Stefansson - My Life With The Eskimos

[Guest guest]

Talking about Stefansson, I just read My Life With The Eskimos. It can

be found at: www.duffyslaw.com/current14.htm

I read some things that raised some red flags with me and perhaps you

all can help me sort it out in my mind. Below is what I read. I was

wondering why Stefansson would've experienced a stroke in the first

place, if his diet was so good? Moreover, suffered with

pneumonia at the end of the testing of their year long meat diet due to

an epidemic in the hospital it says. Although, they recovered quickly

it makes you wonder? I was also wondering why he didn't live past the

age of 82, but there could be a lot of factors there from his eating

habits in days prior, etc.

I also see when living with the Eskimos he seldom ate the organ meats.

Yet, according to NT the organs should've been highly prized.

Just some curiosities on my part.

Robin

<<At age 82 Stefansson was using a high fat, medium protein, low

carbohydrate diet and was working twelve hours a day six days a week and

six hours a day on Sunday at his typewriter.

 

He slept irregularly about five hours around midnight, an hour after

lunch, and two or three hours before breakfast. Fred Stare of Harvard

checked Stefansson out and found good blood pressure low cholesterol and

good health. Fred Stare held a chair at Harvard that was paid for by one

of the junk food giants and so Stare pooh poohed animal food and said

that milk and cereal was as good as bacon and eggs. Stefansson ate

mostly mutton with some beef and died on August 26. He joked about one

of his ninety seven year old friends who said " I'm going to live to be a

hundred or die in the attempt " . In the fifties Dr White, Eisenhower's

medical doctor, inappropriately and incorrectly ranted against animal

food as causing arteriosclerosis.

 

Stefansson suffered a stroke in 1952. The right side of his face

drooped, his speech slurred and his right arm weakened. He was just

under six feet and weighed 184 lbs. He recovered in a week. His

Dartmouth neurologist pooh poohed the idea that he should cut out

carbohydrate which was of course the smart thing to do based upon all

the available evidence from his own experience.

 

Long before his stroke he felt stiffness in his right knee which

progressed to stiffness in all of his joints especially fingers and then

he got terrible pain in both hip joints which caused him sleepless

nights.>>

<<In 1920 meat was considered to be an unwholesome food that caused

arteriosclerosis, high blood pressure, and kidney disease. Eskimos fed

internal organs of animal kills to the dogs. Stefansson seldom ate

animal liver and almost never ate any of the other internal organs.>>

<<Charlie suffered pneumonia at the end of the test when the

hospital was struck by an epidemic of pneumonia. [this is interesting,

one cannot help wonder what the source of a pneumonia " epidemic " in a

hospital would be] Charlie recovered well (after the trip out on the ice

with Stefansson he had been running an orange grove in Weirsdale,

Florida where he returned after the test). After the one year meat diet

was over it took two weeks to respond properly (in the MD opinion) to a

pint of glucose in a glucose tolerance test.

 

Stefansson advised that the best way to prepare meat was according to

Eskimo custom. Put the meat into cold water, bring it to a boil, take it

off the heat and allow it to cool. You then scrape the fat off the top

of the water drink the juice and eat the meat. This insures plenty of

fat.

 

They ate a little liver which is higher in carbohydrate than other

animal food and they ate an occasional kidney and a small amount of

brains fried in bacon grease. They spent three hours at a time in the

calorimeter during these days which required three quiet hours without

talking or stimulation of any kind.>>

[Guest guest]

Hi Robin:

I haven't read the link yet. (Looks interesting and certainly intend to

read it.) But, from reading the following:

" Stefansson suffered a stroke in 1952. . . His

Dartmouth neurologist pooh poohed the idea that he should cut out

carbohydrate which was of course the smart thing to do based upon all

the available evidence from his own experience. "

Is it possible that at the time he had his stroke and some time prior,

Stefansson was eating lots of carbohydrates again and then removed them from

his diet " after " his stroke? (The article said he recovered quickly.) I

guess I should read the time frame of when he did his expedition and when he

had his heart attack. It would be interesting to know how much of the

Eskimo diet he could continue to maintain afterwards. (I'm assuming he

didn't continue to live the rest of his life with the Eskimos.)

Just a thought.

