Medical Forum / General / Nutrition / December 2006
The Inuit Paradox - How can people who gorge on fat and rarely see a vegetable be healthier than we are?
|
|
Thread rating:  |
TC - 19 Dec 2006 17:43 GMT http://www.discover.com/issues/oct-04/features/inuit-paradox/
The Inuit Paradox
How can people who gorge on fat and rarely see a vegetable be healthier than we are?
By Patricia Gadsby Photography by Leon Steele
DISCOVER Vol. 25 No. 10 | October 2004 | Medicine
Patricia Cochran, an Inupiat from Northwestern Alaska, is talking about the native foods of her childhood: "We pretty much had a subsistence way of life. Our food supply was right outside our front door. We did our hunting and foraging on the Seward Peninsula and along the Bering Sea.
GRAY SEAL
"Our meat was seal and walrus, marine mammals that live in cold water and have lots of fat. We used seal oil for our cooking and as a dipping sauce for food. We had moose, caribou, and reindeer. We hunted ducks, geese, and little land birds like quail, called ptarmigan. We caught crab and lots of fish-salmon, whitefish, tomcod, pike, and char. Our fish were cooked, dried, smoked, or frozen. We ate frozen raw whitefish, sliced thin. The elders liked stinkfish, fish buried in seal bags or cans in the tundra and left to ferment. And fermented seal flipper, they liked that too."
Cochran's family also received shipments of whale meat from kin living farther north, near Barrow. 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." In the short subarctic summers, the family searched for roots and greens and, best of all from a child's point of view, wild blueberries, crowberries, or salmonberries, which her aunts would mix with whipped fat to make a special treat called akutuq-in colloquial English, Eskimo ice cream.
Now Cochran directs the Alaska Native Science Commission, which promotes research on native cultures and the health and environmental issues that affect them. She sits at her keyboard in Anchorage, a bustling city offering fare from Taco Bell to French cuisine. But at home Cochran keeps a freezer filled with fish, seal, walrus, reindeer, and whale meat, sent by her family up north, and she and her husband fish and go berry picking-"sometimes a challenge in Anchorage," she adds, laughing. "I eat fifty-fifty," she explains, half traditional, half regular American.
No one, not even residents of the northernmost villages on Earth, eats an entirely traditional northern diet anymore. Even the groups we came to know as Eskimo-which include the Inupiat and the Yupiks of Alaska, the Canadian Inuit and Inuvialuit, Inuit Greenlanders, and the Siberian Yupiks-have probably seen more changes in their diet in a lifetime than their ancestors did over thousands of years. The closer people live to towns and the more access they have to stores and cash-paying jobs, the more likely they are to have westernized their eating. And with westernization, at least on the North American continent, comes processed foods and cheap carbohydrates-Crisco, Tang, soda, cookies, chips, pizza, fries. "The young and urbanized," says Harriet Kuhnlein, director of the Centre for Indigenous Peoples' Nutrition and Environment at McGill University in Montreal, "are increasingly into fast food." So much so that type 2 diabetes, obesity, and other diseases of Western civilization are becoming causes for concern there too.
Today, when diet books top the best-seller list and nobody seems sure of what to eat to stay healthy, it's surprising to learn how well the Eskimo did on a high-protein, high-fat diet. Shaped by glacial temperatures, stark landscapes, and protracted winters, the traditional Eskimo diet had little in the way of plant food, no agricultural or dairy products, and was unusually low in carbohydrates. Mostly people subsisted on what they hunted and fished. 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.
These foods hardly make up the "balanced" diet most of us grew up with, and they look nothing like the mix of grains, fruits, vegetables, meat, eggs, and dairy we're accustomed to seeing in conventional food pyramid diagrams. How could such a diet possibly be adequate? How did people get along on little else but fat and animal protein?
What the diet of the Far North illustrates, says Harold Draper, a biochemist and expert in Eskimo nutrition, is that there are no essential foods-only essential nutrients. And humans can get those nutrients from diverse and eye-opening sources.
