Why You Should Eat Like An Inuit
From Discover Magazine, by Patricia Gadsby, "The Inuit Paradox: How can people who gorge on fat and rarely see a vegetable be healthier than we are?"
via @AnnChildersMD
Why You Should Eat Like An Inuit
From Discover Magazine, by Patricia Gadsby, "The Inuit Paradox: How can people who gorge on fat and rarely see a vegetable be healthier than we are?"
via @AnnChildersMD
We did a few laps of this a couple years ago, and it was silly.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at January 7, 2012 10:52 PM
A better Eskimo story.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at January 7, 2012 10:55 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2012/01/08/why_you_should_3.html#comment-2897112">comment from Crid [CridComment at gmail]Feel free to look at THIS article and pluck out any issues.
Amy Alkon at January 7, 2012 11:04 PM
So you're saying it's an obsession, right?... The last guy wanted us to read a whole book. Y'know, anybody who wants to live that way can go do it. Savoonga is close to Russia, but it's part of the United States.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at January 7, 2012 11:54 PM
Asians-why are they soo skinny while eating carbs?
I've been to Asia many many times. Noodles everywhere, rice for breakfast. True they eat almost no fruit and hardly any sugar. But the biggest thing they eat is rice and noodles. I've noticed pasta is quite popular in Japan now.
Anyways I'm not saying low-carb does not work, it seems to work on some people. I read this interesting article where they took obese test subjects, 1/2 were fed low carb and 1/2 were fed low fat. There were some that gained weight on low carb and some that gained weight on low fat. Those that had gained weight were switched to the opposite diet and lost weight.
And look low carb works great for me...
Purplepen at January 8, 2012 1:04 AM
The key is to find a diet that works for you, while also giving some degree of pleasure. I could never live without vegetables. I'd miss the incredible variety of taste and textures. But some, like Amy, can seemingly be satisfied with bacon and parsley every day.
I've been on a low protein vegetarian diet lately, which is working much better for me than the high protein one was, and gives me much more enjoyment. I do, however, still consume a lot of fat, which may be the real key.
LS at January 8, 2012 5:05 AM
They're healthier because the unhealthy ones are left out on the ice floe?
Astra at January 8, 2012 5:43 AM
I'd like to introduce to you a basic principle people almost always overlook whenever they speak about "natural selection", or something about the general fitness level of a society.
Natural selection culls the weak and stupid. As a result, the living population is fitter, but the ensuing average lifespan is lower and the population is smaller.
If there are no artificial social buffers to protect the weak and stupid - and it can be said that this is merely a delaying tactic - you don't get into arguments about "the quality of life".
You can argue about the sanctity of life if you wish, be it Olympic athlete or floor potato, the couch having long since collapsed, but don't fool yourself about environments and populations. And don't mistake "civilization" as exempting anyone from the laws of nature.
If you die at 50 from being unable to flee the polar bear, you don't die at 60 from prostate cancer, regardless of your susceptibility.
Radwaste at January 8, 2012 8:08 AM
A step in the right direction, but the article's full of nonsense as well. They forget to mention that Atkins prescribes two small green salads a day, even on the induction phase. As for "contaminants in organ meat," I take it they're talking about liver. Liver processes toxins, it doesn't store them. Plant roots process animal waste, but I don't see any concerns over that, quite rightly.
And of course there's the ad hoc hypotheses: it must be the low saturated fat and fish oil! It must be all that exercise! The trouble is that saturated fat gets lumped in with trans fats in research. The reference to Atkins recommending no more than 20% of calories coming from saturated fat is from an old Atkins book; I can't find any reference to it in the latest one. And I'd like to see them explain away the Masai's lack of heart disease on a diet high in saturated fat and low in fish. Several recent clinical studies have shown little weight loss from aerobic exercise.
So we have the Inuit Paradox, the French Paradox, the Danish Paradox, the Masai Paradox, the Swiss Paradox, and the Norwegian Paradox.
Asia isn't a paradox to the paradox. From what I understand about a traditional Japanese diet (I don't know how accurate this is), it involved a good deal of pork, fish and seaweed, and fermented soy as a condiment. Now, Asians are eating a lot of junk, just like Americans. According to the World bank, "South Asians are suffering their first heart attacks at 53, six years earlier than anywhere else" and said that diabetes was rising. I've read the news about rising heart disease and diabetes in Asia elsewhere as well.
http://www.dawn.com/2011/02/09/south-asia-faces-rising-incidence-of-heart-disease-diabetes.html
One of the troubles with some clinical studies is the lack of a definition of low carb. Some studies will use two diets that aren't materially different and then conclude that low carb doesn't have any benefit. Or the low fat diet will have limited calories while the low carb one won't. Or they won't exclude subject who didn't stay on the diet ("intention to treat"). Dr. Richard Feinman has blogged on this subject.
Lori at January 8, 2012 9:27 AM
Astra, would you make a black joke? Or an Asian joke? I'm seething that it's somehow okay to make Eskimo jokes in this day and age.
I am an Eskimo. We are not some cutesy little stereotype or a mythical people you'll never encounter. What you said is not okay.
Jill at January 8, 2012 10:08 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2012/01/08/why_you_should_3.html#comment-2897906">comment from LoriAsians also did not eat much sugar -- nor did the Italians (in Ancel Keys crap, selection bias-tainted study that's behind the way most Americans now eat...and are obese).
Amy Alkon at January 8, 2012 10:13 AM
This one claims even less for the rockin' Inuit lifestyle than last time... There's no statistical baseline for Inuit health before modern diets, etc., just a discussion about how vitamins are extracted from available sources in subtle ways.
Why are folks obsessed with those people? I'll tell you why: Todd Palin is part Inuit, and he races dogs and runs a successful business without government financing and changes diapers and sustains his beautiful sexwife while she scrambles senior executive power. They're in their forties and still makin' babies... They're really innuit.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at January 8, 2012 10:17 AM
This article should be taken in context.
The Inuit demonstrate that humans can survive in good health, without diabetes, heart disease, tooth decay or constipation, on a 70% (saturated) fat carnivorous diet. Without oranges, where do they get vitamin C? Without grains, where do they get vitamin E? What about fiber? Why didn’t traditional Inuit have heart disease or cancer? Don't they need probiotics?
Atkins was right, after a fashion; I believe he left out a few details (depending on muscle meat rather than organ meats, overlooking probiotics, e.g.), which is why dietary supplements are recommended on an Atkins diet. It may also explain why some people do not do well on this diet.
