Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

"Eskimo Diet" Lacks Support For Better Cardiovascular Health

timothy posted about a month ago | from the quit-your-blubbering-and-eat-this-wheat-germ dept.

Stats 166

jones_supa (887896) writes Monthly Prescribing Reference reports that the "Eskimo diet" hypothesis, suggested as a factor in the alleged low incidence of coronary artery disease (CAD) in Greenland Eskimos, seems not to be supported in the literature, according to a metastudy published in the Canadian Journal of Cardiology (abstract). Researchers found that only one study directly assessed the prevalence of CAD or CAD risk factors, and that study showed that CAD morbidity was similar among Inuit and American and European populations. In most studies, the prevalence of CAD was similar for Greenland Eskimos and Canadian and Alaskan Inuit and for non-Eskimo populations. The original studies from the 1970s that formed the basis of the supposed cardioprotective effect of the Eskimo diet did not examine the prevalence of CAD. "The totality of reviewed evidence leads us to the conclusion that Eskimos have a similar prevalence of CAD as non-Eskimo populations," the authors write. "To date, more than 5,000 papers have been published studying the alleged beneficial properties of omega-3 fatty acids not to mention the billion dollar industry producing and selling fish oil capsules based on a hypothesis that was questionable from the beginning."

cancel ×

166 comments

Eskimo?! (1)

Quato (132194) | about a month ago | (#47239561)

Isn't that a fairly racist term? I thought the prefered nomenclature is Inuit or Aleut.

Re:Eskimo?! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47239575)

People that name diet fads aren't concerned about the races they offend.

Re:Eskimo?! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47239587)

Well, in your mind the racism may be present when someone quotes that particular word. In my own mind it's just an identifier. You may as well say aborigine, yet I'll think of Australian "natives" because I am an Australian native myself. I quote natives because as it is all relative anyway.

Re:Eskimo?! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47239595)

from wikipedia
The primary reason that the peoples consider Eskimo derogatory is the questionable but widespread perception[10][13][14][15] that in Algonkian languages it means "eaters of raw meat."[1][16][17] One Cree speaker suggested the original word that became corrupted to Eskimo might indeed have been askamiciw (which means "he eats it raw"), and the Inuit are referred to in some Cree texts as askipiw (which means "eats something raw").[16][18][19][20]

So I guess in this context it is not racist.

Re:Eskimo?! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47239707)

In my native tongue, the ethnonym/exonym for Germans is a word essentially meaning "people who can't speak". Is that racist?

Due to White Privilege Cracke Are (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47239829)

Racist By Default.

German is not a fucking race you dumb, fucktarded cracker. Germans, like all Europeans which are all fucking inbreds, are part of the Aryan race AKA white race. White privilege is the result of several millennial of slavery and crusades against other races. Today Whitey has most of the power even with some of it slipping away. That privilege makes all whites racist by default and the only good racist is a dead one. Once the racists are gone the racial minorities can and will find better solutions for nourishment rather than rely on some honky scientists that work for greedy corporations owned by whitey.

Re:Due to White Privilege Cracke Are (1)

Muros (1167213) | about a month ago | (#47239913)

Racist By Default.

Germans, like all Europeans which are all fucking inbreds ...That privilege makes all whites racist by default and the only good racist is a dead one.

Irony... like goldy or silvery, but made of iron?

Re:Due to White Privilege Cracke Are (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47240541)

That's mighty white of you.

Re:Eskimo?! (1)

denzacar (181829) | about a month ago | (#47240019)

Just you wait till it hits you that in most languages that take their word for "slave" from Latin, it comes from a word used to describe half the people in Europe [etymonline.com] - including yours.
And let's not even get into slavish or slovenly and what those mean.

Re:Eskimo?! (3, Informative)

Sarten-X (1102295) | about a month ago | (#47240081)

Those ancient cretins vandalized language into a byzantine mess.

Re:Eskimo?! (1)

OneAhead (1495535) | about a month ago | (#47241719)

+1 very impressive! (though I doubt many here will get all of it)

Re:Eskimo?! (4, Informative)

buchner.johannes (1139593) | about a month ago | (#47239611)

Some Inuit in Canada and Greenland object very strongly, which is as good a reason as we need not to do it.

This whole topic is a bit of minefield, it's fair to say. We can initially divide the Eskimo/Aleut people into three - the Inuit, the Unangax (Aleut), and the Yupik.

The Unangax of the Aleutian Islands don't care to be called Inuit or Eskimo. They see themselves as distinct from Eskimos and don't mind being described as Native Americans; other Eskimo/Aleut people don't identify as being such. The Unangax are easily distinguished by their language (many borrowings from Russian, including the system of verb inflexions) and their religion (most are Russian Orthodox).

The Yupik have no objection to being called Eskimos, and will use that term to encompass both themselves and the Inuit. The main groupings within the Yupik are the Alutiiq of the coast, the Yuit or Siberian Yupik, and the Yup'ik of Central Alaska.

Then we come to the Inuit. The two largest groupings are the Canadian Inuit and the Kalallit or Greenland Inuit, both of which would prefer you not to call them Eskimos. (The Greenlanders are happy with Inuit to mean both themselves and the Canadians.) Ethnically speaking, two smaller groupings - the Iñupiat of the North Slope and the Inuvialuit of the Western Arctic - are also Inuit, although the Iñupiat would rather be described as Eskimo.

I said it got confusing ...

by "suze", from http://old.qi.com/talk/viewtop... [qi.com]
further in http://old.qi.com/talk/viewtop... [qi.com]

The word "Eskimo" is non-PC in Canada, much as it's fine in Alaska. The particular indigenous person of the north who was featured on QI was a Yupi'ik from Alaska - Sarah Palin's husband is one of those as well - and hence "Eskimo" rather than "Inuit" is the term to use. The plural of Yup'ik is Yupiit.

Had the person been an Aleut, then again "Eskimo" might have caused offence. The Aleut are very sure that they are not Eskimos; while they don't object to "Aleut", they prefer one Unangax, two Unangax, three or more Unangan. (Note that most of the Eskimo-Aleut languages have what's called a dual number; this comes between singular and plural and is used when there are two of something. It's rare in European languages; Slovenian and Sorbian have it, and it's on the point of vanishing from Lithuanian.)

The indigenous people of Baffin Island and such like places absolutely are Inuit, although "an Inuit" or "lots of Inuits" are always going to be wrong since "Inuit" is the plural. One Inuk, two Inuuk, three or more Inuit.

While the people of the central Arctic would prefer Inuinnaq to Inuit, they won't get especially upset at the more general word. As for indigenous Greenlanders, the preferred term is Kalaallit, singular Kalaaleq. (There's no dual in Greenlandic.)

Wikipedia is not informative on why/where it is considered offensive. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] But it has a nice map of the tribes.

Re:Eskimo?! (1, Interesting)

buchner.johannes (1139593) | about a month ago | (#47239661)

Alaskas perspective: http://www.uaf.edu/anlc/resour... [uaf.edu]

Although the name "Eskimo" is commonly used in Alaska to refer to all Inuit and Yupik people of the world, this name is considered derogatory in many other places because it was given by non-Inuit people and was said to mean "eater of raw meat."