One might, for instance, imagine gross vitamin deficiencies arising from a diet with scarcely any fruits and vegetables. What furnishes vitamin A, vital for eyes and bones? We derive much of ours from colorful plant foods, constructing it from pigmented plant precursors called carotenoids (as in carrots). But vitamin A, which is oil soluble, is also plentiful in the oils of cold-water fishes and sea mammals, as well as in the animals' livers, where fat is processed. These dietary staples also provide vitamin D, another oil-soluble vitamin needed for bones. Those of us living in temperate and tropical climates, on the other hand, usually make vitamin D indirectly by exposing skin to strong sun-hardly an option in the Arctic winter-and by consuming fortified cow's milk, to which the indigenous northern groups had little access until recent decades and often don't tolerate all that well.
article continues....
*****
TC
coonskin.amestwp.com - 19 Dec 2006 18:27 GMT "The Inuit Paradox
How can people who gorge on fat and rarely see a vegetable be healthier than we are?"
The answer is the same for the traditional chinese diet which was 70 percent refined starch sources from grain, the rest from veggies and some little meat on some occasions. The major source of culturally based health problems today in contrast to these two populations is we are chroniclly overweight from consuming too many calories and have a small fraction of the physical activity those traditional lifestyles had.
Fat is in the main stored sugars glucose/fructose, which can in turn be turned back into sugars for the body to use as its primary fuel and nutrition energy source.
The inuit ate the fat, stored carbs, of animals who ultimately sourced it from glucose producing plants in the aquadic ecosystem even in artic areas. That fat was turned into sugars their body could use.
As the inuit article said, the biggest problem with diet was starvation when animals were scarce or their flesh too lean. Lean meat protein can be a problem, there was in the times of the western explorers a health disorder called the "deer" disease. Deer in general have little body fat and the flesh is quite lean anddid not provide from fat the amount of sugars for the body to use and those who ate it most of the time had health problems.
That is why bison hunters made sure to get the hump where most fat was stored as most of the animal is also lean.
Vitamins and minerals were taken from animal flesh for the inuit. Humans are only one of a very few species of animals which don't produce their own vitamin c. As with glucose, the animals they ate it either got them from up the ecosystem or by eating what few plants grew. They mentioned also eating the contents of reindeer stomachs, predigested plant material, they did not mention that the contents of other land and sea creatures were also eaten including some which feed on kelp and other aquatic plant sources.
So in general the inuit did eat plant sourced nutrition all the time, it was just a few ecosystem steps removed from them.
TC - 19 Dec 2006 18:54 GMT > "The Inuit Paradox > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > The answer is the same for the traditional chinese diet which was 70 > percent refined starch sources from grain, the rest from veggies and Refined starch from grains??????? 70%??????? Are you frikkin' nuts or just plain stupid? How about backing that up?
> some little meat on some occasions. The major source of culturally > based health problems today in contrast to these two populations is we [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > turned back into sugars for the body to use as its primary fuel and > nutrition energy source. What the hell does that mean? "Fat is in the main stored sugars glucose/fructose"??????
Dietary sugars are not the same as blood glucose or other metabolic incarnations of sugars. Idiot.
> The inuit ate the fat, stored carbs, of animals who ultimately sourced > it from glucose producing plants in the aquadic ecosystem even in artic > areas. That fat was turned into sugars their body could use. Fat as stored carbs? You really do not know what you are talking about. Equating dietary fats to blod sugars is stupid.
> As the inuit article said, the biggest problem with diet was starvation > when animals were scarce or their flesh too lean. Lean meat protein can [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > of sugars for the body to use and those who ate it most of the time had > health problems. Thanks for repeating what was just said. hat si really adding to the discussion.
> That is why bison hunters made sure to get the hump where most fat was > stored as most of the animal is also lean. > > Vitamins and minerals were taken from animal flesh for the inuit. No sh.t sherlock.
> Humans are only one of a very few species of animals which don't produce > their own vitamin c. As with glucose, the animals they ate it either [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > sea creatures were also eaten including some which feed on kelp and > other aquatic plant sources. So? Why are you repeating what was already said?
> So in general the inuit did eat plant sourced nutrition all the time, it > was just a few ecosystem steps removed from them. Go back and read the article again. Oh yeah, and read an entry level university bio-chem textbook too. Moron.