To eat a carnivorous diet successfully we must eat the organs (liver, e.g.--most of us don't eat liver anymore—offal is a source of vitamins and minerals, including B vitamins, and vitamin C), eat raw meat (a source of Vitamin C) and fat, make use of the bones and skin ("snout to tail" dining) and promote fermentation (rotted "stink fish", a source of probiotics). This is what the Inuit did. Since most of us eat an omnivorous diet sans offal (organ meats, considered "awful" by most Americans) but full of muscle meats, American omnivores are better off eating nutrient-dense vegetables along with animal foods (meats, fish, eggs, poultry, our source of B12, e.g., in the wilderness). We need properly prepared bone broth (soup stock) to prevent mineral deficiencies, replenish and repair bones and joints, promote regularity and restful sleep, keep skin youthful, etc. (watch any film from the 1940s and notice the popularity of home-made bone-based soups back then—they take a day or two to properly prepare). Sadly, and to our peril, most American omnivores no longer obey these dietary rules but depend on dietary supplements and government regulated food fortification to make up for what we lack.
To those naysayers who insist humans need grain, fiber, fruits and vegetables, yogurt, and cannot be carnivores in good health, the Inuit demonstrate how early Native Americans survived their winters, how early humans survived the Ice Ages, and the complete nutrition available to us in wild fish and game.
Dr. Childers
Ann Childers, MD at January 8, 2012 10:43 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2012/01/08/why_you_should_3.html#comment-2898033">comment from Ann Childers, MDThanks so much, Dr. Childers, for putting this in perspective for the naysayers here.
I eat liverwurst to get liver, or chopped liver.
Amy Alkon at January 8, 2012 11:08 AM
"The main nutritional challenge was avoiding starvation in late winter if primary meat sources became too scarce or too lean"
This one understated sentence is the sole reference in the entire article to the perpetual cycle of feast-or-famine that was a reality of Inuit life. The last great famine in the Arctic was the Kivalliq famine west of Hudson Bay in the winter of 1957-58:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garry_Lake
"Suffering from famine in 1958 as the annual caribou migration bypassed their territorial hunting grounds, 58 Garry Lake inhabitants died. The federal government intervened by relocating the 31 survivors to Baker Lake"
The same thing happened to many other villages in the area. Think about that for a moment: entire Canadian villages were being almost wiped out by starvation at the same time the Avro Arrow was making its first test flight. Starving people aren't healthy, Nature is a bitch, and the only way to not be helpless at her mercy is to embrace modernity in all its splendor.
If two people have identical diets, but one of them sits in front of the TV all day in his underwear watching Jersey Shore & rap videos, and the other one leads a tremendously vigorous life in the Great Outdoors, will they be identically healthy? You can't neatly separate the influence of diet on a person's health from the influence of their whole way of life.
Martin at January 8, 2012 11:19 AM
And the Inuit live how long?
Joe at January 8, 2012 11:20 AM
Gee, my proctologist said it more simply: "Eat as though you had to catch it yourself."
Why not ask the guy who has to fix the equipment?
Radwaste at January 8, 2012 11:27 AM
Chill Jill, chill.
Eric at January 8, 2012 11:27 AM
Eric... Seriously?
Jill at January 8, 2012 11:40 AM
> To those naysayers who insist humans need grain,
> fiber, fruits and vegetables, yogurt, and cannot
> be carnivores in good health
Is "good health" what's demonstrated? Because what you describe...
> the Inuit demonstrate how early Native Americans
> survived their winters, how early humans
> survived the Ice Ages
...is "survival", a standard of living intolerable to modern people.
> and the complete nutrition available to us in
> wild fish and game.
"Nutrition" of the kind we're talking about in primitive diets wouldn't be sustained on modern palettes any more than are modern fads. "Wild fish and game" could feed only the tiniest percentage of our population.
People twist language in weird ways to pretend that paradise is at hand, if only modern man weren't too distracted by his Iphone to see it. I blame Rousseau, idiot father to five unloved bastards.
PS/Jill— Anyone who chides adult human beings, strangers, as being "not okay" kinda deserves a little towel snap.
CridComment@gmail.com at January 8, 2012 12:13 PM
Ooops!
The 10:55pm comment was supposed to look like this:
A better Eskimo story.
...Please adjust your enthusiasms accordingly.
CridComment@gmail.com at January 8, 2012 12:41 PM
Ooops!
The 10:55pm comment was supposed to look like this:
A better Eskimo story:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/04/26/AR2005042601144.html
...Please adjust your enthusiasms accordingly.
CridComment@gmail.com at January 8, 2012 12:42 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2012/01/08/why_you_should_3.html#comment-2898238">comment from MartinIt's amazing to me when people who know almost nothing of the research in diet -- and what is actually evidence-based and what is not -- weigh in on diet and exercise. I discussed exercise with Dr. Michael Eades the other night. He mentioned that it's good for your heart and brain, but as for weight loss? If I never exercised again (and I mostly sit in a chair at a computer day in, day out), I would not get fat. Here:
http://nymag.com/news/sports/38001/
"Why most of us believe that exercise makes us thinner—and why we're wrong," by Gary Taubes.
Amy Alkon at January 8, 2012 12:46 PM
Most Inuit groups had a significant number of elderly individuals, sometimes living to 80 years and beyond. By and large mortality came from accidents, warfare and infectious disease rather than chronic disease. The introduction of disease by the Russians is cited as one factor in Inuit mortality, much as war and European diseases such as syphilis, small pox, measles and influenza decimated Native American populations. To say these people were short lived due to diet is unsubstantiated. Theirs are the diets that carried humans to modern times and modern longevity, with our ambulances, heart stints and bypasses, injectable insulin, chemotherapies, antibiotics, and dentistry.
On the subject of dentistry, it turns out the very fermentable carbohydrates (sugars and starches) that stress our insulin producing cells, promote obesity, strokes, heart disease and diabetes, and feed cancers also rot teeth. An abscessed tooth is a potentially deadly five alarm fire you cannot ignore. Without modern dentistry, fearing the dreaded abscess you and I might be smarter about what we eat, and if so, would not be having this conversation. Obeying mother nature is the key to health. Wild animals obey her laws and have excellent teeth. Mother nature's dietary law states that no matter what diet you embrace, if it rots your teeth don't eat it. 'Just one more reason to be selective about your carbohydrate intake.
Thank you for posting this article, Amy. We can learn a lot from the Inuit people.
Ann Childers, MD at January 8, 2012 12:50 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2012/01/08/why_you_should_3.html#comment-2898255">comment from CridComment@gmail.comCrid, we largely evolved 1.8 million years ago, and have largely the same bodies as paleolithic man. Agriculture started 5-10,000 years ago. If any of you are still food with flour in it, you need to read this book by cardiologist Dr. William Davis: Wheat Belly: Lose the Wheat, Lose the Weight, and Find Your Path Back to Health.
Crid, your speculation is based on zero science -- you just want to knock people who say anything primitive man did has any relevance to us. I'm not of the "noble savage" school of thinking. I love cars and iPhones and computers and all the comfort and health advances modernity gives us. But, per Cosmides and Tooby's quote about how we have "Stone-Age brains," we also have Stone-Age bodies, and I have personally seen the amazing improvement in the health stats of a man who ate only meat and eggs for a month and a half, and it's there in the research as well.