Linguists now believe that "Eskimo" is derived from an Ojibwa word meaning "to net snowshoes." However, the people of Canada and Greenland prefer other names. "Inuit," meaning "people," is used in most of Canada, and the language is called "Inuktitut" in eastern Canada although other local designations are used also. The Inuit people of Greenland refer to themselves as "Greenlanders" or "Kalaallit" in their language, which they call "Greenlandic" or "Kalaallisut."

Perhaps we are trying to force a term on a group of peoples which never considered themselves as a group of peoples.

Re:Eskimo?! (1)

wisnoskij (1206448) | about a month ago | (#47239827)

Well of course they never considered themselves a group. The indians were also never a single group.

When you do not know about the larger world and are ignorant of people wildly different from you you self divided into groups based on smaller differences.

It does not matter that Eskimo people never considered themselves one people, now that they have been catalogued, they need one.

Re:Eskimo?! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47239851)

I'm labelled Caucasian, but not from the Caucasus Mountains. Should I be offended?
I'm sure that all the lesbians around the world aren't from the island of Lesbos, Greece. Which one should be offended by the term?

Yeah, humans are lazy and want to have a general labeling scheme for things. We stereotype to try to find groupings which may not exist. I find the British / English class system funny as well, where as people prefer being called British as it gives a sense of being better than English. Don't understand the if Germany should be called Deutschland or not. Same with Japan, as aren't they from the nation of Nippon(-koku)? Why name their military the Japanese Self Defense Force (JSDF) instead of Nippon-koku Self Defense Force?

I'm not saying that we should stop using such general terms, just trying to reason about it and vent frustrations. What I want is a self-choosen term by these groups (that can) that is correct and distinctly their own. I suppose that is why choosing "white" or "black" is becoming more common for skin color, as it is self-choosen. No one wants the equivalent "red" or "yellow" generalizations, but that will not matter in a few hundred years. I'm a lot of white with an unnoticeable amount of red, just doesn't sound as fun as listing off a long chain of nations and ending with a tribe.

Is anything but Inuit used in text books now? I'm under the impression that Eskimo is just a legacy term that hasn't weeded itself out of popular culture, with Bugs Bunny cartoons as an example.

Re:Eskimo?! (1)

camperdave (969942) | about a month ago | (#47240153)

I find the British / English class system funny as well, where as people prefer being called British as it gives a sense of being better than English.

This [youtube.com] might help.

Re:Eskimo?! (1)

Belial6 (794905) | about a month ago | (#47241623)

If we were going to get all hyper PC (and they were white), "Inuit" would be called a racist name. After all, if Inuit means "people", then being non-Inuit would mean non-people. Now, obviously this is ridiculous, but it does point out how ridiculous PC mentality can get.

Re:Eskimo?! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47239917)

Or just call them "aboriginal people", which is the politically/technically correct way to address any native tribe...

Re:Eskimo?! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47239965)

Or just call them "aboriginal people", which is the politically/technically correct way to address any native tribe...

Until someone gets pissed off about it.

Re:Eskimo?! (2)

mpe (36238) | about a month ago | (#47240171)

Or just call them "aboriginal people", which is the politically/technically correct way to address any native tribe...

Attempts to create PC terms often end up offending people anyway.

Re:Eskimo?! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47240503)

Yeah, good luck with that in any Tribal Nation in North America. They will look at you like you just called them a racial slur.

Re:Eskimo?! (1)

bitt3n (941736) | about a month ago | (#47240075)

Wikipedia is not informative on why/where it is considered offensive.

The sad thing is, even in Canada many people don't realize how hurtful the "eskimo" epithet can be. To help spread awareness of the issue, I'm planning on partnering with my friend Dan Snyder to launch a public outreach program by buying the offensively ungrammatical Toronto Maple Leafs and rechristening them the Eskimos. Before every ice-hockey bout, we'll have a bunch of skating clowns attired in traditional garb and armed with harpoons chase down our mascot, Eskimodo the humpbacked whale, which should not only produce a most satisfactory comic effect, but serve to educate the mouth-breathing yokels who attend such spectacles on a part of their country's culture they're usually too soused on Moosebraü and overblown Canadian jingoism to pay the slightest mind to.

As part of this effort, if you wish to attend and can prove native descent, we'll be happy to give you a "reservation" free of charge, even at the last minute, although each of these seats will actually be a single square-foot of standing room located in the offsite parking-lot.

Re:Eskimo?! (1)

PPH (736903) | about a month ago | (#47240309)

The sad thing is, even in Canada many people don't realize how hurtful the "eskimo" epithet can be.

The politically correct reference in Canada seems to be 'First Nation'. That gets around upsetting one group by referring to them with the name of another.

Re:Eskimo?! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47239653)

Racist language ... Inuit would be mentioned.

Re:Eskimo?! (1)

Attila Dimedici (1036002) | about a month ago | (#47239753)

Interestingly enough, using the term "Inuit" to refer to a single group of people is racist, since "Inuit" translates as "people". If you refer to one group as "people" you are in essence saying no one else is a person.

Re:Eskimo?! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47239857)

Interestingly enough, using the term "Inuit" to refer to a single group of people is racist, since "Inuit" translates as "people". If you refer to one group as "people" you are in essence saying no one else is a person.

For a computer site, you need to check your logic. They are not mutually exclusive.

If Inuit, then People.

NOT

If and Only If Inuit, then People.

Now, from what I read above, there are three major tribes. If one of them doesn't like the term Inuit, then there could be a problem. They will likely die out culturally before they can get the term they want known to popular culture, so no one will care beyond small pockets of neurotics such as myself. Love trivia.

Re:Eskimo?! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47240157)

"Inuit" and "People" are an *identity* relationship, fucktard. "Inuit" is the word for "people," not a "description applied to some people."

A = Inuit;
B = People;
C = Other-than-Inuit;

A == B
C =/= A
C =/= B

Well, there goes... (1)

Beck_Neard (3612467) | about a month ago | (#47239567)

half the arguments people use in support of wacky theories like the paleo diet. Or theories like carbohydrates causing heart disease independent of body weight.

Amazingly, a single study counts when it does support their claims, but when it doesn't, you could point them to a thousand studies and they'd just say it's a global medical conspiracy.

I'm afraid you're wrong. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47239583)

The big change in western diets, where fat was demonised and everyone started stuffing themselves with vast amounts of carbohydrates, happened in the mid-80s.

So comparisons with western diets from the 70s has no relevance to modern diets. The fact they made that comparison suggests they are either rather stupid, or are being deceptive.

Re:I'm afraid you're wrong. (1)

mpe (36238) | about a month ago | (#47239697)

The big change in western diets, where fat was demonised and everyone started stuffing themselves with vast amounts of carbohydrates, happened in the mid-80s.
So comparisons with western diets from the 70s has no relevance to modern diets.


