80%). It also seems like a valid reason to add some fish oil especially when eating seafood.


      Personally I have been wondering how to add fat to seafood and without a source of ooligan oil must do avocado or aioli (olive oil and raw egg yolk) since I don't really have a taste for coconut (maybe in summer) and getting away from dairy.


      One reason I really like the canned Alaskan salmon (I recently posted about this in terms of removing the salt) is that it has everything, skin and bones all edible and so a much higher fat content than many other fish, fresh or canned.

      Comment


      • #18
        1



        Why is Don trying to correlate this study with PH?


        It all sounds a bit vague and correlation does not prove causation. As was brought up by a number of members, there are many other factors that need to be taken into account.
        [quote]

        The Alaskan Eskimo population has the highest incidence of degenerative joint disease, while the Pecos Indian population experienced the least. This was explained by the possibility of less continuous stress among the latter (Jurmain 1991).
        </blockquote>


        http://www.the707.us/Paleopathology/wordpress/?page_id=40


        Here&#39;s the study:
        [quote]

        Comparative osteological analysis of the knee, hip, shoulder, and elbow joints of 789 individuals from four human skeletal populations (Black and White Americans, Pueblo Indians, and Alaskan Eskimos) indicates that age of onset, frequency, and location of degenerative changes are directly related to the nature and degree of environmentally associated stress, as reflected by the variable life styles of the populations sampled


        Functional stress, when constant and severe in nature, becomes the primary focus of degenerative disease, but other background contributing agents such as age, sex, and hormonal influence must not be ignored
        </blockquote>


        http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/848570


        There&#39;s certainly nothing in there that shown a high meat consumption causes osteoporosis.


        It&#39;s just as much a stretch of the facts as his tubers argument.

        The "Seven Deadly Sins"

        Grains (wheat/rice/oats etc) . . . . . Dairy (milk/yogurt/butter/cheese etc) . . . . . Nightshades (peppers/tomato/eggplant etc)
        Tubers (potato/arrowroot etc) . . . Modernly palatable (cashews/olives etc) . . . Refined foods (salt/sugars etc )
        Legumes (soy/beans/peas etc)

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Anand Srivastava View Post
          New (or rather slightly old) post by Don Matesz at Vital Wisdom.


          Its a 3 part series, and contains a lot of convincing argument that too much meat is bad for bones. I thought only balancing protein was enough, but it seems Kitavans are not a fluke but a very low meat diet is actually healthier than a low carb diet.


          Eskimo bones tested in the research papers date to around 1500AD and even one from 400AD. All had osteoporosis. The bone density was lesser than an aged matched Caucasian. Guys and Gals on Zero carb or VLC you might want to get your bone density measured, to be on the safe side.


          The article is very interesting, and is ground breaking just like the Primal Potato series. I guess he is almost as good as Stephan. Even Stephan follows his blog very closely.

          I don't know about this. It's possible that the eskimos exhumed had a breakdown in their food supply and either starved to death or did not have enough of their traditional fats and foods to nourish their bodies. The most comprehensive nutritional analysis of the traditional inuit diet had this to say - "While the primitive Inuit was beset by serious nutritional crisis, these problems arose not from deficiencies in the quality of his native diet but by periodic breakdowns in his food supply by natural forces" JSTOR: An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie
          Furthermore, as that same paper attests to, they did not have a high calcium diet...calcium may be the only mineral they were deficient in.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by OnTheBayou View Post
            OTOH, it could be some other deficiency.
            it most likely is, heard of the old adage "use it or lose it".

            Eskimos are deficient in weight bearing movement.

            it mighn't be the whole story but i bet it is a factor.
            A little primal gem - My Success Story
            Weight lost in 4 months - 29kg (64 lbs)

            Comment

            Working...
            X