As Eades has mentioned to me before, there's some indication that Alzheimer's is "diabetes of the brain," and evidence that these so-called "primitive" people do not exhibit "diseases of civilization" until they eschew their all meat and fish diet for a Western one.
Amy Alkon at January 8, 2012 12:52 PM
Still a classic!
Radwaste at January 8, 2012 1:24 PM
Can we possibly ignore heredity any more completely?
Hey, the Zuni indians split by the Gadsden Purchase are a splendid example of susceptibility to "modern" processed foods: those getting US food stamps and buying at the store have an appalling diabetes rate; those in Mexico, subsistence farming, have no such thing.
So let's not pretend that if I donned mukluks and built an igloo and started chasing walruses (walri?) I'd automatically become immortal!
Radwaste at January 8, 2012 1:30 PM
"I am an Eskimo. We are not some cutesy little stereotype or a mythical people you'll never encounter. What you said is not okay."
Jill, yes, seriously, chill.
(LOL. I just asked an Exkimo to chill. I slay me.)
Astra's comment is derived from actual instruction as to the fate of the old and infirm among many polar peoples.
From Wikipedia: "A common belief is that the Inuit would leave their elderly on the ice to die. Senicide among the Inuit people was rare, except during famines. The last known case of an Inuit senicide was in 1939." Note the term, "common belief".
Here is a little more on the subject.
You have a lot further to go to teach us lower-48 types about your history. Personally, I have a lot more respect for cultures who have survived over the millennia than I do for those embracing the latest fads - but I'm not about to pretend there is a secret core of ancient wisdom in such cases.
Radwaste at January 8, 2012 1:43 PM
Seriously Jill. You are seething about the "ice floe" joke? If you made a joke about Scotsmen or Englishmen I would laugh. I can't think of a single ethnicity that is above a good joke.
Eric at January 8, 2012 1:54 PM
>> (LOL. I just asked an Exkimo to chill. I slay me.)
See Jill? That was goddamned funny.
Eric at January 8, 2012 1:56 PM
Eat like an Inuit? If you wish to subsist on nothing but seal meat and salmon, be my guest. Just don't invite me to dinner. Sounds boring.
Patrick at January 8, 2012 3:45 PM
"Wild animals obey her laws and have excellent teeth. "
Not so much. Poor dentition can and does starve animals out in nature. But then, wild animals rarely have to worry about outliving their teeth as something else kills them first most of the time. I'm no carb fan, but using trite lines like these doesn't further the cause.
momof4 at January 8, 2012 5:55 PM
Convenient second posting of poignant link to brilliant 21st century journalism!
Weingarden — http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/04/26/AR2005042601144.html
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at January 8, 2012 11:43 PM
> Most Inuit groups had a significant number
> of elderly individuals
Now, hold the phone...
Do you mean significant in the scientific sense of the word, as in statistical significance? Are one in twenty within "Inuit groups" known to have lived "to 80 years and beyond", or only that many of the ones who'd achieved adulthood, or of those who'd made it to 75? What was their quality of life along the way and thereafter? By light of what inclusive survey could we possibly be permitted to say "most"? Where, when and whom are we talking about? Why "groups" and not 'populations'? Whence this data?
This is not picking at a nit of human feeling or a sword-pissing challenge to political correctness. In health no less than any issue, science deserves to be protected from promiscuous language.
> The introduction of disease by the Russians
> is cited as one factor in Inuit mortality
Consider again the Weingarden piece linked above (for only the most convenient citation); Northwestern Asia is probably the source for their genetic stock: They're "Russians". (I've made no study of it, but was always taught that a Russo-Alaskan land bridge brought people to this continent... in that most heartening use of the word "radiation".) So if you're implying that renewed, modern contact devastated the Far North Americans, you must have some specific stretch of recent history in mind. And I'd like to know what period that is, so the rest of these assertions can be judged... "Cited", you say?
The last time this came up, in the blog post of Amy's linked above, the "cites" turned out to be imaginary.
> To say these people were short lived
> due to diet is unsubstantiated.
Which is probably why no one's saying that. (Though Good Lord, it's a better wager than Southern California real estate). What we're saying is that diet cannot be provided to modern people, would not be tolerated by them if it were, and is a typically horrifying component of a life of debilitating natural surroundings and abject poverty. (Again, see Weingarden from just seven years ago: Subsistence living continues. And it sucks. Ess yoo see kay sucks.)
> Theirs are the diets that carried humans
> to modern times and modern longevity,
> with our ambulances, heart stints
> and bypasses, injectable insulin,
> chemotherapies, antibiotics, and dentistry.
FUCK YES! And it's great to be here! To Hell with olden foods, especially those of recent centuries in fucked-up places, before politics & modernity supplied diversity and cleanliness. Those diets didn't "carry" us anywhere... We survived them.
I'm reminded of a tellingly odious passage from the Los Angeles Times opinion page yesterday. The writer sought to encourage support of a bullet train for California, an inexcusable boondoggle for a state mired in record-setting debt:
Now, truth is, Sneferu didn't build a goddam thing. SLAVES built those pyramids. Today, modern richfolk have lots of fun visiting them for photography and a quick jaunt through the gift shop. But if you were one of those slaves, and you'd seen your father fall into an early grave from the toil, or fallen into one yourself, or watched your son's life ended all too early from a compound fracture, you might think the planet could do with a shorter number of motherfucking pyramids.
> We can learn a lot from the Inuit
Yeah?
If one doesn't care about the lives of stone-haulers, or one doesn't care about the tax burdens of Californians, one's perspective is different. And if one doesn't care about context for factoids?
If you want to say worthwhile nutritional information can be had from the study of diets of different cultures, that's ducky. But there's this force at work in the human heart that makes people keep going, and then get snotty about these things. I think that force has a name. (See comment to Amy, below.)
(And Doc— It's "stent", not "stint".)
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at January 9, 2012 12:29 AM
> we largely evolved 1.8 million years ago
Sorry, I don't trust you to teach evolution in either bigger or larger picture frames. "Largely evolved" presumably means whatever you, or whichever darling gadfly you've falling in crush with, wants it to mean. We have ancestors with all the beasts all the way back, and evolution continues.
> your speculation is based on
> zero science
Nor do I trust you to scold on the scientific method. You're an enthused layman, and we all think that's that cat's pajamas. But you hang no sheepskin, carry no relevant degrees, have spent no sequence of semesters in the lab (OR CLASSROOM), have published no works or reviewed any in a formal setting. This is teenage-fanclub science with perky-titled trade paperbacks, and I've teased you about it before. These books may improve lives... But they're no excuse for getting mouthy.
And for fucks' sake, about what did I "speculate"?
(At least when the">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8FtCwmXnV-U#t=1m18s">the heartbreaking beauty Lala talks about science, we can be pretty certain she's kidding: It's just an excuse to drink. Does she have a degree in engineering? I believe she does....)