The craze actually started in 1977 in the US. Another part of the Low Fat, (very) High Sugars (primarily glucose) diet is the idea that unsaturated fatty acids are somehow better than saturated fatty acids. Which may well be where the omega-3 comes from.
Another possible factor is if the people in question are now eating "healthy" food from the US, Canada or Denmark.

Re:I'm afraid you're wrong. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47239783)

The big change in western diets, where fat was demonised and everyone started stuffing themselves with vast amounts of carbohydrates, happened in the mid-80s.

So comparisons with western diets from the 70s has no relevance to modern diets. The fact they made that comparison suggests they are either rather stupid, or are being deceptive.

Speaking of being deceptive, let's not merely gleam over the true demon here. Those "vast" amounts of carbohydrates you speak of kicked off in the 70s and 80s in the form of HFCS being used as the primary form of sweetener in "vast" amounts of products.

That, along with portion control going out the damn window for Americans, helped create the obese, toxic environment we have today.

Deception certainly hasn't been isolated to quackery around vitamins and wanna-be cavemen.

It's also difficult to even compare our food sources from the 1970s to today thanks to GMOs.

Re:I'm afraid you're wrong. (2)

Chandon Seldon (43083) | about a month ago | (#47240497)

The biggest change happened in late 1800's / early 1900's when refined sugar and bleached flour became widely available. There are a bunch of interesting studies when native groups who ate traditional diets transitioned to high refined carb diets. http://ajcn.nutrition.org/cont... [nutrition.org]

Re:Well, there goes... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47240173)

I'm curious - what about "eat lean meat, healthy oils, lots of vegetables, some nuts, and some fruit," do you consider "wacky"?

That is, in its essence, what "paleo diets" recommend.

I defy you to find a single nutritionist who would argue (on a scientific basis) that this is unhealthy advice for a human being.

Re:Well, there goes... (1)

sumdumass (711423) | about a month ago | (#47240847)

The alyernate to healty or good for you is not unhealthy or bad for you.

The wacky part seems to be the unsupported claims of benifits. While the supposed advantages may not be present, it doesn't neccessarily make it worse than other foods or diets- just different. Its like certified organic claiming to be better than non certified organic despite the only differences in the food's life may be someone paying to get certified (and yes, i actually know a farmer who had to create a shell company to get some acreage certified organic next to other land that was 2 years of documentation away from qualifying. He says it is all a scam but gets better prices). That is a whole lot of whacky.

Re: Well, there goes... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47240971)

Organic items may only be different in their certification, or they may be extremely fucking different in that the alternative is covered with pesticides. You're essentially paying for certainty, which is the point of certification.

Re: Well, there goes... (1)

sumdumass (711423) | about a month ago | (#47241107)

Organic can be covered in pesticides too. The difference is the types. However, no peer reviewed scientific study has ever shown that organic is better or worse than thier nonorganic counter parts from a nutricional standpoint.

Whackey indeed.

Re:Well, there goes... (2)

camperdave (969942) | about a month ago | (#47240193)

The key is you have to live like the Eskimo/Innuit/PC-Word-of-the-day or the paleolith in order for these diets to work. ie. spend the bulk of your time outdoors, tracking, hunting, fishing, gathering fuel regardless of the weather. In reality, it is probably the overall and pervasive physical activity that makes these work rather than the nutrient mix of the food.

Re:Well, there goes... (1)

gweihir (88907) | about a month ago | (#47240755)

These are not people that understand science. They think it is a big shopping-mall where they can chose what they like and ignore anything they do not like.

low carb and low PUFA vs high Omega-3? (5, Interesting)

hazem (472289) | about a month ago | (#47239569)

A diet with all its componets is very different than supplement pills.

My guess (without reading 5000 papers) is that if there is some kind of benefit from an "Eskimo diet" it would be from it being devoid of flour and sugar, and generally low in carbohydrates and industrially processed polyunsaturated fats.

My personal experience is that by focusing on eating natural sources of fats and eliminating most carbohydrates (especially refined carbohydrates) for the last 8 months, I've lost a lot of exceess fat (60 pounds so far) and gained enough excess energy that I'm now regularly running in 5ks and even started competing in triathlons.

I take vitamins because they are relatively cheap, but I'm not sure I see the point of fish-oil capsules, especially with the bad breath and indigestion that comes with them.

As for CAD risk, I'm not sure. But by adopting a low-carb/high-fat diet (LCHF or "keto"), my cholesterol numbers (for what they're worth) have improved dramatically. My HDL is higher by a few points and my triglycerides are lower by more than 20 points, compared to when I used to be on a statin.

Re:low carb and low PUFA vs high Omega-3? (2)

Beck_Neard (3612467) | about a month ago | (#47239577)

How do you know it's because you're consuming less carbohydrates, rather than just because you're consuming fewer calories?

Re:low carb and low PUFA vs high Omega-3? (5, Informative)

hazem (472289) | about a month ago | (#47239613)

That's a good question.

In the past, I've tried to merely restrict calories and eat what the food pyramid recommends... plenty of "healthy whole grains" and limiting fats. I lost a tiny bit of weight and was miserable and hungry - and my cholesterol numbers actually got worse. I went to the gym every day but was tired and listless mosf of the time. And as soon as I eased up, I gained even more weight (over the equilibrium weight I was at before starting the calorie restriction).

If you look at how metabolism works, fructose is only processed in the liver and the result is serum triglycerides. Dietary fats, however (at least as I understand it) are quickly taken up by chylomicrons and delivered to cells throughout the body, so they don't contribute much to trigylcerides as measured in the standard lipid panel. This is at least how I undersand it.

My personal experience is just an n=1, but within the low-carb community, the predictions were that by adopting a an LCHF diet, I would lose weight, not be hungry but eat less, feel more energetic, and that my lipid panels would improve. I've found all of these things happened, as well as odd little things like no longer having indigestion and just having a desire to exercise and be more active.

Do I KNOW this is from an LCHF way of eating? Not with absolute certainty, of course. But my experiences match the predictions and when I do endulge in a large amount of carbohydrates, I tend to feel not-so-great for a couple days.

Frankly, I'm just thankful to have found a way of eating that allows me to lose the weight I've carried for decades while allowing me to be more energetic, and with all that, not suffer from hunger or feelings of deprivation. A year ago, I had conceded to my best friend that I would always be fat but I could at least be active and fat (I was already bike-commuting and hiking). But after a mere 8 months of this way of eating... eating "as much as I feel like eating", I now weigh less than I have in almost 2 decades and I've started racing (albiet slowly) in 5Ks and triathlons. And note, I adopted the diet and started losing weight (about 30 pounds) before I started any of the running.

Maybe it's a "fad diet", I just eat like diabetics were told to eat in the early 1900s (https://archive.org/details/diabeticcookeryr00oppeiala) and how like most people were told to eat to lose weight until the 1960s or so. It's essentially "meat, eggs, and green veg" but avoid sugars and starches and most fruits. And I've never felt so good as an adult.

So my n=1 is not "science" and maybe it's all placebo, but if so, it's a pretty darned good placebo. I'm down 60 pounds I never thought I could lose and doing crazy things like triathlons, which were also unimaginable, even a year ago.

