Eskimos and ketosis?



M

Matti Narkia

Guest
Robert Matthews writes in the article

The burning question
The Sydney Morning Herald, October 23, 2003
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/10/22/1066631499123.html

as follows:

"Such attitudes might suggest that the scientific world is in the
grip of cognitive dissonance over the Atkins Diet, preferring to
ignore whatever evidence it does not like. Professor Eric Westman, a
clinical trials expert at Duke University in North Carolina, and
author of a study of the evidence for and against the diet, says,
"It is making people re-examine dogma - and it's not always
appreciated."

According to his review, which is due to appear in Current
Atherosclerosis Reports, studies show that the Atkins diet does
produce weight loss over six months, and without obvious health
effects. Contrary to the claims of many nutritionists, there is even
evidence that it may be healthier than the standard diet: despite
its promotion of fat and eggs, studies suggest that the diet may
boost levels of the healthy forms of cholesterol.

Westman thinks that this unexpected effect may explain a long-
standing mystery surrounding heart disease. In the late 1980s,
researchers began investigating the unusually low rates of heart
attacks and stroke among Eskimo communities in Greenland. Until now,
the explanation was thought to lie in their diet of oily fish. Yet
attempts to reduce heart disease using supplements of fish oil
extracts proved disappointing. Westman says the studies of the
Atkins diet point to another explanation: that the lo-carb diet
forced on the Inuit by their environment gives them higher levels of
healthy forms of cholesterol, which are proven to lower heart
disease risk."

This brings up an interesting question: Eskimos ate huge amounts of fat and
considerable amount of protein from seal and fish, and very little
carbohydrates, so they must have been in ketosis all the time. Why this
didn't produce any ill effects in them? Their heart disease rate was very
low, and to my knowledge they also had less other chronic diseases such as
diabetes and cancer than is typical in western countries. Isn't ketosis
supposed to be bad?




--
Matti Narkia
 
Matti Narkia <[email protected]> wrote:
> carbohydrates, so they must have been in ketosis all the time. Why this
> didn't produce any ill effects in them? Their heart disease rate was very

Because they were constantly active and did not over eat.
 
On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 09:01:37 GMT, r5 <[email protected]>
wrote:

> Matti Narkia <[email protected]> wrote:
>> carbohydrates, so they must have been in ketosis all the time. Why this
>> didn't produce any ill effects in them? Their heart disease rate was very
>
>Because they were constantly active and did not over eat.

Remember that 65% of the protein you eat that doesn't go to make more
"you" gets turned into glucose by the liver so if you're eating
protein, you're eating carbs. Therefore, it's also possible that
Eskimos and other meat eating cultures were eating enough protein to
stay out of ketosis.

--
Ron Ritzman
http://www.panix.com/~ritzlart
Smart people can figure out my email address
 
Matti Narkia <[email protected]> driveled excessively in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> Robert Matthews writes in the article
>
> The burning question
> The Sydney Morning Herald, October 23, 2003
> http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/10/22/1066631499123.html
>
> as > This brings up an interesting question: Eskimos ate huge amounts of fat and
> considerable amount of protein from seal and fish, and very little
> carbohydrates, so they must have been in ketosis all the time. Why this
> didn't produce any ill effects in them? Their heart disease rate was very
> low, and to my knowledge they also had less other chronic diseases such as
> diabetes and cancer than is typical in western countries. Isn't ketosis
> supposed to be bad?


Look moron, check their life expectancy.
 
23 Oct 2003 06:00:39 -0700 in article
<[email protected]> [email protected]
(James) wrote:

>Matti Narkia <[email protected]> driveled excessively in message
>news:<[email protected]>...
>> Robert Matthews writes in the article
>>
>> The burning question
>> The Sydney Morning Herald, October 23, 2003
>> http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/10/22/1066631499123.html
>>
>> as > This brings up an interesting question: Eskimos ate huge amounts of fat and
>> considerable amount of protein from seal and fish, and very little
>> carbohydrates, so they must have been in ketosis all the time. Why this
>> didn't produce any ill effects in them? Their heart disease rate was very
>> low, and to my knowledge they also had less other chronic diseases such as
>> diabetes and cancer than is typical in western countries. Isn't ketosis
>> supposed to be bad?
>
>
>Look moron, check their life expectancy.

