Here are a couple more links for you, Paul
:Joe the links seem to prove all my points even further.
As I have been saying, unless we find a way to prepare raw meat such as cooking, drying, smoking, seasoning, dipping, thin slicing etc. we are not ever going to find it palatable. And I believe there's a reason for this. Instinctively we know if we pick a peach and it is ripe we are going to have an incredible taste sensation full of flavor. Any fruit just about the same. Try that with a raw piece of liver or butt meat, and you not only have a chewing battle on your hands, but also are not going to enjoy the flavor or texture at all. The only way to make meat palatable is to cook it or prepare in a way so that it is. No surprise of this fact that there are many foods including the grains that need cooking preparations too. But fruits, and most tubers, berries, insects, as we lived on going back to 2 million years ago and further ....do not. Our diet now is only a ten thousand years old one as far as grain eating because of the advent of agriculture, and cooking has maybe only been around for less than a thousand years. Meat I'm thinking surely was cooked earlier than that, but exactly when seems to be a big debate amongst researchers. We adapted to a new food source and will always do that for survival, but we have not been given time enough for adaptive evolution to of changed us much from a primarily plant diet...at least not without cooking.
Joe did you even read the article???
(Blue is from the article you posted..red is some more sensible info that debunks meat eating diets like the Inuit ones)
First off from the very first source I found looking for how healthy the Inupiat and Inuit indians actually are.
Inuit Greenlanders, who historically have had limited access to fruits and vegetables, have the worst longevity statistics in North America. Research from the past and present shows that they die on the average about 10 years younger and have a higher rate of cancer than the overall Canadian population.1…
that
…We now know that greatly increasing the consumption of vegetables, legumes, fruits, and raw nuts and seeds (and greatly decreasing the consumption of animal products) offers profound increased longevity potential, due in large part to broad symphony of life-extending phytochemical nutrients that a vegetable-based diet contains. By taking advantage of the year-round availability of high-quality plant foods, we have a unique opportunity to live both healthier and longer than ever before in human history.
Getting back to the article you posted on the Inuit diet the author makes it supremely clear a diet on just meat, muscle tissue, will get you sick if not kill you.
Beluga was one she liked; raw muktuk, which is whale skin with its underlying blubber, she definitely did not. “To me it has a chew-on-a-tire consistency,” she says, “but to many people it’s a mainstay.”
Ya gotta chew blubber if you hold the Inuit diet up as a healthy one!!!!!! Oh man what a bummer! And liver has to be eaten raw too to get the nutrients out of it. Cause that's all they had ....that's what they ate. A blubber restaurant would go broke on day one anywhere else where something else to eat was available.
Inland dwellers took advantage of caribou feeding on tundra mosses, lichens, and plants too tough for humans to stomach (though predigested vegetation in the animals’ paunches became dinner as well). Coastal people exploited the sea. The main nutritional challenge was avoiding starvation in late winter if primary meat sources became too scarce or lean.
Yep..... eating liver, brains, kidneys, testicles, heart, stomach contents, all washed down with a glass of blood is what else will be required of one to obtain the nutrients necessary for survival in extremely cold climes eating a meat diet.
Raw caribou liver supplied almost 24 milligrams, seal brain close to 15 milligrams, and raw kelp more than 28 milligrams. Still higher levels were found in whale skin and muktuk.
Wherever they could the Inuit went to great measures to find whatever they could in the way of plant life as they knew the nutrients were vital. And an all animal diet was NOT survivable.
The unusual makeup of the far-northern diet led Loren Cordain, a professor of evolutionary nutrition at Colorado State University at Fort Collins, to make an intriguing observation. Four years ago, Cordain reviewed the macronutrient content (protein, carbohydrates, fat) in the diets of 229 hunter-gatherer groups listed in a series of journal articles collectively known as the Ethnographic Atlas. These are some of the oldest surviving human diets. In general, hunter-gatherers tend to eat more animal protein than we do in our standard Western diet, with its reliance on agriculture and carbohydrates derived from grains and starchy plants. Lowest of all in carbohydrate, and highest in combined fat and protein, are the diets of peoples living in the Far North, where they make up for fewer plant foods with extra fish. What’s equally striking, though, says Cordain, is that these meat-and-fish diets also exhibit a natural “protein ceiling.” Protein accounts for no more than 35 to 40 percent of their total calories, which suggests to him that’s all the protein humans can comfortably handle.