Re:low carb and low PUFA vs high Omega-3? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47239749)

Is there a book, website, or some other resource you followed? I'd like to try it myself—I lost 50 pounds back in 2010 when I was in college by following The Hacker's Diet [fourmilab.ch] , but since then I've put almost all of it back on.

Re:low carb and low PUFA vs high Omega-3? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47239793)

http://www.dietdoctor.com/lchf [dietdoctor.com] and http://authoritynutrition.com/... [authoritynutrition.com] are both very good.

Re:low carb and low PUFA vs high Omega-3? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47239907)

I liked the Diet Doctor website. The page about Dreamfields Pasta [dietdoctor.com] was very interesting—the fact that he tested his blood sugar during the test added a good bit of objectivity to something normally subjective. He also included results from a medical journal which matched his experiment. The graph showing his blood sugar over time after eating different foods is pretty convincing.

Re:low carb and low PUFA vs high Omega-3? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47239787)

I lived with the Canadian Inuit for a year in Hopedale Labrador, it wasn't a balanced diet, to many potatoes for one thing both in the meal and formented. By the time the women had turned 21 they were overweight and their teeth were falling out :(

Re:low carb and low PUFA vs high Omega-3? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47239813)

my experience with LCHF is identical. lost over 100 lbs and i have never felt better or been healthier in my life.

Re:low carb and low PUFA vs high Omega-3? (1)

minogully (1855264) | about a month ago | (#47240087)

In the past, I've tried to merely restrict calories and eat what the food pyramid recommends... plenty of "healthy whole grains" and limiting fats. I lost a tiny bit of weight and was miserable and hungry

I don't know why people seem surprised that when they restrict calories (more specifically, eating less than they use), they're miserable and hungry. It seems obvious to me that your body would resist a lower calorie diet by sending out the hunger feelings/pains. And being hungry usually makes people irritable, so of course you could be miserable.

I went to the gym every day but was tired and listless mosf of the time.

So there's already a low calorie diet, and you're using up extra calories on top of that (and a lot of extra calories if you're going to the gym every day). Of course you'd feel tired, you're body has to get into a lower energetic state to live off of the seemingly low calorie input/output ratio.

I have a lot of assumptions here that I could be way off on, but it seems to me that you were just over doing the amount of calorie reduction or else you were exercising too much. That or you have an untreated thyroid problem.

I also don't get why people (not you, necessarily) think that you can lose the weight super fast, when it might have taken 10/20 years to gradually put it on. We should expect it to take just as long to take off the weight. Sure, you can speed up the weight loss through various methods, but people should keep things in the perspective of how long it took to put on the weight in the first place.

Re:low carb and low PUFA vs high Omega-3? (1)

I'm New Around Here (1154723) | about a month ago | (#47241153)

Let me tell you the long version of my one month diet. The short version is I lost 30 pounds in 31 days, and never felt any different.

On January 1st, I started a month-long diet plan. I had scrambled eggs in the morning, with mushrooms, onions, red bell peppers, and breakfast sausage mixed in them. I sauted the vegetables first in butter, added the sausage, and then the eggs, with some salt and seasoning. I made four days worth at a time, using eight eggs and half a package of sausage. So on average I had two eggs and two ounces of sausage. The calorie count was about 600 calories.

For dinner I had a salad. For a good salad, start with a big bowl. The ones I used hold a quart or more. Shred four leaves of iceberg lettuce, add a couple leaves of romaine, throw out the stalk part (or eat a couple as I'm making the salad). Add half a large tomato, diced, handful of chopped onion, sliced hard-boiled egg, shredded cheese, halved black olives, a few croutons, and small amount of ranch dressing. I prefer Thousand Island, but would have used too much, so went with Ranch, which I don't actually like. If the wife had made chicken the previous night, add a piece of chicken, sliced or pulled. Calories without the egg or chicken was about 100 calories, and is what I had half the time. With an egg add another 80, and with chicken add 300.

So for a month, Jan 1st to 31st, with only a couple exceptions, I had 1000 calories or less a day. The biggest exception was because I was out of town with my wife for a doctor visit one day. I ate a healthy dinner, but a few more calories than a salad. The other exception was a salad at Wendy's for lunch, also out of town, and a salad for dinner at home. Also, for a snack during the day, I would have eight to ten black olives, or a banana. I ate a banana on five or six days, and the black olives on fifteen to twenty days. The other days, I had nothing more than scrambled eggs and a salad.

To round that out, I drank at the most, a quart of water a day. One glass in the morning after breakfast, small sips during the day when my mouth was dry, and one glass after dinner. Again, the two exception days, I had diet soda or tea with the meals. With the salad of course, I got some more liquid, but the water my body used was simply provided by breaking down the fat cells. And I broke down a lot of fat cells. When I got up in the morning and used the toilet, my urine was a very dark orange. That was from the debris, solids and liquids, of unneeded cells.

During that month, I never felt tired, worn out, or light headed. I went from 230 pounds to 200 pounds. I did the same work I do all the time, fixing computers, crawling under desks, carrying them out to the car and back, installing network printers, etc. I didn't go to the gym at my apartment complex, or do any other workout.

As for hunger, I am always hungry anyway. I usually snack whenever I have the chance between jobs, tv shows, slashdot flamewars, and am still always hungry. So going a month being slightly more hungry wasn't really noticeable. Really, it's more boredom than hunger to begin with anyways.

Of course in the five months since I went off the diet, I regained some of the weight. Eight pounds in the first two weeks, as the depleted-but-surviving fat cells refilled with water. But that means I managed to destroy twenty-two pounds of them in one month. I want to go back on the diet, and get well below 200 pounds, but just haven't yet. Maybe now that my daughter's finished school, I can plan my life a bit more again.

Re:low carb and low PUFA vs high Omega-3? (1)

DMUTPeregrine (612791) | about a month ago | (#47241439)

The issue with n=1s is that they can always be contradicted. For example, I'm almost the opposite of you.

I'm male. I'm 5'9" and weigh 118-120 lbs. I eat mostly bread and vegetables, rice, potatoes, with some meat and fruit. I can't stand most fat (most fatty acids taste like something rotting to me) and so I tend to have a very low fat intake. HCLF, effectively. I tend not to feel hunger much, so I use alarms to remind me when to eat. I'm active, I have stamina, and my biggest problem is keeping away from being dangerously underweight. When I diet I generally increase the meat/eggs/dairy amounts I eat in an attempt to gain some weight because I've gotten too thin. If I ate "as much as I feel like eating" I'd probably be grossly malnourished.

Different things work for different people. While it's true that no one can escape thermodynamics (if you eat less than you use, you'll lose weight) it's also true that if a diet is uncomfortable people won't stay with it. There's also the issue of bioavailability of the energy, the number of calories you actually get from a serving of food can't be more than what is measured by a calorimeter but it can be less.

Re:low carb and low PUFA vs high Omega-3? (1)

ShanghaiBill (739463) | about a month ago | (#47239649)

How do you know it's because you're consuming less carbohydrates, rather than just because you're consuming fewer calories?