I'm not saying that Eskimos' diet is ideal, but regardless (or because?) of
their diet, they did have less _chronic_ diseases than is typical in western
countries. They did have a rather high rate of osteoporosis though, perhaps
because of high protein intake. As for their life expectancy, it was
relatively low. I don't know the reason for this, but it may have something
to with the standard of medical care. They may have succumbed to infectious
diseases etc.. They also did have a rather high suicide rate.
..


--
Matti Narkia
 
Matti Narkia wrote:

> Robert Matthews writes in the article
>
> The burning question
> The Sydney Morning Herald, October 23, 2003
> http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/10/22/1066631499123.html
>
> as follows:
>
> "Such attitudes might suggest that the scientific world is in the
> grip of cognitive dissonance over the Atkins Diet, preferring to
> ignore whatever evidence it does not like. Professor Eric Westman, a
> clinical trials expert at Duke University in North Carolina, and
> author of a study of the evidence for and against the diet, says,
> "It is making people re-examine dogma - and it's not always
> appreciated."
>
> According to his review, which is due to appear in Current
> Atherosclerosis Reports, studies show that the Atkins diet does
> produce weight loss over six months, and without obvious health
> effects. Contrary to the claims of many nutritionists, there is even
> evidence that it may be healthier than the standard diet: despite
> its promotion of fat and eggs, studies suggest that the diet may
> boost levels of the healthy forms of cholesterol.
>
> Westman thinks that this unexpected effect may explain a long-
> standing mystery surrounding heart disease. In the late 1980s,
> researchers began investigating the unusually low rates of heart
> attacks and stroke among Eskimo communities in Greenland. Until now,
> the explanation was thought to lie in their diet of oily fish. Yet
> attempts to reduce heart disease using supplements of fish oil
> extracts proved disappointing. Westman says the studies of the
> Atkins diet point to another explanation: that the lo-carb diet
> forced on the Inuit by their environment gives them higher levels of
> healthy forms of cholesterol, which are proven to lower heart
> disease risk."
>
> This brings up an interesting question: Eskimos ate huge amounts of fat and
> considerable amount of protein from seal and fish, and very little
> carbohydrates, so they must have been in ketosis all the time. Why this
> didn't produce any ill effects in them?

How do we know it doesn't (if they live long enough... see comments below)?

> Their heart disease rate was very
> low, and to my knowledge they also had less other chronic diseases such as
> diabetes and cancer than is typical in western countries.

Since they are aboriginal/nomadic, they historically have left the elderly
behind or sent adrift on an ice floe, right?

> Isn't ketosis
> supposed to be bad?
>

It is according to the data.

--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com/
 
Thu, 23 Oct 2003 13:50:02 -0400 in article
<[email protected]> "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Matti Narkia wrote:
>
>> This brings up an interesting question: Eskimos ate huge amounts of fat and
>> considerable amount of protein from seal and fish, and very little
>> carbohydrates, so they must have been in ketosis all the time. Why this
>> didn't produce any ill effects in them?
>
>How do we know it doesn't (if they live long enough... see comments below)?
>
Autopsies have shown that Eskimos had significantly less atherosclerosis in
their coronary arteries than non-natives following different dies. Also, if
age-adjusted statics show that they had less chronic disease than typical in
western countries, do you expect the situation to turn other way round at
some age?

Anyway, this seems to be rather academic now, because according to new
information I found, ketosis in adults can be prevented by a daily
carbohydrate intake of about 50 g. Traditional eskimo diet includes about 50
g of carbohydrates daily, so perhaps they were not in ketosis. Similarly LC
diets which allow more than 50 g carbohydrates probably won't produce
ketosis. I believe that this is the case also for Atkins' diet at least
after the initiation phase.