This ceiling, Cordain thinks, could be imposed by the way we process protein for energy. The simplest, fastest way to make energy is to convert carbohydrates into glucose, our body’s primary fuel. But if the body is out of carbs, it can burn fat, or if necessary, break down protein. The name given to the convoluted business of making glucose from protein is gluconeogenesis. It takes place in the liver, uses a dizzying slew of enzymes, and creates nitrogen waste that has to be converted into urea and disposed of through the kidneys. On a truly traditional diet, says Draper, recalling his studies in the 1970s, Arctic people had plenty of protein but little carbohydrate, so they often relied on gluconeogenesis. Not only did they have bigger livers to handle the additional work but their urine volumes were also typically larger to get rid of the extra urea. Nonetheless, there appears to be a limit on how much protein the human liver can safely cope with: Too much overwhelms the liver’s waste-disposal system, leading to protein poisoning—nausea, diarrhea, wasting, and death.
Here it's made clear too much protein is bad. What I read out of it is that if one does not consume everything of an animal and get at least some vegetable and lots of fish..... your doomed. And then.......
Nonetheless, there appears to be a limit on how much protein the human liver can safely cope with: Too much overwhelms the liver’s waste-disposal system, leading to protein poisoning—nausea, diarrhea, wasting, and death.
Whatever the metabolic reason for this syndrome, says John Speth, an archaeologist at the University of Michigan’s Museum of Anthropology, plenty of evidence shows that hunters through the ages avoided protein excesses, discarding fat-depleted animals even when food was scarce. Early pioneers and trappers in North America encountered what looks like a similar affliction, sometimes referred to as rabbit starvation because rabbit meat is notoriously lean. Forced to subsist on fat-deficient meat, the men would gorge themselves, yet wither away. Protein can’t be the sole source of energy for humans, concludes Cordain. Anyone eating a meaty diet that is low in carbohydrates must have fat as well.
Stefansson had arrived at this conclusion, too, while living among the Copper Eskimo. He recalled how he and his Eskimo companions had become quite ill after weeks of eating “caribou so skinny that there was no appreciable fat behind the eyes or in the marrow.” Later he agreed to repeat the miserable experience at Bellevue Hospital, for science’s sake, and for a while ate nothing but defatted meat. “The symptoms brought on at Bellevue by an incomplete meat diet [lean without fat] were exactly the same as in the Arctic . . . diarrhea and a feeling of general baffling discomfort,” he wrote. He was restored with a fat fix but “had lost considerable weight.” For the remainder of his year on meat, Stefansson tucked into his rations of chops and steaks with fat intact. “A normal meat diet is not a high-protein diet,” he pronounced. “We were really getting three-quarters of our calories from fat.” (Fat is more than twice as calorie dense as protein or carbohydrate, but even so, that’s a lot of lard. A typical U.S diet provides about 35 percent of its calories from fat.)
Stefansson dropped 10 pounds on his meat-and-fat regimen and remarked on its “slenderizing” aspect, so perhaps it’s no surprise he’s been co-opted as a posthumous poster boy for Atkins-type diets. No discussion about diet these days can avoid Atkins. Even some researchers interviewed for this article couldn’t resist referring to the Inuit way of eating as the “original Atkins.” “Superficially, at a macronutrient level, the two diets certainly look similar,” allows Samuel Klein, a nutrition researcher at Washington University in St. Louis, who’s attempting to study how Atkins stacks up against conventional weight-loss diets. Like the Inuit diet, Atkins is low in carbohydrates and very high in fat. But numerous researchers, including Klein, point out that there are profound differences between the two diets, beginning with the type of meat and fat eaten.
So what's clear is that there is eating a meat diet and then there is eating a meat diet. The northern Indians had no choice, but to find a way, to survive on what was there. But they are less healthy for it.... not more. They survive on that native diet only if certain other factors are made avaiable and then this Inuit animal diet resembles almost nothing similar to any one else's meat diet on the earth. There may be a couple or few things that give it merit, like not dieing right away, but overall none to very little fiber has surely got to be a problem. Just because they could do it and there is some vitamin C and D in the fat doesn't mean its the best overall way to get such vitamins without the other gains that plant based foods offer. And the article made in super clear that native animal fats were a world of difference compared to grain fed production line model fat that everyone else eats.
The Inuit diet is one of survival and it worked sort of, but there are much better diets. No one in the world is going to realistically eat like the Inuits either. Yeah a piece of salmon or whale meat here and there, but caribou stomach contents??? I don't think that's being realistic. And there are many other factors such as ample exercise and healthy lifestyle in clean germ free cold environment that need to be taken into account when looking at the health of Northern Inuits.