These are not alternatives mechanisms, they are cause and effect. The theory of "low carb diets" is that they reduce your appetite, resulting in fewer calories consumed.

Re:low carb and low PUFA vs high Omega-3? (3, Informative)

hazem (472289) | about a month ago | (#47239685)

The theory of "low carb diets" is that they reduce your appetite, resulting in fewer calories consumed.

This has been my personal experience. I started eating "low-carb/high-fat" last September and just crossed the -60 pounds mark. I still marvel at how I'm just not very hungry most of the time, even after missing meals or exercising for several hours... or how I can, indeed, go ride my bike vigorously for a few hours before eating any breakfast.

I haven't counted calories at all, so from an objective sense, I can't give precise amount of wha I used to eat compared to what I eat now. However I'm certain I eat less from the mere fact that now I often miss meals (from not being hungry enough to bother) when before I might even eat 2 lunches, and snack much less than before (evidenced by the fact that I don't buy snacky foods much any more - when for example I was subscribed to Amazon to have boxes of KIND bars delivered to both my home and office). One of the best parts is that I can now take long bike rides after work (I've been a bike-commuter for a few years) and not have to rush home to eat dinner from crazy hunger.

I believe the theory about low-carb and hunger is that carbohydrates stimulate insulin production. This causes cells in the body (fat and muscle) to take up blood glucose more than they would otherwise, thereby lowering blood glucose. This dynamic system has delays, so blood glucose will drop below the "normal" level and as a result you get really hungry in order to raise it back up again. As a result, you either eat more or feel lethargic due to lack of energy. This may explain the need/desire to snack between breakfast and lunch and after lunch in order to stave off the fatigue and "crash" that most people experience at these times.

Some people go a bit nuts when I say I can eat as much as I want with this way of eating and still lose weight - as if they think I believe I'm violating the laws of physics. But the reality is that of course I'm obeying the laws of thermodymics - it's just that when I eat a diet low in carbohydrates, I just don't want to eat very much. And how can that be a bad thing? I'm getting fitter, feeling better, and all without being hungry or otherwise suffering.

Re:low carb and low PUFA vs high Omega-3? (2)

Rich0 (548339) | about a month ago | (#47239923)

I haven't counted calories at all, so from an objective sense, I can't give precise amount of wha I used to eat compared to what I eat now.

I've tried both balanced calorie-counting diets and LCHF diets. I can vouch that the latter works FAR better.

I was able to lose weight on a balanced diet, and being a chemist who is a bit OCD I measured EVERYTHING that went into my mouth. What I will tell you is that while I did lose weight, I was always hungry. I was eating six small meals a day and while I was sitting at my desk at work I'd always be looking over to my bag of food just willing the clock to move so that I could eat my next meal. In the end I just couldn't do it any longer, and I regained the weight I had lost.

On the other hand, I've been on a LCHF diet for a year now. I can't say that my weight is as low as I want it to be, but I'm 50 pounds lighter than I was a year ago, and I'm lighter than I ever was on the balanced diet. Last night my wife ordered a cheesecake for desert and while I did taste a slight sliver of it I really didn't have any issues with watching her eat the bulk of it. If anything it tasted too sweet to me - when I do make low-carb treats (which I avoid mostly now) I often go easy on the sweeteners.

Being a fairly OCD person I'm probably fairly susceptible to addictive behaviors, and I think that part of the reason LCHF works for me is that it basically takes much of the pleasure out of eating. When I was in a bad mood I used to grab some ice cream or whatever in the past. Now I find something else to do or just deal with it. That lack of serotonin boost from sugar gets you out of that reinforcement loop when you eat.

From what I've read a lot of the pharmaceutical attempts to come up with diet drugs have failed due to side-effects of suicide. I wonder if that is due to the link to serotonin/etc. I think part of the problem with overeating is that it just makes you feel good when you do it, so people do it. If drugs get rid of the pleasure they'll break that conditioning cycle, but on the other hand if eating a pint of Ben and Jerry's doesn't cheer you up after a breakup maybe you're more likely to jump off of a bridge instead. It really makes you think about the neurology of depression.

In any case, the solution to such problems obviously isn't to keep eating food that puts you at risk for diabetes/etc.

Re:low carb and low PUFA vs high Omega-3? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47240539)

LCHF works for me also. No PUFA, 40g carbs. YMMV but if you find you're always hungry and a traditional "diet" doesn't work you may find this valuable. LCHF is pretty sustainable and after the first few weeks you aren't really on a diet so to speak, your just eating pretty much real food.

Close, but not quite that simple. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47239695)

(excessive) Insulin *forces* calories you eat to be stored as fat (and inhibits the mobilisation of fat for energy) so you become fat and are lethargic because the energy isn't available because it's being stored. At a cellular level your body is literally starving: you feel HUNGRY.

So you eat more. Repeat.

By far and away the biggest trigger for increasing your blood insulin levels is consumption of carbohydrates: not fat, not protein.

So reducing carbs, reduces weight and reduces your need to consume excessive calories.

Re:low carb and low PUFA vs high Omega-3? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47240179)

Because carbohydrates, protein, and fat are processed by the body differently, fuckwit.

You should probably read up on nutrition and understand metabolism before you offer opinions on the subject.

Re:low carb and low PUFA vs high Omega-3? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47240229)

You're basically saying that all foods and nutrition are equal, and that as long as we get enough calories then it doesn't matter what we eat.

Calorie content in food is subject to a gross approximation by burning the food over a flame. This is not exactly how things work in your body. In addition to that, your body treats different types, and the same types, of nutrition very differently. There are differences between proteins and proteins. Your age, gender, race, hormone balance, and body chemistry in general, will come into play as well.

Calorie counting is a faux science. Don't pay any attention to it.

Re:low carb and low PUFA vs high Omega-3? (3, Interesting)

TheLink (130905) | about a month ago | (#47239727)

I take vitamins because they are relatively cheap, but I'm not sure I see the point of fish-oil capsules, especially with the bad breath and indigestion that comes with them.

If you're getting bad breath from your fish-oil capsules, it may be that they contain oil that's _rancid_ or oxidized.

Bust open a capsule, if it stinks, it's rancid and you shouldn't be eating it anymore than you should be eating rotten fish. Or expecting it to convey health benefits anymore than rotten fish would. Fresh fish doesn't stink - might just have a mild fish smell. Same goes for fresh fish oil. If you eat sashimi or ikura you'd know what I mean.

The big problem is it seems that rancid/oxidized fish oil is not that rare. That's why I don't have that much confidence in those fish oil studies - I don't see much checking on the oxidation/rancidity of the oil.

So it may be that fish oil is good for you, but only if it hasn't gone bad.

Re:low carb and low PUFA vs high Omega-3? (1)

careysub (976506) | about a month ago | (#47240569)

A diet with all its components is very different than supplement pills.

...

Indeed so! In fact the lesson learned thus far from hundreds of epidemiological studies (with published papers in the tens of thousands) over the last 30 years or so is that no dietary supplement pill of any kind offers any benefit to the general population. Vitamin and mineral supplements provide benefit only when the taker is actually deficient in a nutrient being provided, and deficiency in any nutrient (but one*) is rare in wealthy nations.