TC
monty1945@lycos.com - 19 Dec 2006 19:41 GMT The traditional Inuit diet was a "natural born killer" if there ever was one. These people were lucky to live into their early 40s. You can go to my free web site for ciations from the literature:
http://groups.msn.com/TheScientificDebateForum-/
I do agree that vegetables are not necessary for a long life. My great grandparents lived to extreme old age - in good shape too - without eating much in the way of vegetables. What they did do, not consciously, was avoid all major sources of polyunsaturated fatty acids. The Inuit did not, and they died at young ages because of it. What you find in many claims is that this or that group of people have "low cholesterol" or other supposed markers of good health and longevity, yet then when you look at what actually happened to the people, the reality can be very different indeed.
TC - 19 Dec 2006 20:02 GMT > The traditional Inuit diet was a "natural born killer" if there ever > was one. These people were lucky to live into their early 40s. You Can you back this up with specific references?
> can go to my free web site for ciations from the literature: > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > longevity, yet then when you look at what actually happened to the > people, the reality can be very different indeed. TC - 19 Dec 2006 20:07 GMT > The traditional Inuit diet was a "natural born killer" if there ever > was one. These people were lucky to live into their early 40s. You > can go to my free web site for ciations from the literature: According to this, they currently have slightly lower life expectancies than Europeans.
http://www.nanoq.gl/upload/statistik/aarbog_2001_2002/chapter%2023.pdf
Do you have any data to support your suggestion of a shorter life expectancy when they ate their traditional diet?
I think your bullshitting. Again.
TC
> http://groups.msn.com/TheScientificDebateForum-/ > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > longevity, yet then when you look at what actually happened to the > people, the reality can be very different indeed. coonskin@amestwp.com - 19 Dec 2006 20:25 GMT > The answer is the same for the traditional chinese diet which was 70 > percent refined starch sources from grain, the rest from veggies and "Refined starch from grains??????? 70%??????? Are you frikkin' nuts or just plain stupid? How about backing that up?"
I bothered to do this for you specifically at least 3 times in past. Not only do you do little homework but you can not recall repeated presentations of information which you in past had to accept when it was presented in black and white, but such trauma must erase memory too one presumes.
"What the hell does that mean? "Fat is in the main stored sugars glucose/fructose"??????
Dietary sugars are not the same as blood glucose or other metabolic incarnations of sugars. Idiot."
Dietary sugars are in the end either fructose/glucose after digestion. All carbs come in ultimate terms from plants. We use and/or store those carbs and sugars as above either directly as fat or from animals in the form of their fat. Beef fat for example comes only from plant sources of carbs and sugars.
> So in general the inuit did eat plant sourced nutrition all the time, it > was just a few ecosystem steps removed from them. "Go back and read the article again. Oh yeah, and read an entry level university bio-chem textbook too. Moron."
When such attack terms are brought out one can take it as a compliment, it means the source is in unfamiliar territory replacing bombast for informed contributions, which is sadly too much of the time.
TC - 19 Dec 2006 21:28 GMT > > The answer is the same for the traditional chinese diet which was 70 > > percent refined starch sources from grain, the rest from veggies and [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > presented in black and white, but such trauma must erase memory too one > presumes. Why do I waste my time with this idiotic a poster?
> "What the hell does that mean? "Fat is in the main stored sugars > glucose/fructose"?????? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Dietary sugars are in the end either fructose/glucose after digestion. Dietary sugars are the sugars that you eat. Glucose after digestion are glucose after digestion.
> All carbs come in ultimate terms from plants. No sh.t sherlock. With that kind of moronic illogic, there is no such thing as a non-vegan. The meat I eat ultimately came from vegetable matter therefore all the animla fats and animal proteins are actually carbs. What a f.cking idiot you are.
> We use and/or store those > carbs and sugars as above either directly as fat or from animals in the > form of their fat. Beef fat for example comes only from plant sources > of carbs and sugars. You are a fool. That you would come into such a public forum and make a spectacle of it is further confirmation of your abject stupidity.
> > So in general the inuit did eat plant sourced nutrition all the time, it > > was just a few ecosystem steps removed from them. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > informed > contributions, which is sadly too much of the time. OK..... You can revel all you want in my describing you as a moron. You are still a moron.