More straight up info on Inuit health:
But are they actually free of atherosclerosis when eating their traditional diet?
The easiest way of getting a firm answer on this is to look at mummies from a period of time before the introduction of outside food.
Luckily, the ice is an excellent preserver of human remains, and dozens of Inuit mummies have been autopsied.
The oldest one, a 53-year-old Eskimo woman from St. Lawrence Island in the Bering Sea, is from 300 AD, well before the introduction of any outside food.
The autopsy showed that the woman had significant amounts of fatty plaque built up in her arteries (5).
The researcher wrote of this and many other Alaskan autopsies:
"We have also seen that ancient Eskimos, far removed from the stresses of modern technological society, suffered from coronary artery disease...This anatomic evidence in Alaska not only confirms the antiquity of arteriosclerotic heart disease, but also its occurrence in a preliterate society..."
-M.R. Zimmerman, MD, PhD (5
Mummified remains of Eskimos show that cancer was common even before western foods were introduced into their diet (14).
There's no reason to think that the Eskimo diet offers any sort of protection from cancer.
The Eskimo diet has been lauded for producing healthy teeth and jaws, but overall, it does not produce healthy bones and joints.
Mummies preserved from before western contact show widespread osteoporosis and osteoarthritis (16, 17),
In a 1976 study, the Inuit were consuming an incredible 2,000 mg of calcium a day from soft-boned fish. Despite all this abundant calcium intake, though, they had the highest hip fracture rate in the world (17, 18).
Although constipation and flatulence can have more than one cause, one easy way to guarantee them is to cut most or all of the fiber out of your diet.
Fiber is highly correlated with the number of bowel movements a person has per week as well as the quality of their stools. If you replace calories from fiber-rich plant food with fiber-free animal foods, you'll have fewer bowel movements.
This is why vegetarians have more bowel movements than omnivores and vegans have more bowel movements than vegetarians. Although there's no data to prove the point, this is also whyraw foodists have far more frequent bowel movements than anyone else.
Eskimos eating a traditional diet were very familiar with constipation because they ate very little plant food. Central to their religious pantheon was their most powerful deity, Matshishkapeu, which translates into, "Fart Man,". In Inuit stories, he is cited as the explanation for the regular bouts of constipation his people experienced, and he was known to inflict it upon mortals and gods who displeased him (15).
The Eskimo diet has never been known to bring about a particularly long life spans.
Dr. Samel Hutton studied the Eskimos before widespread western food exposure from 1902 to 1913, and had access to detailed birth and death records kept by missionaries from the previous century.
He wrote in his book, "Health Conditions and Disease Incidence Among The Eskimos of Labrador," that, "Old age sets in at fifty and its signs are strongly marked at sixty. In the years beyond sixty the Eskimo is aged and feeble. Comparatively few live beyond sixty and only a very few reach seventy."
Compared to the Okinawans I mentioned before, who regularly live past 100 on a diet with almost no meat and plenty of plant foods, this seems rather pathetic.
If you want to live a long life, don't try to imitate the Eskimos.
The idea that we should look to the Eskimo for health tips is absurd, and the data in this article outlined in red just reinforces what should be obvious - you won't find health and vitality by consuming animal foods.
http://www.minnpost.com/second-opinion/ ... h-debunked
From the link above:
They found 48 studies. A review of the evidence in those studies, Fodor and his co-authors write, “leads us to the conclusion that Eskimos have a prevalence of [heart disease] similar to non-Eskimo population, they have excessive mortality due to cerebrovascular strokes, their overall mortality is twice as high as that of non-Eskimo populations, and their life expectancy is approximately 10 years shorter than the Danish population.”
Either way, the “Eskimo diet” myth has been with us for four decades. And given the huge amount of money riding on its perpetuation, I suspect the myth will remain with us for some time to come.
Just Google "Eating Raw Meats" and you'll find plenty more. Now, I really draw the line at raw oysters and meats as well. Just my preference. I prefer jerky oven toasted, as well, just to be honest, and my potatoes cooked.
Read on this link under "Nutrition" and "Eating Habits and Food Preparation":
I read this in my researching around. Aside from repeating a simple list of what they basically have on the menu, no new info here.
Are you going to tell them that they are meant to be vegetarians or herbivores???
Absolutely.
Joe
Francis Bacon: “Man prefers to believe what he prefers to be true.”
Paul Paul Leverington
"A great image is one that is created, not one that is made"
Last edited by pleverington on Mon Oct 27, 2014 11:06 am, edited 10 times in total.
|
Print
Back to Top