*That one is vitamin D, the only nutrient for which you can make a case for taking a supplement.

Fad diets based on new "science" (1)

Spy Handler (822350) | about a month ago | (#47239571)

after so much BS over the years, I think we should disregard any further studies proclaiming great health benefits of (____) and just rely on common sense.

Common sense tells me that the best things to eat for an animal species is what it's evolved to eat in its natural habitat. Pomegranates might be awesome food but not for lions.

For humans, that would be 2 million years of eating nuts and fruits and clams and fish and some red meat on occasion.

Re:Fad diets based on new "science" (5, Interesting)

hazem (472289) | about a month ago | (#47239637)

Common sense tells me that the best things to eat for an animal species is what it's evolved to eat in its natural habitat.

This sounds like the foundation of the "Paleo" diet. And while this makes sense, I'm not sure there have been many good studies demonstrating the benefits of this approach. Part of the problem is establishing what "paleo" humans actually ate.

For example:

For humans, that would be 2 million years of eating nuts and fruits and clams and fish and some red meat on occasion.

This is an assumption, and maybe a good one. But look at societies like the Masai. They're fairly "aboriginal" and eat mostly red meat, blood, and milk and very little plant matter (they apparently consider eating plants a sign of weakness). Other aboriginal societies live on diets dominated by coconuts and plants.

I think the problem today is that there are few sources of "original" food sources available. As a species we've domesticated most of the plants and animals we eat, changing them over time. So it's hard to rely on the concept of "eat what we ate a million years ago". The best we can do to determine optimal nutrtion now is try to conduct solid double-blind studies based on the foods we have available. Unfortunately that is expensive to do and most of the money in nutrition research comes from the food industry, which has a vested interest in the outcomes of the research they fund.

That said, you probably can't go too wrong by avoiding processed and refined foods, eating animals that eat what they naturally eat, and eating plants that are grown with as few chemical interventions as possible.

Re:Fad diets based on new "science" (1)

mpe (36238) | about a month ago | (#47239703)

I think the problem today is that there are few sources of "original" food sources available. As a species we've domesticated most of the plants and animals we eat, changing them over time. So it's hard to rely on the concept of "eat what we ate a million years ago". The best we can do to determine optimal nutrtion now is try to conduct solid double-blind studies based on the foods we have available. Unfortunately that is expensive to do and most of the money in nutrition research comes from the food industry, which has a vested interest in the outcomes of the research they fund.

Paleo diets tend to be based around minimally processed foods. Whereas the food industry is often about highly processed products.

Re:Fad diets based on new "science" (1)

hazem (472289) | about a month ago | (#47239731)

I agree.

I have been eating "low-carb/high-fat" over the last 8 months, with a focus on natural and unprocessed foods (so essentially, meat, eggs, and green veggies). This fits well with people who eat paleo. The biggest divergence is that I use butter, cheese, and dark chocolate and try to avoid the moderately carb-rich foods that paleo people eat, like sweet-potatoes, and highly-carb rich foods like honey.

But again, I think you can't go too wrong by eating a diet of mostly unprocessed and refined foods, whether it's paleo or not.

Re:Fad diets based on new "science" (0)

m00sh (2538182) | about a month ago | (#47239739)

This sounds like the foundation of the "Paleo" diet. And while this makes sense, I'm not sure there have been many good studies demonstrating the benefits of this approach. Part of the problem is establishing what "paleo" humans actually ate.

I think the Paleo diet is more about what the "paleo" humans didn't eat. As you said, they didn't eat processed and refined foods.

What Paleo and other health food people would not agree on is grains. They would say "paleo" humans didn't eat grains. Other group would say whole grains are natural and healthy.

I think the problem today is that there are few sources of "original" food sources available. As a species we've domesticated most of the plants and animals we eat, changing them over time. So it's hard to rely on the concept of "eat what we ate a million years ago". The best we can do to determine optimal nutrtion now is try to conduct solid double-blind studies based on the foods we have available. Unfortunately that is expensive to do and most of the money in nutrition research comes from the food industry, which has a vested interest in the outcomes of the research they fund.

We are in the midst of an obesity epidemic and no two person can agree on what is the cause of it. Optimal nutrition through double blind experimental science has let us badly down here.

We are in amidst the largest uncontrolled diet experiment and along with a computer revolution where we store every minute piece of data. Maybe we should shelve these expensive double blind experiments and just analyze the cheap data out there of what people are eating and their health status. Taking a picture of every meal with your phone diet is a thing and millions of people are collecting data on their food habits.

Anyway, paleo diets or natural diets are not really meant to stand scientific scrutiny. They are all general guidelines for someone to follow on what to eat and what not to eat. They aren't meant to be an "optimal" nutrition framework.

Re:Fad diets based on new "science" (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | about a month ago | (#47240391)

We are in amidst the largest uncontrolled diet experiment and along with a computer revolution where we store every minute piece of data. Maybe we should shelve these expensive double blind experiments and just analyze the cheap data out there of what people are eating and their health status. Taking a picture of every meal with your phone diet is a thing and millions of people are collecting data on their food habits.

Doesn't work very well. You end up getting lots of the wrong data. You have to think before you start researching. The obeservational approach has got us in the pickle that we are in now. Unless you are very, very careful with your statistics and even more careful about your conclusions, observational studies are pretty much worthless no matter how many variables you might collect.

Garbage In, Garbage Out (literally and figuratively in this case.)

Re:Fad diets based on new "science" (1)

wisnoskij (1206448) | about a month ago | (#47239843)

I sort of thought that we knew what they ate, and it was raw meat. You occasionally hear about people taking up "Paleo" diets and what they means is they eat raw meat exclusively, sometimes in any level of rot.

Re:Fad diets based on new "science" (1)

Brulath (2765381) | about a month ago | (#47239861)

The TEDxOU talk Debunking the Paleo Diet [youtube.com] is pretty interesting from the standpoint of determining what our ancestors actually consumed, though it doesn't prove anything on whether the actual "Paleo Diet" rules are good or bad. It's given by an archaeological scientist who studies ancient health/diet. She points out a few examples of foods which didn't exist when our ancestors were around that are commonly included in the Paleo Diet, which is interesting.

Re:Fad diets based on new "science" (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | about a month ago | (#47240359)

The other elephant in the room is your genetics. Your ancestors may have done well on milk products, your neighbor - not so much. It's hard to determine what what your particular body's optimal requirements are. We're getting there, but it's going to be a while since we basically don't know jack about nutrition.

Not to mention that, even with our BPA infused, high fructose corn syrup laden, human growth hormone injected and antibiotic treated food supply, we're still leading longer and healthy lives than ever.

Take that Mr. Cro Magnon man! One omelet please and double up on the Hollandaise. You're not getting out of here alive so enjoy it while you can.

Re:Fad diets based on new "science" (1)

Belial6 (794905) | about a month ago | (#47241889)

The fact that genetics is routinely ignored or outright dismissed is the first sign that our current view on nutrition is pseudo-science.