The weird thing, the IRONIC thing, is that (as mentioned above) your adoration of "science" carries you straight into arms of Rousseau, the ludicrous miscreant who popularized a monstrous fantasy: That everything we need to live well is freely available in the natural condition, but that modern life —science, in all its expressions— has distracted us.
This is not true. Culture is what's made our lives so very much richer than they were a hundred thousand years ago... As the natural world has been rocking along without taking much interest in sustaining us.
But it's fun to taunt people, isn't it Amy? It's fun to say 'If you'd only look at it my way, like the savages of the North, our lives would be berries & cream!' Even if it's not, y'know, scientific.
'Cept, they didn't have many servings of berries & cream up thar. We're glad Eric's new friend Jill is down here in the 'hood, even if she's pissing us off.
Don't kid a kidder.
Also, in a marginal, contextual and poorly-expressed way, Raddy is partly right.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at January 9, 2012 12:49 AM
(A 1:00am comment got lost in the filter. Stay tuned)
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at January 9, 2012 5:06 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2012/01/08/why_you_should_3.html#comment-2899634">comment from Crid [CridComment at gmail]Crid you really have no idea what you're talking about. Complex cognitive adaptations take hundreds or thousands of generations to take hold -- but we may adapt in some ways in less time.
The "no sheepskin" thing from you is just amazing. I thought about getting a Ph.D. at one point and Dr. Albert Ellis himself advised me against it. I am more rigorous about science than so many with "sheepskins," and am coached by an epidemiologist on how to read studies and assess limitations in them -- which you really can't say for many people with "sheepskins." I talked about this last night with John Townsend after we were off the radio -- mentioning privately a rather famous person with a sheepskin who accepts studies as valid and reliable (science terms) that are neither, and printing them in books as if they are.
I am awake for my deadline and I'm not going to tussle with you on this -- you're like a child who thinks they know this area when you apparently have zero knowledge and zero idea of that.
Amy Alkon at January 9, 2012 6:07 AM
Crid, I have to say you've been on fire lately. Your "A-D" grading system in another thread was some fine writing, as is this. Whether I agree or not, it's a very good read.
LS at January 9, 2012 6:12 AM
Crid, thank you for catching my typo.
As for the rest of your comments, there is a great deal more to a carbohydrate-restricted diet (in the case of the Inuit, nearly carbohydrate-free) than history. There is science.
A lot has changed in recent decades. In the 1970s, 10% of Americans were obese, and diabetes was rare.
Today, about 44% of American adults are diabetic or pre-diabetic. About 1/3 of Americans are overweight, another 1/3 obese, making overweight the norm in the US, which ranks number one in the world for obesity.
We used to see fatty liver disease in alcoholics, rarely in others. Now we have an entity called non-alcoholic fatty liver disease. This disease affects one in 5 adults, and one in 20 children. About one in three obese children will have this disease. Some of those affected will develop cirrhosis.
The Inuit demonstrate an extreme example of carbohydrate restriction. In terms of reversing our health trends, carbohydrate restriction holds hope. It is shown to reverse fatty liver disease. Not only that, carbohydrate-restricted diets are at least as effective for weight loss as low-fat diets, and substitution of fat for carbohydrate is generally beneficial for risk of cardiovascular disease. These beneficial effects of carbohydrate restriction do not require weight loss. In addition, carbohydrate restriction improves all of the features of metabolic syndrome, also known as pre-diabetes.
We still aren't sure if its the carbohydrate restriction, the increase in high quality proteins, an increase in natural fats or a combination that makes the difference. Regardless, when carbohydrates are restricted many of our problematic trends are reversed.
As for hunter gatherer diets (no grains), 73% of those documented derive 65% of energy from animals and 35% from plant materials. Dietary carbohydrate content ranges from 20-40%. By contrast, the standard US diet promotes 55% carbohydrate consumption, and for reasons I cannot fathom, the American Diabetes Association recommends 45-65% carbohydrate intake.
The Inuit hold great interest as a culture that not only survived but reproduced in extreme environments on a carnivorous diet.
As for the Egyptians, they were a post agricultural society (versus hunter gatherer). When anthropologists want to distinguish the two, they search skulls for tooth decay. The Egyptians had tooth decay; in fact, the pharaoh Amenhotep III may have died from his dental abscesses. So I stand by my statement: if it rots your teeth, don't eat it. Following this recommendation is likely to deter pre-diabetes and diabetes as well as dental disease.
A reference for you:
http://www.nutritionandmetabolism.com/content/5/1/9
Ann Childers at January 9, 2012 6:59 AM
I am not coming down on either side of this argument, this between Amy and Crid, but I will say this about research papers; without the advanced statistical training and computer modeling classes that come with that silly old "sheep skin", there is little likihood of a layman being able to really understand the underlying science behind long term research studies. It bothers me a little when I see this attitude out here that all the fancy book learn'n is just a waste of time. My husband has a PhD in climatology and that was no walk in the park. He spent years earning that title and there is reason they don't hand them out like Pez candies. There are serious differences between lay people reading the Journal of Science and professionals who spend their lives doing the actual research. I don't care how many journalism degrees you have, it is just not the same and it is insulting to imply that it is.
Sheepmommy at January 9, 2012 7:45 AM
I am not coming down on either side of this argument, this between Amy and Crid, but I will say this about research papers; without the advanced statistical training and computer modeling classes that come with that silly old "sheep skin", there is little likihood of a layman being able to really understand the underlying science behind long term research studies. It bothers me a little when I see this attitude out here that all the fancy book learn'n is just a waste of time. My husband has a PhD in climatology and that was no walk in the park. He spent years earning that title and there is reason they don't hand them out like Pez candies. There are serious differences between lay people reading the Journal of Science and professionals who spend their lives doing the actual research. I don't care how many journalism degrees you have, it is just not the same and it is insulting to imply that it is.
Sheepmommy at January 9, 2012 7:51 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2012/01/08/why_you_should_3.html#comment-2899826">comment from Sheepmommywithout the advanced statistical training and computer modeling classes that come with that silly old "sheep skin", there is little likihood of a layman being able to really understand the underlying science behind long term research studies.
Most people cannot understand it but most people don't do the work without school to do it. When I have problems, I turn to Biostatistics: The Bare Essentials, a book recommended by a researcher I knew when I was complaining about the books I have. If I have further trouble, I have about five people (including an engineering professor and an epidemiologist -- one of the top biostatisticians out there) who help me vet studies and who check my math when I'm not sure if I've gotten something right. Researchers often compliment me for getting the science right and for annoying the fuck out of them to do that. I'd rather admit to being an idiot before a column goes out than get stuff wrong in a column.
And don't assume that people with advanced degrees know anything or have read anything since they graduated. You can tell those who are rigorous -- listen to Sonja Lyubomirsky on my radio show recently. http://www.blogtalkradio.com/amyalkon/2011/12/26/advice-goddess-radio-amy-alkon
That's rigor.