--
Matti Narkia
 
x-no-archive: yes

>Remember that 65% of the protein you eat that doesn't go to make more
>"you" gets turned into glucose by the liver so if you're eating
>protein, you're eating carbs.

Can you cite your authority for this? I've never heard a number higher than
50-58% for this conversion.

Thanks,

Susan
 
x-no-archive: yes

> They did have a rather high rate of osteoporosis though, perhaps
>because of high protein intake

More likely due to inadequate exposure to sunlight.

Susan
 
23 Oct 2003 20:44:04 GMT in article
<[email protected]> [email protected]ospam (Susan )
wrote:

>x-no-archive: yes
>
>> They did have a rather high rate of osteoporosis though, perhaps
>>because of high protein intake
>
>More likely due to inadequate exposure to sunlight.
>
Yes, that's definitely a factor during winter time. On the other hand they
ate a lot of fish which is the best dietary source of vitamin D.

--
Matti Narkia
 
x-no-archive: yes

>Yes, that's definitely a factor during winter time. On the other hand they
>ate a lot of fish which is the best dietary source of vitamin D.
>
>--
>Matti Narkia

IIRC, (and I may not), sunlight on the skin is required in addition to dietary
vitamin D for good bone building. Since animal protein intake is reported to
be associated with better bone density, I think the sunlight factor is more
prominent here.

Susan
 
23 Oct 2003 22:56:00 GMT in article
<[email protected]> [email protected]ospam (Susan )
wrote:

> Since animal protein intake is reported to
>be associated with better bone density, I think the sunlight factor is more
>prominent here.
>
There are conflicting reports about animal protein and bone density/bone
fractures/osteoporosis. Too much protein, especially animal protein (more
sulfur-containing amino acids) may cause calcium loss from bones, on the
other hand certain amount of protein is required for bone health. And some
studies have associated even high protein consumption with bone health. I
think that protein-bone connection is rather complex and may depend on other
nutrients and factors.


--
Matti Narkia
 
Matti Narkia wrote:
>
> Robert Matthews writes in the article
>
> The burning question
> The Sydney Morning Herald, October 23, 2003
> http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/10/22/1066631499123.html
>
> as follows:
>
> "Such attitudes might suggest that the scientific world is in the
> grip of cognitive dissonance over the Atkins Diet, preferring to
> ignore whatever evidence it does not like. Professor Eric Westman, a
> clinical trials expert at Duke University in North Carolina, and
> author of a study of the evidence for and against the diet, says,
> "It is making people re-examine dogma - and it's not always
> appreciated."
>
> According to his review, which is due to appear in Current
> Atherosclerosis Reports, studies show that the Atkins diet does
> produce weight loss over six months, and without obvious health
> effects. Contrary to the claims of many nutritionists, there is even
> evidence that it may be healthier than the standard diet: despite
> its promotion of fat and eggs, studies suggest that the diet may
> boost levels of the healthy forms of cholesterol.
>
> Westman thinks that this unexpected effect may explain a long-
> standing mystery surrounding heart disease. In the late 1980s,
> researchers began investigating the unusually low rates of heart
> attacks and stroke among Eskimo communities in Greenland. Until now,
> the explanation was thought to lie in their diet of oily fish. Yet
> attempts to reduce heart disease using supplements of fish oil
> extracts proved disappointing. Westman says the studies of the
> Atkins diet point to another explanation: that the lo-carb diet
> forced on the Inuit by their environment gives them higher levels of
> healthy forms of cholesterol, which are proven to lower heart
> disease risk."
>
> This brings up an interesting question: Eskimos ate huge amounts of fat and
> considerable amount of protein from seal and fish, and very little
> carbohydrates, so they must have been in ketosis all the time. Why this
> didn't produce any ill effects in them? Their heart disease rate was very
> low, and to my knowledge they also had less other chronic diseases such as
> diabetes and cancer than is typical in western countries. Isn't ketosis
> supposed to be bad?
>
> --
> Matti Narkia


A little cultural sensitivity: They prefer to
be called Inuit.