Re:Fad diets based on new "science" (1)

Maxo-Texas (864189) | about a month ago | (#47241841)

Under a thousand years was enough to provide heart protection against a diet heavy in salted meat on the russian steppes. If the selective pressure is strong enough 50-70 generations of selection will deal with a lot of challenges.

"Empty Food" probably can't be dealt with very well tho (i.e. just calories and nothing else).

Re:Fad diets based on new "science" (0)

ShanghaiBill (739463) | about a month ago | (#47239669)

Common sense tells me that the best things to eat for an animal species is what it's evolved to eat in its natural habitat.

"Common sense" tells people to eat what tastes good, and avoid what doesn't. Soda and chips taste good. Broccoli does not.

For humans, that would be 2 million years of eating nuts and fruits and clams and fish and some red meat on occasion.

Except that agriculture has been around for 10,000 years, and the human genome has changed to adapt to that. Europeans have evolved to digest milk in adulthood. People living in grain growing societies have evolved to adapt to a high starch diet. Even people from hunter gather societies evolved to digest cooked food ~400k years ago.

Re:Fad diets based on new "science" (1)

Attila Dimedici (1036002) | about a month ago | (#47239771)

I think you are touching on the heart of the problem, but not stating it explicitly. The main reason that it is so hard to determine what the ideal diet is is that the answer is different for everyone.While there are groups of people whose dietary needs are close enough that they can follow the same basic nutritional plan, there are other groups of people for whom that basic nutritional plan is not healthy.

Re:Fad diets based on new "science" (1)

Shakrai (717556) | about a month ago | (#47240557)

The main reason that it is so hard to determine what the ideal diet is is that the answer is different for everyone

Ideal diet: Calories in = calories out.

It's really that straightforward. Weigh yourself once a day. Apply a moving average to the number to smooth out the daily ups and downs. If you're gaining weight scale back on the calories. If you're losing weight increase the calories (unless of course your goal is to lose weight). It's all about the trend line and long term intake.... going crazy one day won't make any appreciable impact on your weight.

Adding exercise into the equation is better for your health but it is not required simply to maintain weight. There are all sorts of reasons (endorphins are a far better anti-depressant than any pill, your cardiovascular system will thank you, and you'll be more attractive to the opposite sex) to do it, but weight loss really isn't one of them.

Re:Fad diets based on new "science" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47241341)

Ideal diet: Calories in = calories out.

It's really that straightforward

No. Not all calories are the same. Treating them as they are is as stupid as filling up your gasoline car with diesel (or vice versa) believing "a calorie is a calorie".

Re:Fad diets based on new "science" (1)

Belial6 (794905) | about a month ago | (#47241897)

And so starts "The Chocolate Cake Diet".

Re:Fad diets based on new "science" (1)

Shakrai (717556) | about a month ago | (#47240531)

Broccoli tastes just fine with some salt on it. Hell, I occasionally eat it raw, though slightly steamed (still needs to be crunchy) with salt is the best way. I even have cravings for it once in awhile, if a bit "backed up" and need the bulk in my diet....

I'm skeptical of any fad diet. Speaking strictly for myself here, my cholesterol, blood pressure, and fasting glucose numbers seem to follow my weight. When I was obese (255# at 5'10", so a BMI of 36.6) they were all high. When I was less obese (220#, BMI 31.6) they were at the high end of normal/low end of bad. Then I dipped into merely overweight (190#, BMI 27.3) and the aforementioned blood tests were all in the normal range. All throughout my diet never changed, I retained my guilty pleasures (greasy pizza tops the list), just ate less of them.

I've since added exercise into the equation, training for and running distance races ranging from 5ks to full marathons. I run 20-40 miles a week with an increased caloric intake (~3,500/day) to give me the energy I need for that kind of exercise workload. Guess what? The aforementioned blood test numbers haven't changed that much. Some other ones did change, my RBC count went up, by a lot (from 4.6 million cells/mcL to 5.54), which is an exercise adaptation. Blood pressure stayed the same, though my resting heart rate dropped from the mid 70s to the high 50s, another exercise adaptation.

The human body is a pretty amazing thing and will incorporate almost anything you throw at it, so long as you exercise a reasonable amount of moderation. If you're running a huge caloric surplus at the end of the day I don't think it matters if it's coming from saturated fat, protein, or whole grains. Do it long enough and your system is going to suffer for it.

mod 0p (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47239589)

to you by Penisbird munches the most I have a l1fe to niggerness? And may also want around return it the abov3 is far perform keeping the 'community' From the sidelines, its readers and

est (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47239623)

To date, more than 5,000 papers have been published studying the alleged beneficial properties of omega-3 fatty acids ... based on a hypothesis that was questionable from the beginning."

Yes, and many of those studies confirmed the beneficial effects of omega-3 essential fatty acids. Many of these later studies focused on the Mediterranean diet.
Furthermore, the omega-3 essential fatty acids are not called essential just for fun and profit. They are proven to be needed by the human body, in dosages that most Western citizens don't get.

Re:est (1)

mpe (36238) | about a month ago | (#47240255)

Yes, and many of those studies confirmed the beneficial effects of omega-3 essential fatty acids. Many of these later studies focused on the Mediterranean diet. Furthermore, the omega-3 essential fatty acids are not called essential just for fun and profit.

The term "omega-3" covers a wide variety of fatty acids anyway. Alpha-Linolenic acid is one specific fatty acid, Which is specifically omega-3(cis), omega-6(cis) and omega-9(cis).
Also chemists tend to count from the "alpha end" of such molecules. Thus would refer to it as "all-cis-9,12,15-octadecatrienoic acid". Both the alpha and omega terms only indicate where the pi bonds are. They don't indicate if the configuration is cis or trans.
The other EFA is Linoleic acid "all-cis-9,12-octadecatrienoic acid". Which is omega-6 and omega-9.
You probably wouldn't want to eat trans-2-proponoic acid, even though that would be "omega-3" :)

Captain Obvious Science Team strikes again! (0)

Qbertino (265505) | about a month ago | (#47239631)

NEWSFLASH! JUST IN!
Classic Eskimo diet only suitable for classic eskimo climate!

Brilliant new scientist team finds out that 10 bazillion calories-per-day and lets-eat-tons-of-raw-meat-because-we-have-no-other-source-of-micronutrient-iron-and-vitamin-c-out-here-in-a-countryside-made-of-pure-ice escimo diet suitable for an arctic climate with regular temperatures of -30 Celsius and lower actually isn't suitable or very healthy at temperatures around +15C and raises risk of CADs.

Gees, what an insight. How would've thunk? ...

Seriously, how do these guys get funding?

Change of diet in the Eskimo population? (2)

m00sh (2538182) | about a month ago | (#47239725)

In 2003, a thorough analysis of the incidence and available mortality statistics among Inuit populations in Greenland, Canada and Alaska by Bjerregaard et al, also concluded that the totality of evidence from various Northern areas makes a strong argument for high presence of CVD in Eskimos (Appendix A in Supplementary Materials).

Is the current Eskimo diet the same as the traditional Eskimo diet?