TC
coonskin@amestwp.com - 19 Dec 2006 22:17 GMT > just plain stupid? How about backing that up?" > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > presented in black and white, but such trauma must erase memory too one > presumes. "Why do I waste my time with this idiotic a poster?"
Ego, a slim chance you might prevail, masochism, take your pick.
> All carbs come in ultimate terms from plants. "No sh.t sherlock. With that kind of moronic illogic, there is no such thing as a non-vegan. The meat I eat ultimately came from vegetable matter therefore all the animla fats and animal proteins are actually carbs. What a f.cking idiot you are."
Yes, carbs other animals consume and store as fat may be transfered to your body and converted to sugars for energy or stored as fat. No, carbs are not the source of protein in plant eaters, plant protein is. sh.t is the food source for many animals. I sometimes joke saying I eat only vegetarian pork, fed only 100 percent corn.
> We use and/or store those > carbs and sugars as above either directly as fat or from animals in the > form of their fat. Beef fat for example comes only from plant sources > of carbs and sugars. "You are a fool. That you would come into such a public forum and make a spectacle of it is further confirmation of your abject stupidity."
Indeed, and what does it confirm about your knowledge, logic, and skill in critical thinking?
Such is often unknown among those giving themselves over to a lifestyle food cult.
TC - 19 Dec 2006 22:25 GMT > > just plain stupid? How about backing that up?" > > [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > Such is often unknown among those giving themselves over to a lifestyle > food cult. Please explain the meaning and the source of the following term: lifestyle food cult.
TC
monty1945@lycos.com - 19 Dec 2006 22:57 GMT Go to my web site and click on the link to the essay about fish oil. I created the web site so that I would not have to constantly cite the same sources here, every time some newbie ranted on about the "great benefits" of fish oil.
TC - 20 Dec 2006 14:40 GMT > Go to my web site and click on the link to the essay about fish oil. I > created the web site so that I would not have to constantly cite the > same sources here, every time some newbie ranted on about the "great > benefits" of fish oil. Your "website" is not a website. It is a hodge podge of information thrown up there by someone, with no discernible order and no way to find anything without having to wade thru a lot of unrelated text. I am not going to read that much crap just to find some little bit of information that you claim is there somewhere. Either sort the info properly or provide a search so that specific info can be found more easily or go get it yourself and post it here or provide a direct link to it. Just referring someone to your "site" accomplishes absolutely nothing.
TC
TC - 19 Dec 2006 19:37 GMT > "The Inuit Paradox > [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > So in general the inuit did eat plant sourced nutrition all the time, it > was just a few ecosystem steps removed from them. And you still haven't explained what you mean by "Lifestyle Food Cult".
TC
Blueshark - 20 Dec 2006 12:05 GMT > The Inuit Paradox > > How can people who gorge on fat and rarely see a vegetable be healthier > than we are? I would say, from instinct that it would be because of low toxin levels, thus the nutrients would still be available higher up the food chain.
The unhealthiness of the western diet has also much to do with the addition of chemicals (food enhancers etc) which have been hither to unknown in a traditional human diet.
The fact that inuits have subsisted on a similar diet for many generations, would suggest that they may have a genetic trait that allows them to thrive on these foods.
TC - 20 Dec 2006 14:50 GMT > > The Inuit Paradox > > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > levels, thus the nutrients would still be available higher up the food > chain. And you would be wrong. That makes no sense, especially the connection you make between lack of toxins and nutrients being "available higher up the food chain".
> The unhealthiness of the western diet has also much to do with the > addition of chemicals (food enhancers etc) which have been hither to > unknown in a traditional human diet. The primary reason for the western diet to be unhealthy is in the fact that much of it is refined and highly processed crap. It is not so much that chemicals are added as it is that the food itself is turned into a chemical. Take the reasonable healthy and nutritious corn, for example. They take the corn and refine it into high fructose corn syrup which is now more of a chemical and so far from being real food as to be a slow poison. Same with highly processed white flour and sugar. And now milk is homogenized and high temp pasteurized to the point that it is a dead bunch of chemicals and is no longer a living food.