From:
http://alt-usage-english.org/excerpts/fxeskimo.html
We get:
'Goddard writes: "In the 1970s in Canada the
name Inuit all but replaced Eskimo in
governmental and scientific publication and
the mass media, largely in response to
demands from Eskimo political associations.
The erroneous belief that Eskimo was a
pejorative term meaning 'eater of raw flesh'
had a major influence on this shift. The
Inuit Circumpolar Conference meeting in
Barrow, Alaska, in 1977 officially adopted
Inuit as a designation for all Eskimos,
regardless of their local usages [...]."'
 
Matti Narkia <[email protected]> wrote:
>[email protected] (James) wrote:
>>Matti Narkia <[email protected]>:
>>> Robert Matthews writes in the article
>>>
>>> The burning question
>>> The Sydney Morning Herald, October 23, 2003
>>> http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/10/22/1066631499123.html
>>>
>>> as > This brings up an interesting question: Eskimos ate huge amounts of fat and
>>> considerable amount of protein from seal and fish, and very little
>>> carbohydrates, so they must have been in ketosis all the time. Why this

That is an unwarranted assumption. The typical traditional
Eskimo diet included significant vegetable matter. It's and urban myth
that there are no plants where Eskimos live...

>>> didn't produce any ill effects in them? Their heart disease rate was very
>>> low, and to my knowledge they also had less other chronic diseases such as
>>> diabetes and cancer than is typical in western countries. Isn't ketosis
>>> supposed to be bad?

That is probably true. They did however suffer from a high rate
tuberculosis and a few other diseases. See

"Chills and Fever (Health and Disease in the Early
History of Alaska) by Robert Fortuine, University of
Alaska Press, 1989 and 1992, ISBN 0-912006-58-7
(paperback).

The lower heart disease rate can probably be attributed to the
Omega-3 fatty acids in cold water fish, seals, and whales.

>>Look moron, check their life expectancy.

Bad assumption.

>I'm not saying that Eskimos' diet is ideal, but regardless (or because?) of
>their diet, they did have less _chronic_ diseases than is typical in western
>countries. They did have a rather high rate of osteoporosis though, perhaps
>because of high protein intake. As for their life expectancy, it was
>relatively low. I don't know the reason for this, but it may have something

It was lower then for exactly the same reason it is today. The
death rate from accidents here is much higher than elsewhere.
People just didn't live long enough to die of disease! They
fell out of a boat into 34 degree water; they lost a dual with a
polar bear; they walked across the lagoon while the ice was
thin; etc. etc. etc.

>to with the standard of medical care. They may have succumbed to infectious
>diseases etc..

This is a *dangerous* place to live. It is also an all day,
every day adventure.

> They also did have a rather high suicide rate.

Not until recent times. The suicide rate is a result of mixing
the values systems of two cultures that do not match.

Modern Eskimo culture is much influenced by Western culture and
a value system that does not necessarily function well here.
Eventually an equilibrium will no doubt be found, but at this
point (when there is only a 50-60 years history of really close
contact) it hasn't happened yet. I would think that one or two
generations from now will find a very different circumstance.
(I say that from having watched it change over the past 4
decades, and I expect just as much change in the next 4
decades.)

--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) [email protected]
 
"Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Their heart disease rate was very
>> low, and to my knowledge they also had less other chronic diseases such as
>> diabetes and cancer than is typical in western countries.
>
>Since they are aboriginal/nomadic, they historically have left the elderly
>behind or sent adrift on an ice floe, right?

No. Why would they do that?

First, I'm not sure that "nomadic" is a correct description,
though it depends on just how one defines the word. They had
permanent settlements. They just had several of them, and moved
with the seasons. But at any given season the same people would
be found in the same settlement, more or less.

As to the myth that they left the elderly adrift on the ice,
that is a White Man's concept. The actual facts are that in a
society based on oral history and tradition, the elders are the
library. Only insane people burn library books.

Elders were, and still are, treated with greater care the older
they get.