Amy Alkon at January 9, 2012 8:25 AM
There is a very strong correlation with modern obesity that can't be ignored: reduction in smoking.
We are an affluent society. Food is extremely inexpensive by historical standards. Disease free food, essentially fresh, is incredibly easy to obtain. Our ability to overeat is massively easier than ever and has been for over half a century, yet only now do we see these jumps in obesity. Why?
Granted, one aspect is the increase in drinks of all types. Regardless of whether you use sugar, corn syrup or "natural", drinking over a gallon of soda, tea, coffee, beer, fruit juices, whatever, is a huge amount of calories. (I believe it is these carbs that are the problem more than grains or other sources.)
Another things that bugs me is that if you break down the obesity rates by states and race, certain patterns start to emerge, but political correctness prohibits anyone, including me, from stating the obvious.
Let me just point out that Utah is one of the healthiest states and has been for decades. The life expectancy is on par with all the "go to" countries (especially Andorra, which everyone ignores when it comes to diet.)
Regardless, I suspect that if Americans simply reduced the amount of soda, fruit juices, tea, coffee and alcohol they drink, obesity rates would drop. (And if they picked up smoking again at the 1960s rates, it would drop even more at the cost of even worse health issues.)
Joe at January 9, 2012 8:53 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2012/01/08/why_you_should_3.html#comment-2899892">comment from JoeJoe, you "believe"? Based in looking at multiple studies? Or knowing who you can trust to do that? Or you just have an intuition.
Here's the result of someone who can and does assess studies:
http://freetheanimal.com/2011/03/phd-med-school-biology-researcher-goes-paleo-racks-up-70-pound-weight-loss-gets-hot.html
Amy Alkon at January 9, 2012 8:56 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2012/01/08/why_you_should_3.html#comment-2899897">comment from Amy AlkonOh, and one doesn't overeat cheeseburgers, but carbs? Yes.
The smoking notion is just silly, as if the entire universe smoked before the government told Americans to eat a high-carb, low-fat diet -- precisely the diet that makes them fat and diabetic.
It never ceases to amaze me, people who weigh in based on their opinion alone, and feel entirely comfortable about that.
Amy Alkon at January 9, 2012 8:58 AM
I think Joe's point is rather valid though. If we spent as much time catching and fighting for our food as the Intuit did, we'd naturally be thinner and healthier.
Likewise, if we didn't drink caffeeine or alcohol or big 7-Eleven slurpees, we might be as healthy as Mormons in Utah. Why are the healthier?
But who really wants to be a Mormon, or an Intuit, for that matter?
I find these studies interesting, but I don't know if they really correlate. These cultures didn't have the same access to food as we do.
There is the argument that being thin in general leads to greater health and longevity, so you'd really have to compare peoples of the same weight, or weight class, then factor in why they weigh less. Is it diet or lack of easy food? Is it really what they're eating or the fact they're not eating much at all because they must kill or catch it first?
Comparing thinner, more active tribal peoples to obese, lazy Westerners is almost always going to skew against the Western diet, wouldn't it?
LS at January 9, 2012 9:29 AM
Agree with Amy regarding reducing carbs and not relying on smoking.
Back in the 1970s, prior to the obesity epidemic, average carbohydrate consumption in the US diet was 43%, around the upper average limit of most hunter gatherer diets studied.
Of course none of us has all the answers, but a hunter gatherer-type diet holds promise for Americans in terms of metabolism and chronic disease. Because of its nutrient dense nature, the inclusion of fats, coconut oil and bone broth I favor the Paleo Diet as described at www.paleodietlifestyle.com (see Paleo 101 on this site).
If embarking on this or any diet plan, those with obesity, metabolic syndrome, pre-diabetes or other significant medical conditions should consult a physician first. I also suggest the use of a glucometer to determine how they tolerate the recommended dietary starches. Everyone's metabolism is unique. For example, some of my patients show high blood sugars on sweet potatoes but normal blood sugars after eating parsnips and carrots, and others may not tolerate any of these root vegetables but do well on turnips.
BTW, I have no financial interests to declare. I am a member of the Nutrition and Metabolism Society, and the American Association of Bariatric Physicians. If you are interested in nutrition and psychiatry, you can find my podcasts on Jimmy Moore's site, and also with Dr. Robert Su.
Ann Childers at January 9, 2012 9:48 AM
Bottom line is this, people evolved to be a primarily predatory species.
Is it any wonder that you find a plethora of cave paintings with animals and fish and game aplenty, but a picture of a carrot is narry to be found?
Its because those hunter gatherers painted the things that were important to them, not the things they ate only to get by when tracking the things they actually wanted and needed to eat.
We're built as a primarily predatory species as well, from our teeth which rip flesh from bone, to our amazing cardio system that allows us to be one of the only species that can run any animal on earth to ground over distance.
Why is it so shocking that nature (or God if you prefer) would build our bodies to best operate on the diets we were built to CATCH?
Yes we can be omniverous, but remember that the fruits and vegetables of today have been bred by farmers for an extensive amount of time even before people understood exactly why and how that process of culling and promoting traits worked.
The vegetables and fruits of yester-millions had little appeal to our ancestors.
Oh, and an interesting side note, current research suggests that farming actually took place for the purpose of creating BEER, not bread. Residue testing shows that beer storage predates bread by 3,000 years. This suggests that agriculture as a primary food source started rather later. Of course future information might come out to disprove it, but I have to admit it is a hypothesis that does have a certain appeal to me.
Robert at January 9, 2012 10:00 AM
A comment on exercise:
Exercise has not been shown to reduce weight, but it does work up an appetite and even promotes obesity in some. The recommendation to reduce calories while increasing exercise has been counterproductive. Those of you who have tried and failed be of good cheer. It's not your fault.
Do hunter gatherers work hard every day? Not unless they have to. Conservation of energy is more the rule. Hunters prefer one big kill over a lot of small kills, and gathering a wide variety of plant material means energy lost with little gain. A big kill such as a collard peccary, with an average yield of 65,000 Calories per hour of hunting, pays big dividends in terms of energy expended to energy gained, whereas gathering acorns yields 1500 Calories for each hour of work. Hunter gatherers may be primitive but they are not fools. To succeed, bring back a peccary or two or three, then take time off.
It has only been in the last few decades that Americans went to gyms to work off their food. Looking back at history, in the 1970s in the US, going to a gym was considered eccentric (I remember those days!). Slender men with 6 pack abs didn't run across the yard, much less 10 miles to stay in shape. Google photos of Woodstock 1969, then Woodstock 1999 for comparison. You can see a clear difference in body habitus between these young populations.
Interestingly, our bodies may preserve and even build muscle with diet alone. In one study 30 g (about 4 oz) protein with branch chain amino acids (found in eggs/milk, e.g.) served at each meal was shown to increase lean body mass (muscle) in men without workouts. Making sure we eat high quality proteins with every meal can assist with building and maintaining muscle mass. The best proteins quality comes from animals, hence the wisdom of the hunter gatherer diet.