> The fact that inuits have subsisted on a similar diet for many > generations, would suggest that they may have a genetic trait that > allows them to thrive on these foods. I would argue that all homo sapiens share these genetic traits. Which is what makes us primarily carnivorous omnivores. And we obviously all fail to thrive on a grain based diet. The evidence of that is in the massive levels of obesity, diabetes T2, metabolic syndrome, heart disease, anxiety/depression, ADHD, IBS, Chrohn's, etc. etc.
TC
coonskin@amestwp.com - 20 Dec 2006 17:28 GMT "I would argue that all homo sapiens share these genetic traits. Which is what makes us primarily carnivorous omnivores. And we obviously all fail to thrive on a grain based diet. The evidence of that is in the massive levels of obesity, diabetes T2, metabolic syndrome, heart disease, anxiety/depression, ADHD, IBS, Chrohn's, etc. etc."
If we are counting noses as a measure of biological success then the very low meat and very high carb, in the range of 70 percent, grain derived diet of the traditional chinese and indians would suggest otherwise. Traditionally their level of metabolic disease risk were among the lowest.
Humans have eaten whatever was at hand for all of their history and in many places this varied greatly as to season. The environmental context defined what ratio of nutrition sources was at hand and not any thing about humans but the fact they will eat anything they find palatable.
TC - 20 Dec 2006 18:50 GMT > "I would argue that all homo sapiens share these genetic traits. Which > is what makes us primarily carnivorous omnivores. And we obviously all [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > defined what ratio of nutrition sources was at hand and not any thing > about humans but the fact they will eat anything they find palatable. Except they've NEVER had access to any appreciably large amounts of grains, hfcs, and the amounts of sugars in the SAD diet. Grains in large amounts are quite new since about 10,000 years ago. And refined grains only in the last century, and especially in the last 30 years when we see a gigantic spike in sugar and hfcs consumption and disease.
TC
coonskin@amestwp.com - 20 Dec 2006 20:07 GMT "Except they've NEVER had access to any appreciably large amounts of grains, hfcs, and the amounts of sugars in the SAD diet. Grains in large amounts are quite new since about 10,000 years ago. And refined grains only in the last century, and especially in the last 30 years when we see a gigantic spike in sugar and hfcs consumption and disease."
I repeat, if we are counting noses as a measure of biological success the traditional chinese and indian diets with very low meat and very high carbs from refined grains, 70 percent, also went with some of the lowest metabolic disorder levels. That is a test in nature of your claim.
In the past couple of decades the increase in metabolic disorders is related to being overweight because of excess calorie intake and lower exercise worldwide. In most places hfcs are not in common use as sugar outside n. america is quite inexpensive. Hfcs add to the higher calorie intake. Amounts of sugars is not relevant, the high carb diets as above very quickly are seen as glucose,ie sugars, at an amount higher then is table sugar in the blood soon after consumption.
The sad diet also contains high levels of saturated fats which are also related to many metabolic disorders and especially when along with higher levels of carbs contribute to weight gain and insulin resistence in those with the biological disposition for it.
TC - 20 Dec 2006 20:44 GMT > "Except they've NEVER had access to any appreciably large amounts of > grains, hfcs, and the amounts of sugars in the SAD diet. Grains in large [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > lowest metabolic disorder levels. That is a test in nature of your > claim. What refined grains?
> In the past couple of decades the increase in metabolic disorders is > related to being overweight because of excess calorie intake and lower [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > very quickly are seen as glucose,ie sugars, at an amount higher then is > table sugar in the blood soon after consumption. The obesity and diabetes curves since 1980 matches the hfcs and sweetner consumption curves quite nicely with a 10 or 11 year lag.
> The sad diet also contains high levels of saturated fats which are also > related to many metabolic disorders and especially when along with > higher levels of carbs contribute to weight gain and insulin resistence > in those with the biological disposition for it. Going back to Ancel Keyes nonsense are we? Sat fats, eh? You know that Ancel's nonsense was shown to be nonsense years ago, don't you?
And biological disposition, is that the genes argument? How do you account for the number of obese and pre-diabetic, and diabetics increasing in number if it is gene related?
And what does "lifestyle food cult" mean?