In fact Western cultures could learn a lot from Eskimo cultures
on that particular subject, because we tend to do very little
for our elders. We don't have a good history, nor do we have a
value system that provides appropriate guidance.

An interesting book to read regarding the way aboriginal people
in Alaska viewed the subject is "Two Old Women" (1993, ISBN
0-945397-18-6), by Velma Wallis. It tells a Gwich'in parable,
which explains why old people are never abandoned, no matter
what (basically, those who abandon them probably won't survive,
and the elders probably will!).

--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) [email protected]
 
"Al. Lohse" <[email protected]> wrote:
>A little cultural sensitivity: They prefer to
>be called Inuit.

Only if they *are* Inuit, and not always then either.

>From:
>http://alt-usage-english.org/excerpts/fxeskimo.html
>We get:
>'Goddard writes: "In the 1970s in Canada the
>name Inuit all but replaced Eskimo in
>governmental and scientific publication and
>the mass media, largely in response to
>demands from Eskimo political associations.
>The erroneous belief that Eskimo was a
>pejorative term meaning 'eater of raw flesh'
>had a major influence on this shift. The
>Inuit Circumpolar Conference meeting in
>Barrow, Alaska, in 1977 officially adopted
>Inuit as a designation for all Eskimos,
>regardless of their local usages [...]."'

Note that was the ICC's founding meeting in 1977, and the
emphasis was on being agreeable with each other. That
resolution was indeed passed, at the request of the Canadians.
However the ICC hasn't said a word about it since (it wouldn't
fly if anyone tried).

The problem is that Inuit refers to one branch of Eskimo
people/culture/language, and does not correctly describe the
other Eskimos! It also happens that here in Alaska (the place
where Eskimo culture originated) there are not only Eskimos who
are not Inuit, but the ones who are Inuit (all of my neighbors
here in Barrow for example) definitely do *not* want to be
called "Inuit". They prefer to be called "Inupiat" when
addressed as a unique group. They certainly do not mind the
term "Eskimo" being applied to all Eskimos.

The Yupik Eskimo people of Siberia and Alaska are not Inuit and
do not appreciate people saying they should be called Inuit.
And like the Inupiat people, they rather like the term Eskimo
(as well as the term "Native", which bothers a lot of Indians
in the Lower-48).

(I now a couple of Yupik people that were at the 1977 ICC
conference, and they used to get harassed about that "Inuit"
resolution.)

--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) [email protected]
 
Fri, 24 Oct 2003 19:53:06 -0800 in article <[email protected]> Floyd
Davidson <[email protected]> wrote:

>Matti Narkia <[email protected]> wrote:
>>[email protected] (James) wrote:
>>>Matti Narkia <[email protected]>:
>>>> Robert Matthews writes in the article
>>>>
>>>> The burning question
>>>> The Sydney Morning Herald, October 23, 2003
>>>> http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/10/22/1066631499123.html
>>>>
>>>> as > This brings up an interesting question: Eskimos ate huge amounts of fat and
>>>> considerable amount of protein from seal and fish, and very little
>>>> carbohydrates, so they must have been in ketosis all the time. Why this
>
>That is an unwarranted assumption. The typical traditional
>Eskimo diet included significant vegetable matter. It's and urban myth
>that there are no plants where Eskimos live...
>
Well, in the correspondence article

Westman EC.
Is dietary carbohydrate essential for human nutrition?
Am J Clin Nutr. 2002 May;75(5):951-3
http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/75/5/951-a

the author writes:

"....Few contemporary human cultures eat low-carbohydrate diets, but
the traditional Eskimo diet is very low (50 g/d) in carbohydrate
(2). ..."

That's right at the ketosis threshold stated by Westman in the same article
and below the ketosis threshold defined in _The Ketogenic Diet by Lyle
McDonald_ page 73 (the latter threshold from Susan's message in this ng).
Having said that I'm not sure what effect, if any, the amount of protein
consumed by Eskimos has in these thresholds.