All of this said, exercise is good for health, and I would not discourage anyone from undertaking safe physical activity. However, at this point in time exercise does not appear to be a reliable way to lose weight.
For your consideration:
Weighing the Evidence on Exercise
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/18/magazine/18exercise-t.html?pagewanted=all
Ann Childers at January 9, 2012 11:29 AM
Isn't it true that we have an excessively long digestive tract compared to other carnivores? I wouldn't think our teeth are especially sharp comparatively either. We're much more omnivore, and perhaps even herbivore, than carnivore.
And thank you, Dr Childers. It's interesting how differently people's bodies respond to carbs or any of the macronutrients. I appreciate you admitting that it's unknown just why LC diets work - whether it's the higher protein, fat, lower carbs, or some balance.
I've recently diecovered that my protein was too high, after years of LCing, hitting a plateau, then actually gaining weight on the LC diet. That just didn't make sense to me, but at 115 pds, I probably didn't need that much protein and I suspect my body began storing the excess as body fat. After lowering my protein (basically by cutting out meat) I've started to lose weight again. And I've found I can raise my carbs somewhat, though I still wouldn't eat lots of sweets or starches.
So, I certainly think the right balance per individual is what matters most. It isn't as simple as a one-size-fits-all kind of diet.
LS at January 9, 2012 11:41 AM
Exercise may not be a reliable way to lose weight, but you'll look a hell of a lot better at the same weight (at least if you're doing real exercise, not just doing a little walk). My weight always hovers at about 120 pounds, whether I'm training for a marathon or stuck chained to my desk for a couple of months (I eat until I'm full, whether I'm training or not, so I naturally eat less if I'm not). But my ass looks much better when I've been training regularly, and my measurements are smaller, despite being the same weight. Not to mention I feel better and sleep better.
I don't need to lose weight, so I'm more interested in who lives the longest. I do not see how you get past the fact that the longest-living populations (e.g., the Japanese) eat tons of carbs, and that the Inuits drop dead on average around 65. Even if that's mostly from accidents and a hard life, that still means there aren't too many old folks to study (and those that do survive seem likely to be extraordinary). I read Gary Taubes' so-called explanation about the Japanese, and found it very unsatisfying.
At any rate, since the last few generations of my own family has apparently done well on a carb- and fruit-filled diet (many of them making it to 100, just about all of them past 85, and none of them overweight), and since it also seems to work for me (consistent weight, good cholesterol over 100, perfect blood pressure), and since I enjoy them, I'm not going to stop eating them. You can pry my warm home-baked bread out of my cold, dead fingers if it doesn't work out for me. It will certainly have butter on it, so perhaps that will save me.
Gail at January 9, 2012 12:17 PM
Google "Comparative Digestive Physiology" and take a look at the iastateedu ppt slides. Fascinating stuff. Our molars look like those of other omnivores, and our digestive tracts share commonalities with those of dogs and cats. No wonder our furry pets follow us around.
Ann Childers at January 9, 2012 12:50 PM
The problem with epidemiology studies being used to isolate the cause of obesity in the US is the number of possible factors involved.
A few things happened at the same time.
1)USDA recommends grain heavy diet
2)Fastfood joints explode in popularity
3)Life for both adults and children become more sedentary due to computers and video games
4)The microwave becomes a home appliance so a 1500 calorie meal can be had in 5 minutes or less.
5)Additives in food go wild
6)Junk food and snack portions become epic
Hunters in the rural US don't get fat where as a welfare mooch is usually trailing a herd of huge. The issue is that combination of these can answer the why. My personal guess is the staggering quantities of REFINED carbs in the form of Family size bags of Doritos and gallons of "Grape Drink".
As far as the Inuit and native tribes switching to a "modern" diet. That may be due more due to population genetics and selection forces than anything inherent to humans in general.
Hunters typically use everything. The organs are (when safe) ground up to make sausage or any number or preparations. Bones are usually turned into stock.
When I've tried to lose the only thing that really worked was low carb, moderate to moderate high fat, lots of low starch vegetables and high fiber foods. Never those South Beach or Atkins prepared meals. Combined with lots of regular heavy exercise, which keeps my appetite down and I'm not sure why. I'd recommend trying a few options and seeing what works.
vlad at January 9, 2012 1:27 PM
LS, I appreciate your comment on dietary protein that is too high leading to fat gain.
Most people do not realize that excess protein turns to glucose in our bodies. This process, known as gluconeogenesis, is the reason the Inuit did not die of hypoglycemic seizures from their very low carbohydrate ketogenic diets. Too much glucose must be stored, and it is stored as fat.
Current studies suggest 23% of Calories from protein in the diet is optimal, promoting muscle but not fat. Researchers continue to struggle with these numbers, so stay tuned.
The traditional Inuit obtained about 70% of Calories from animal fat and 30% from protein. Most experts say we should not go beyond 35%.
I had a patient who complained she couldn't understand why she was obese on an all muscle meat and animal fat diet. When I looked at her laboratory values she was also malnourished. My theory is that she far exceeded the protein she required. Animal fat does not appear to cause weight gain in the context of a very low carbohydrate diet, so I did not think that was the issue. However, since she wasn't eating like the Inuit (who can these days, and who wants to?) she lost ground nutritionally.
While there are nutritional principles that work for most people, everyone has their own setpoint. No matter our expertise, much of what we do is trial and error. My diet has been about 18% protein. I plan to try out 23% protein and see where it goes. Will I gain fat weight (age 57 years, 5' 5", 118 lbs, BMI 19.6--BTW, BMI is a guideline and does not reflect lean body mass, but we can save that discussion for another go round), or muscle? Time will tell.
Ann Childers at January 9, 2012 1:30 PM
The smoking correlation isn't mine alone; there are several articles in peer reviewed journals discussing this.
I also ran across this little chart:
Per capita: 1976 2005 Percent Change
Energy (kcal) 2,316 2,581 11%
Carbohydrate (g) 289 320 11%
Protein (g) 71 74 5%
Fat (g) 86 102 18%
Mono-unsaturated fatty acids (g)
40 49 23%
Poly-unsaturated fatty acids (g)
13 20 56%
Saturated fatty acids (g)
28 27 -2%
Even contrary to my suspicions about drinks, I don't see a massive increasing in carbohydrate consumption proportional to the increased obesity rates.
So, do Alabamians eat more carbohydrates than Andorrans? Less, more fat, less?
Genetics absolutely has to be factored in. To quote one statistic from and article in Epidemiologic Reviews: "In 1999–2002, the combined prevalence and the prevalence of obesity among non-Hispanic Black women was 20 percentage points higher than among White women."
Finally, are we really unhealthier in general than in the past? Or are we really arguing around the edges?
Joe at January 9, 2012 1:31 PM
"I'm seething that it's somehow okay to make Eskimo jokes in this day and age.