TC
coonskin@amestwp.com - 20 Dec 2006 23:14 GMT "The obesity and diabetes curves since 1980 matches the hfcs and sweetner consumption curves quite nicely with a 10 or 11 year lag."
But only n. america use hfcs to any degree, sugar on the world market is less expensive then it is, hfcs are used because sugar tarifs keep sugar prices up to support internal sugar producers.
The entire world is seeing an increase in metabolic disorders so hfcs can not be blamed.
> The sad diet also contains high levels of saturated fats which are also > related to many metabolic disorders and especially when along with > higher levels of carbs contribute to weight gain and insulin resistence > in those with the biological disposition for it. "Going back to Ancel Keyes nonsense are we? Sat fats, eh? You know that Ancel's nonsense was shown to be nonsense years ago, don't you?
Recent research on risks for insulin resistence has nothing to do with that previous research. Saturated fats are implicated in risk for metabolic syndrom and diabetes because of the insulin connection.
"And biological disposition, is that the genes argument? How do you account for the number of obese and pre-diabetic, and diabetics increasing in number if it is gene related?"
Yes it is a genes argument, which accounts for why only about 1 of 3 people with metabolic syndrom get diabetes and only some heart disease related disorders. Several genes have been identified as being part of the higher risk in some and not all people. At multiple points genes can be in combination with others a cause for the metabolic cascade that leads to the metabolic syndrome. The fewer of the genes one has, or none of them, the lower the risk.
When one is over consuming and decreasing physical activity the metabolic variations those genes can start becomes more apparent. Under the same conditions those without the genes or enough of them do not respond in the same way metabolically nor have the related disorders.
Blueshark - 20 Dec 2006 19:48 GMT > > The fact that inuits have subsisted on a similar diet for many > > generations, would suggest that they may have a genetic trait that [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > TC I disagree. Humans adapt to the environment in which they live. I am not talking evolution, simply natural gene selection.
People are born equal, but some have 'better' genes than others - which is why society is hierachical.
allr1@webtv.net - 21 Dec 2006 15:09 GMT " I would argue that all homo sapiens share these genetic traits. Which is what makes us primarily carnivorous omnivores. And we obviously all fail to thrive on a grain based diet.
The evidence of that is in the massive levels of obesity, diabetes T2, metabolic syndrome, heart disease, anxiety/depression, ADHD, IBS, Crohn's, etc. etc. "
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Don't forget the evidence of the ancient Egyptian. (MAJOR grain eaters)
They (unlike the Inuit a previous poster tried to claim about) DID die young, and had very poor health before they passed on.
TC - 21 Dec 2006 15:44 GMT > " I would argue that all homo sapiens share these genetic traits. Which > is what makes us primarily carnivorous omnivores. And we obviously all [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > They (unlike the Inuit a previous poster tried to claim about) DID die > young, and had very poor health before they passed on. Excellent point.
TC
coonskin@amestwp.com - 21 Dec 2006 16:29 GMT > They (unlike the Inuit a previous poster tried to claim about) DID die > young, and had very poor health before they passed on. "Excellent point."
But how would you know how to evaluate this, except that it is a harmony part in your choir?
I have found that folk who are ignorant of a topic are at liberty to say anything about it. Those informed about it are constraind by their knowledge and the truth, except if they want to lie and mislead.
Hearing someone claim there is a car that gets 100 mph and I turn to someone else and repeat it is because as an uninformed person I don't have the conceptual constraints an automotive engineer would have as to reality of the science involved and the truth.
TC - 21 Dec 2006 17:16 GMT > > They (unlike the Inuit a previous poster tried to claim about) DID > die [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > But how would you know how to evaluate this, except that it is a harmony > part in your choir? I recall reading a great deal about that pertinent little fact. Ancient Egyptian mummies show similar diseases that modern man is currently suffering from. The similarities are striking because there are few ancient civilisations that show such similarities. And the commonality between these peoples and us are the grains.
> I have found that folk who are ignorant of a topic are at liberty to say > anything about it. Those informed about it are constraind by their > knowledge and the truth, except if they want to lie and mislead. I find that you show a great deal of ignorance about this topic.