>>>> didn't produce any ill effects in them? Their heart disease rate was very
>>>> low, and to my knowledge they also had less other chronic diseases such as
>>>> diabetes and cancer than is typical in western countries. Isn't ketosis
>>>> supposed to be bad?
>
>That is probably true. They did however suffer from a high rate
>tuberculosis and a few other diseases. See
>
> "Chills and Fever (Health and Disease in the Early
> History of Alaska) by Robert Fortuine, University of
> Alaska Press, 1989 and 1992, ISBN 0-912006-58-7
> (paperback).
>
Infectious diseases. I was speculating that they could be one of the reasons
for their lowish life expectancy.

>The lower heart disease rate can probably be attributed to the
>Omega-3 fatty acids in cold water fish, seals, and whales.
>
Perhaps, but the current evidence from the trials suggest that fish oil
helps to prevent sudden cardiac deaths by preventing cardiac arrhythmia, but
does not much to prevent heart attacks.
>
>>I'm not saying that Eskimos' diet is ideal, but regardless (or because?) of
>>their diet, they did have less _chronic_ diseases than is typical in western
>>countries. They did have a rather high rate of osteoporosis though, perhaps
>>because of high protein intake. As for their life expectancy, it was
>>relatively low. I don't know the reason for this, but it may have something
>
>It was lower then for exactly the same reason it is today. The
>death rate from accidents here is much higher than elsewhere.
>People just didn't live long enough to die of disease!
>
Perhaps not, but still a highish rate of osteoporosis have been reported.
Osteoporosis is typically not a disease of young ones. Similarly, I would
assume that the reported low incidence of some other chronic diseases have
been age adjusted. Don't you?


--
Matti Narkia
 
Floyd Davidson wrote:
>
> "Al. Lohse" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >A little cultural sensitivity: They prefer to
> >be called Inuit.
>
> Only if they *are* Inuit, and not always then either.
>
> >From:
> >http://alt-usage-english.org/excerpts/fxeskimo.html
> >We get:
> >'Goddard writes: "In the 1970s in Canada the
> >name Inuit all but replaced Eskimo in
> >governmental and scientific publication and
> >the mass media, largely in response to
> >demands from Eskimo political associations.
> >The erroneous belief that Eskimo was a
> >pejorative term meaning 'eater of raw flesh'
> >had a major influence on this shift. The
> >Inuit Circumpolar Conference meeting in
> >Barrow, Alaska, in 1977 officially adopted
> >Inuit as a designation for all Eskimos,
> >regardless of their local usages [...]."'
>
> Note that was the ICC's founding meeting in 1977, and the
> emphasis was on being agreeable with each other. That
> resolution was indeed passed, at the request of the Canadians.
> However the ICC hasn't said a word about it since (it wouldn't
> fly if anyone tried).
>
> The problem is that Inuit refers to one branch of Eskimo
> people/culture/language, and does not correctly describe the
> other Eskimos! It also happens that here in Alaska (the place
> where Eskimo culture originated) there are not only Eskimos who
> are not Inuit, but the ones who are Inuit (all of my neighbors
> here in Barrow for example) definitely do *not* want to be
> called "Inuit". They prefer to be called "Inupiat" when
> addressed as a unique group. They certainly do not mind the
> term "Eskimo" being applied to all Eskimos.
>
> The Yupik Eskimo people of Siberia and Alaska are not Inuit and
> do not appreciate people saying they should be called Inuit.
> And like the Inupiat people, they rather like the term Eskimo
> (as well as the term "Native", which bothers a lot of Indians
> in the Lower-48).
>
> (I now a couple of Yupik people that were at the 1977 ICC
> conference, and they used to get harassed about that "Inuit"
> resolution.)
>
> --
> Floyd L. Davidson <http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson>
> Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) [email protected]

Thanks for that. I did not know.

The arctic natives have been called Inuit, meaning "the
people" in their dialect in Canada for quite some time. As
Afican Americans have changed their title of identification
through the decades, I thought it best to call a people by
what they prefer to be called.
A.L.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom Back