I am an Eskimo. We are not some cutesy little stereotype or a mythical people you'll never encounter. "
I disagree. Eskimos are cute as a bug with only two-thirds as many legs.
How many Eskimos does it take to screw in a light bulb?
Don't be ridiculous. Eskimos are far too large to fit inside a light bulb.
Why do Eskimos wash their clothes in Tide?
Cause it's too cold outtide!
What Do You Call A Gay Eskimo Woman?
A Klondike.
What do Eskimos buy at Christmas time?
Christmas seals.
Hear about the Eskimo girl who spent the night with her boyfriend and next morning found she was six months pregnant.
Hear about the Eskimo who was stabbed with an icicle?
He died of cold cuts?
Ratio of an igloo's circumference to its diameter?
Eskimo Pi
What do you call an eskimo's house with no bathroom?
An Ig.
Do you know what an Eskimo gets when he sits in his igloo for too long?
Polaroids...
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at January 9, 2012 1:37 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2012/01/08/why_you_should_3.html#comment-2900464">comment from Gog_Magog_Carpet_ReclaimersGog, you have to answer the comment challenge question below or your comment will go to spam. I rescued this.
Amy Alkon at January 9, 2012 1:38 PM
Thanks Amy I was just in the midst of defining the word 'tomato' when I saw the fix. Thanks!
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at January 9, 2012 1:39 PM
That's very interesting, Dr. Childers. I wonder if this is why a lot of people seem to plateau on an LC diet? Every LC discussion board I've been on seems to be full of people who lost lots of weight on LC initially, but then they struggle with the last 30-50 pds to reach their goal weight.
Most of the LC advice tends to be to eat MORE protein at that point, but that could be the problem, as, having already lost weight, these people actually need much less protein than they did when they began the diet. They can't just eat muscle meat and fat and get results like they did in the beginning.
LS at January 9, 2012 2:19 PM
Joe, I think you are making a good point about carbohydrates.
It seems the tipping point for obesity is somewhere over 43% calories from carbohydrates. We don't know where that tipping point is, but the 55% we consume now is too much.
Additionally, the kind of carbs we have now are not types widely consumed in the 1970s.
The wheat we consume today is a far cry from 1970s wheat. Does this make a difference? Based on whole wheat bread's effect on blood sugar, evidence suggests it does.
Then there is fructose. We are bathed in fructose at this point in time. Fructose does not raise blood sugars the way other sugars do, but it does contribute to body fat and liver stress. It appears to promote non alcoholic liver disease and metabolic syndrome (pre-diabetes).
And so intriguing clues to how we should eat continue to emerge. In terms of macronutrients, for now I think we should reverse the clock on macronutrients to make carbs count for about 43% or less of Calories. We can see if 20-23% of calories from protein agrees with us. The rest should be natural fats. IMO, we are best served by learning to cook, shopping the perimeter of the grocery store and eating whole foods.
Ann Childers at January 9, 2012 2:23 PM
LS, good point. I have no studies to say one way or the other, but your concept about the role of protein in the low carb diet plateau makes sense.
I wish more money could be funneled to independent researches regarding diet (in other words, no commercial interests) so we could decide these issues objectively.
Ann Childers at January 9, 2012 2:28 PM
The term, "evolution" is being bandied about too loosely here. For a particular "snapshot" of human development to be cited, I suggest a bit more than just a date or time period be posted.
There is a week's worth of reading about research in human development at this site.
As you check it out, do not lose track of the two basic features of evolution itself:
1) It occurs when a heritable trait occurs;
2) It has not stopped.
Enjoy!
Radwaste at January 9, 2012 2:45 PM
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers, did you do that to upset me? Why?
Also, will you kindly share information about yourself - something you take pride in - so that I may demean it in the same manner?
I thought not.
Jill at January 9, 2012 4:48 PM
Jill, people who get offended easily aren't catered to here. I"m scots, english, and native american. Feel free to mock at will-alcohol use is an easy start for 2/3 of me at least.
All jokes are about somebody. Think about that. Are they only funny when not about you? Or would you prefer a jokeless humor-free world? I wouldn't. Not even when people on here are calling my family second-generation boarder-hoppers (sp).
And lastly, you do not have the right to not be offended.
momof4 at January 9, 2012 5:27 PM
"I thought not."
Yeah, see, this is a series of tubes known as the interwebs. When you throw out a challenge, you have to let the challenged read and respond. It's not a telephone conversation. It's not instantaneous. It's not like rubbing noses. It's more like mailing a picture of your nose to someone and letting them mail a picture back to you.
So let's see. Something about me that you can mock.
Hmm. I lived in Alaska for three years, both of my siblings were born in Alaska, and our heritage is mixed white European. You know, the people who brought the wheel, writing, gunpowder, and smallpox to the Native Americans.
Have at it. Unlike you, I don't base my self-esteem on a genetic lineage over which I have no control. I base it on advertising, bodyfat, and sexy cars.
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at January 9, 2012 7:01 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2012/01/08/why_you_should_3.html#comment-2901714">comment from Gog_Magog_Carpet_ReclaimersUnlike you, I don't base my self-esteem on a genetic lineage over which I have no control. I base it on advertising, bodyfat, and sexy cars.
Hah - great.
Amy Alkon at January 9, 2012 7:19 PM
Listen, this horseshit starts from the TITLE OF THE ARTICLE. You look the piece over and see no reason to believe the Inuit were "healthier than we are".
First comes a short, pungent tearjerk of a quotation.
And on the inside, I'm all: "Ouch, I'm sorry to hear that!" But the next sentence goes like this:
So now I'm all, like, "Jesus Motherfucking Christ. Do words have meaning? Which is it?" Are you at risk for starvation?... Or is there plentiful, safe food at hand?
Next we get a few Rousseau-tinged lines of smirking about fast food the the horrors of American modernity. ("Keyboards!" "Bustling city"!) And then:
Reading these words, my internal fuckalogue runs as follows: "Yeah? Golly, who doesn't like a pleasant surprise? I'm looking forward to being suprised when learning that!"
But no! It's Baitzy-Switchzy... Because that selfsame paragraph ends like this:
Is there a pattern here? Are we going to be asked to improve our diets by living under threat of murderous hunger (while skinning emaciated beasts)?
Wait!! Don't answer that! Let's get back to the main question: Where is this baseline of magnificent Inuit vigor we keep hearing about?
Focus, seekers!
Well... There's some stuff about a few major nutrients, but nothing like a complete list. WILD ANIMALS are described as an excellent food source. But again, this is digression, 'cause we're not all gonna going hunting etc etc... Right?
THERE'S NEVER ANY SURVEY OF THE OVERALL HEALTH OF THIS POPULATION. Nothing historical, nothing modern. No family studies. No measures of intelligence against other populations (the kind of fitness which is terrifyingly reliant on micronutrients). No relative incidence of disease besides factoids about cardiac health, and no baseline longevity data anyway. No numbers for vision, hearing, broad athleticism, dental, reproductive or psychological well-being. No charts.