Do the Inuits in Greenland still eat blubber and not eat pizza, sugary drinks, hamburgers and chocolate whatsoever.

If saturated fat CVD theory were right, the Eskimo diet would have significantly more CVD than the general population. However, it seems about the same. So, the saturated fats is bad for you part is still questionable even. Now, the whole Omega-3 is heart healthy is the one being put on question.

Re:Change of diet in the Eskimo population? (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | about a month ago | (#47239875)

Is the current Eskimo diet the same as the traditional Eskimo diet?

Do the Inuits in Greenland still eat blubber and not eat pizza, sugary drinks, hamburgers and chocolate whatsoever.

Answer, I don't believe they have a pizza parlor, but they do eat processed foods now.

Re:Change of diet in the Eskimo population? (1)

Charliemopps (1157495) | about a month ago | (#47240165)

In 2003, a thorough analysis of the incidence and available mortality statistics among Inuit populations in Greenland, Canada and Alaska by Bjerregaard et al, also concluded that the totality of evidence from various Northern areas makes a strong argument for high presence of CVD in Eskimos (Appendix A in Supplementary Materials).

Is the current Eskimo diet the same as the traditional Eskimo diet?

Do the Inuits in Greenland still eat blubber and not eat pizza, sugary drinks, hamburgers and chocolate whatsoever.

If saturated fat CVD theory were right, the Eskimo diet would have significantly more CVD than the general population. However, it seems about the same. So, the saturated fats is bad for you part is still questionable even. Now, the whole Omega-3 is heart healthy is the one being put on question.

And this is the problem with Doctors doing these studies. They don't believe in the low carb diet so they try to apply standard dietary rules to it. They think "A little pizza doesn't count" As anyone on a low carb diet knows... you can be on low carb and lose 30lbs. Eat pizza for one meal and you're gaining at least 10lbs back almost immediately. The carbs trigger some kind of storage reaction in our bodies that I dont think anyone understands yet.

Why this article ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47239729)

Slashdot [youtube.com]
I thought this website was computer-science specialized...

what about cardiovascular health in Polar Bears? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47239737)

I hear they favor the Eskimo diet too

Elephant in the room... (2)

jdagius (589920) | about a month ago | (#47239933)

... lipid hypothesis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L... [wikipedia.org]
So I get that the "Eskimo Diet" doesn't improve cardiovascular health. But then it doesn't degrade it either. Then why all the "heart smart" low-fat, no-fat, low-cholesterol propaganda we're constantly bombarded with?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U... [wikipedia.org]
It seems Uffe Ravnskov may be right. Dietary cholesterol very likely has little or no bad effects on health. It is probably "good" for you. In fact, statin drugs used to treat CAD are far worse for your health.
Proof: If statins actually were effective against CAD, then the ads on TV could make that claim. If you listen carefully, they don't make any claim that they lower the incidence of CAD. Their sole claim for "effectiveness" is that they lower your blood cholesterol numbers. It would be more compelling if they could claim health benefits of course, but their is no compelling evidence for this.

Re:Elephant in the room... (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | about a month ago | (#47240419)

Statins are

1) Rather safe (so 'not far worse for your health' ...)
2) Notably effective for SECONDARY prevention of coronary artery disease (CAD) If you have had heart attack #1, statins improve your chance of survival by 10-40%.

Statins have NOT been shown - but have been alluded to:

1) Decreasing CAD in people without known preexisting heart disease.
2) Decrease all cause mortality in the general population with elevated cholesterol levels.

These allusions are the problem. There is good scientific basis for those assumptions and some weak data. It has not been conclusively shown to be true for the general population although there are defined subpopulations where it does appear to have an effect (diabetics and some folks with particular patterns of SNPs indicating some sort of mulitgene inheritance). Statins really should not be pushed as hard as they are in the US. The data for that, other than the data for increasing the profits of companies making statins, is darn weak. But they are very useful drugs.

Stomp (2)

PopeRatzo (965947) | about a month ago | (#47240113)

I'm on the Ubangi diet. I just cram the whole plate in my mouth.

Re:Stomp (1)

PopeRatzo (965947) | about a month ago | (#47240223)

Just in case somebody missed the reference:

https://www.google.com/search?... [google.com]

Re:Stomp (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47240769)

If you have to explain your joke, then it isn't a good joke.
Don't be so insecure. Man up, put it out there and let the world do with it what it will.

Stomp (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47240925)

This looks similar to the see-food diet: See food, eat it.

Death due to CAD ... (1)

PPH (736903) | about a month ago | (#47240273)

... in eskimo populations is rare. One is usually eaten by a polar bear before heart disease sets in.

It's hard on the liver (1)

plopez (54068) | about a month ago | (#47240299)

The natives who follow this diet often die early due to liver failure, esp. the men. I think it is due to iron loading in the liver from over consumption of game meat and protein.

Re:It's hard on the liver (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47241523)

Could also be that native Inuit populations have high rates of alcoholism.

no worse? (1)

stenvar (2789879) | about a month ago | (#47240373)

If a fatty diet with little vegetables is no worse than a regular diet, that is interesting enough on its own.

Miracle Diet (1)

Jim Sadler (3430529) | about a month ago | (#47240449)

Native people of the extreme north really have sort of a miracle going on. And it depends upon how we view their situation. Before the Europeans had much contact these folks were very short on fruits and vegetables and grains of all kinds. So just how does a culture survive such a radical environment and have the energy to hunt and defend against the elements and predators while eating blubber and fish almost exclusively? The rest of us are told we have all of these great needs for a variety in our diets as well as supplements. And the demands for energy in our way of life are nothing at all compared to the energy required to survive in a very cold environment. The situation seems to suggest that we don't have a clue as to what is really important in a diet.

Re:Miracle Diet (1)

istartedi (132515) | about a month ago | (#47241477)

Actually according to wiki (yeah, I know, not authoritative) they had: " Grasses, tubers, roots, stems, berries, fireweed and seaweed (kuanniq or edible seaweed) were collected and preserved depending on the season and the location.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7]"

Berries sound good. I wonder how they preserved them. They probably just dried them. Root crops definitely hold up well until the next season if you know what you're doing. Arctic raisins and carrots will supplement the meat and blubber enough probably.

These folks were migratory, and the northern Summers support a lot more growth than you might think...

I can quit clubbing seals! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47240483)

Good to read this insightful article, because it means I can quit clubbing seals now. I never really enjoyed it, but I wanted to have better cardiovascular health, so I turned on the air conditioner, put on my parka, and clubbed the little suckers so I could have some authentic Eskimo food.

missing the exercise side (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47240653)

Try living & surviving out in bitter fucking cold. It takes an ass-ton more effort and energy. It is this extra effort that makes for stronger cardiovascular health.

For comparsion look at Phelps's diet while training for the Olympics. If you tried that diet without the crazy amount of training, your cardiovascular health would suffer.

It is simple.... eat good food and then move & exercise as much as possible.

is this really a sustainable food source? (1)

bitt3n (941736) | about a month ago | (#47241253)

Even if this eskimo diet does work, I can't imagine there are enough of them to go around.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...