Myself, I've been researching this topic for more than 6 years. I've read all kinds of university bio-chem textbooks and scientific studies. I've also researched a lot of historical aspects of food and nitrition. I've been cooking for more than 25 years and have been researching that aspect of food and food history. I don't just talk about food, I prepare it. I don't just repeat everything I read about nutrition, I question it with a healthy fact-finding scepticism.
I don't just ignorantly repeat by rote all the crap that is put out there by the Medical Industrial Complex. So go f yourself.
> Hearing someone claim there is a car that gets 100 mph and I turn to > someone else and repeat it is because as an uninformed person I don't > have the conceptual constraints an automotive engineer would have as to > reality of the science involved and the truth. Sounds like the current state of the nutritional science MO. One advanced degree pinhead connects a very dubious point to another very dubious point and another advanced degree pinhead runs with it to connect yet another dubious point to yet another dubious point, all in the name of selling a drug or a nutritionally deficient manufactured food. Then you come on here and repeat it by rote. Give me your address so I can send you a quarter so you can go buy yourself a clue. And you call us ignorant. Sheesh.
TC
coonskin@amestwp.com - 21 Dec 2006 18:23 GMT "I recall reading a great deal about that pertinent little fact. Ancient Egyptian mummies show similar diseases that modern man is currently suffering from. The similarities are striking because there are few ancient civilisations that show such similarities. And the commonality between these peoples and us are the grains."
"Few ancient civilizations", silly, illustrates what I said, he who is ignorant of a topic is free to say any damn thing about it while those who are informed are constrained by the science involved. It is the flip side of "don't confuse me with the facts". Let us review the natural experiment again. Asian traditional diets were mostly grain products, 70 percent carbs, and had among the lowest rates of metabolic disorders. Do you see how knowing even that small bit of information constrains wild opinion?
"I find that you show a great deal of ignorance about this topic.
Myself, I've been researching this topic for more than 6 years. I've read all kinds of university bio-chem textbooks and scientific studies. I've also researched a lot of historical aspects of food and nitrition. I've been cooking for more than 25 years and have been researching that aspect of food and food history. I don't just talk about food, I prepare it. I don't just repeat everything I read about nutrition, I question it with a healthy fact-finding scepticism."
Not yet in evidence as to any of the above in the usual post you offer.
I don't just ignorantly repeat by rote all the crap that is put out there by the Medical Industrial Complex. So go f yourself.
> Hearing someone claim there is a car that gets 100 mph and I turn to > someone else and repeat it is because as an uninformed person I don't > have the conceptual constraints an automotive engineer would have as to > reality of the science involved and the truth. Sounds like the current state of the nutritional science MO. One advanced degree pinhead connects a very dubious point to another very dubious point and another advanced degree pinhead runs with it to connect yet another dubious point to yet another dubious point, all in the name of selling a drug or a nutritionally deficient manufactured food. Then you come on here and repeat it by rote. Give me your address so I can send you a quarter so you can go buy yourself a clue. And you call us ignorant. Sheesh.
Yes, as illustrates the "not yet in evidence" above. Do we again detect a bit of envy in these statements.
TC - 21 Dec 2006 20:08 GMT > "I recall reading a great deal about that pertinent little fact. Ancient > Egyptian mummies show similar diseases that modern man is currently [quoted text clipped - 53 lines] > Yes, as illustrates the "not yet in evidence" above. Do we again detect a > bit of envy in these statements. Get a decent newsreader so we can tell the difference between what you are quoting and what you are writing.
TC
Ron Peterson - 21 Dec 2006 22:39 GMT > http://www.discover.com/issues/oct-04/features/inuit-paradox/ > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > DISCOVER Vol. 25 No. 10 | October 2004 | Medicine The article goes on to say: "What's more, cold-water fishes and sea mammals are particularly rich in polyunsaturated fats called n-3 fatty acids or omega-3 fatty acids. These fats appear to benefit the heart and vascular system. But the polyunsaturated fats in most Americans' diets are the omega-6 fatty acids supplied by vegetable oils. By contrast, whale blubber consists of 70 percent monounsaturated fat and close to 30 percent omega-3s, says Dewailly."
 Signature Ron
|
|
|