Got it? If there's climax to this squirtless little seduction, it's in a tepid shiver of typical Rousseauian bitterness:
Now, I may live to be a thousand years old. I'm carrying inertia from five decades of essentially spotless vitality. And, Lord knows, I'm good-looking: My surrounding community has every reason to gratefully sustain me in good health as the years march on.
But if I do, even if I live to be a thousand years old, the last thing I'm going to want from this writer is descriptions of "spreading taint".
And now, let's consider our local correspondents.
> you really have no idea what you're
> talking about.
I know exactly what I'm talking about. Amy, this is a grade-schooler's understanding of evolution, it's not even undergrad-level. Raddy, bless his pointed little head, is right about that... (Also, I think I have a comment-crush on Lori, who mentioned the Monica "paradox" studies that made so much noise a few years ago.)
> Complex cognitive adaptations take hundreds
> or thousands of generations to take hold --
> but we may adapt in some ways in less time.
...Besides, that's kinda what I said.
> I thought about getting a Ph.D.
If you'd put in those years of study and sacrifice, I bet you wouldn't use the insight you'd gained to snark at people. Postgrads almost never do.
> and Dr. Albert Ellis himself advised
Name-dropping is corrosive.
> I am more rigorous about science than so many
> with "sheepskins,"
We all got hobbies. I'm a better guitarist than Keith Richards. (Can't sell a ticket, though.) This gets to be like a guy who plays in a fantasy sports league, talking on his cell phone in the elevator: "We gotta trade Kobe for LeBron..." He's taking it too personally. It ain't his team.
> mentioning privately a rather famous person
Technically, not a name-drop!
> thank you for catching my typo.
Think nothing of it.
> there is a great deal more to a carbohydrate-
> restricted diet (in the case of the Inuit,
> nearly carbohydrate-free) than history.
> There is science.
We're discussing precisely that verge. You're saying the lives of Inuits are directly instructive, and I'm asking about the body of data that lets you say so.
> Today, about 44% of American adults are
Yeah, there's some ugly shit going on, but does this mean you're retreating on the parts about "cites" and "significant number(s) of elderly"?
> As for hunter gatherer diets (no
> grains), 73% of…
Now, "hunter gatherer diets" may offer all sorts of fascinating data, but we're pretty specifically talking about Inuits. Right? Best to be clear about this, because...
> A reference for you
...Your cause is not my cause, and the references aren't of interest. At the moment, they don't seem to be supporting your case...
> The Inuit demonstrate that humans can
> survive in good health (etc.)
...even where wordy elisions are forgiven. (And that's more than you should ask of us.)
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at January 9, 2012 10:02 PM
> My husband has a PhD in climatology and that was
> no walk in the park. He spent years earning that
> title and there is reason they don't hand them
> out like Pez
Yeah.
> That's rigor.
Sister... Stop.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at January 9, 2012 10:11 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2012/01/08/why_you_should_3.html#comment-2902783">comment from Crid [CridComment at gmail]I don't blog about climatology, global warming, climate change, whatever you want to call it because I neither have a physics background nor an understanding of climatology. That doesn't seem to stop many other people.
You want to see evidence of my scientific rigor, read my column and then read the studies that go into it -- and the studies that didn't because they didn't have adequate methodology (despite being reported as such by much of the media, in some cases, or those people with the important sheepskins).
Amy Alkon at January 9, 2012 10:36 PM
You should hear my cover of Rocks Off, 'specially on the Strat... It's fuckin' rigorous!
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at January 9, 2012 11:03 PM
(Hi Jill!)
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at January 9, 2012 11:49 PM
Crid, you're offering subjectivity - yours - for objectivity. Again. That's not "rigorous" at all.
Radwaste at January 10, 2012 2:47 AM
we might be as healthy as Mormons in Utah. Why are the healthier?
In terms of obesity, yes. In term of psycology, STDs and diabites, not so much.
I realize the plural of anecdotes is not data, but more than half of the deaths in my ward were diabeties related, and according to inteseting news article my high school had the highest teen pregnacy rate in the state
lujlp at January 10, 2012 5:48 AM
How can they be less obese yet more diabetic? That doesn't make much sense, and, if true, we should study why. I though diabetes rates pretty much track along with obesity rates.
LS at January 10, 2012 5:56 AM
I disagree. Eskimos are cute as a bug with only two-thirds as many legs.
Acctually bug as in insects usually have six legs. 2/3rds of 6 is four, unless that was a joke of some kind and I am seriouly not getting it
lujlp at January 10, 2012 6:06 AM
Unlike you, I don't base my self-esteem on a genetic lineage over which I have no control. I base it on advertising, bodyfat, and sexy cars.
Im' a ffreudian, I base my self esteem on the size of my, er . . . feet, yeah feet
lujlp at January 10, 2012 6:07 AM
Name-dropping is corrosive.
And your appeal to authority wasnt?
Also, crid, go fuck yourself
lujlp at January 10, 2012 6:08 AM
For anyone interested in hunter-gatherer diets, I think this reference is worth a look:
The paradoxical nature of hunter-gatherer diets: meat-based, yet non-atherogenic
http://www.cnpp.usda.gov/Publications/DietaryGuidelines/2010/Meeting2/CommentAttachments/Hahn-178DOC.pdf
'Nice to know humans can eat meat without sacrificing arteries.
This is my favorite modern mimic of a hunter gatherer diet: http://paleodietlifestyle.com/paleo-101/
Cheers!
Ann Childers at January 10, 2012 8:39 AM
I see the huge increase in polyunsaturated fats, the change in omega3/omega6 ratio and the change in type as well as a small increase in amount of carb as behind most of the problem. Not just more wheat and corn but genetically different strains, also an increase in all sugars including more fructose, which is stored rather than immediately used for energy. These things have caused epigenetic changes in our mitochodria which result in insulin resistance in even the young thin relatives of people with type 2 diabetes. I don't imagine a lot of environmental toxins have helped, either, not to mention overprescribed medications which increase insulin resistance, like statins, antidepressants and steroids. My husband's family never had diabetes, I attribute a lot of his to PCB exposure and steroid injections.
nonegiven at January 10, 2012 12:54 PM
luj, relative to the insect, you do have 2/3 the number of legs. You just call two of them "arms".
Radwaste at January 10, 2012 3:20 PM
What about the impact of alcohol? Did the Intuit drink? We spend so much time evaluating diet and perhaps not looking at other more serious factors, such as drinking and smoking.
LS at January 10, 2012 5:29 PM
Tweet
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at January 11, 2012 9:29 PM
Crid cracks me up.
prawn toe at January 12, 2012 10:16 AM
Pronny, if you want more, go back and read the thread linked in the first comment.
This obsession is pathetic. "Science" is not a factor with these people.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at January 12, 2012 2:40 PM
Leave a comment