Marla

[Guest guest]

Hi Marla,

I too had wondered if he started eating more carbs. He was living with the

Eskimos at the turn of the century, so his stroke happened much later. He also

didn't get married until late in life, so maybe the wife's cooking caused a

stray in diet and ultimately the problem, just a guess on my part.

I did find at the end of the article it talked about the Eskimos having a

faster metabolism being meat eaters and how they age quicker, some becoming

grandmothers at the age of 23 even. Therefore, that could be why Stefansson

didn't live past 83.

I was wondering how his findings would fit in with Metabolic Typing though?

He gave examples of people on his expedition from other countries, that did just

as well on this diet. Therefore, were they all predisposed to a protein diet?

He talks of mixed dieters and vegetarians in the article, but seems to indicate

that people do better on a meat/fat diet. There just seems to be a lot of

factors there to think about.

Be well,

Robin

> Hi Robin:

>

> I haven't read the link yet. (Looks interesting and certainly intend to

> read it.) But, from reading the following:

>

> " Stefansson suffered a stroke in 1952. . . His

> Dartmouth neurologist pooh poohed the idea that he should cut out

> carbohydrate which was of course the smart thing to do based upon all

> the available evidence from his own experience. "

>

>

> Is it possible that at the time he had his stroke and some time prior,

> Stefansson was eating lots of carbohydrates again and then removed them from

> his diet " after " his stroke? (The article said he recovered quickly.) I

> guess I should read the time frame of when he did his expedition and when he

> had his heart attack. It would be interesting to know how much of the

> Eskimo diet he could continue to maintain afterwards. (I'm assuming he

> didn't continue to live the rest of his life with the Eskimos.)

>

> Just a thought.

>

> Marla

[Guest guest]

Hi Robin:

I happen to be reading Bieler's book, Food is Your Best Medicine, and he

mentions the Eskimos matured and aged early. But, he believed that was not

because of a faulty diet, but due to the rigorous ordeal of weather and the

long Arctic nights. I don't know if that's the real or only reasons, but

that shouldn't have applied to Steffansson since he only stayed there for a

short time in relation to his whole life. Bieler did say that the Eskimos

had phenomenal health and that their bones were stronger than those of any

other race of man. On the other hand, I have read that Eskimos tend to die

early because of the rigors of their environment. Lots of accidents

hunting, freezing dangers, starvation when things aren't going their way

like Nanook of the North, etc. It would be interesting to know what causes

of death they meet up with.

What did Steffansson eventually die of? Do you know?

I still have to get a hold of that Metabolic Typing book, so can't comment

regarding that.

Marla

----- Original Message -----

> Hi Marla,

> I too had wondered if he started eating more carbs. He was living

with the Eskimos at the turn of the century, so his stroke happened much

later. He also didn't get married until late in life, so maybe the wife's

cooking caused a stray in diet and ultimately the problem, just a guess on

my part.

> I did find at the end of the article it talked about the Eskimos

having a faster metabolism being meat eaters and how they age quicker, some

becoming grandmothers at the age of 23 even. Therefore, that could be why

Stefansson didn't live past 83.

> I was wondering how his findings would fit in with Metabolic Typing

though? He gave examples of people on his expedition from other countries,

that did just as well on this diet. Therefore, were they all predisposed to

a protein diet? He talks of mixed dieters and vegetarians in the article,

but seems to indicate that people do better on a meat/fat diet. There just

seems to be a lot of factors there to think about.

> Be well,

> Robin

>

[Guest guest]

Marla-

>But, he believed that was not

>because of a faulty diet, but due to the rigorous ordeal of weather and the

>long Arctic nights.

It could be because of the rigors of Arctic life, or it could be because of

the high level of polyunsaturated oil in the Eskimo diet. Animals adapt to

cold weather by depositing polyunsaturated fats that don't harden and

freeze, and the Eskimos would have of necessity eaten a lot of that fat. I

don't think humans, even when living in the Arctic, are ideally suited to

such an unsaturated diet. In other ways the Eskimos ate an exemplary diet,

but that might well have had something to do with it.

-

[Guest guest]

:

I'm just learning about the issue between polyunsaturated fats and saturated

fats. Bieler states in his book that he doesn't think it matters whether we

consume saturated or unsaturated fats, but did believe that it's the

condition of the fat. It should be in its natural state and not cooked.

Bieler brings up the issue of valances which seem to show why both fats are

necessary. I think we're in agreement that the saturated fats are good for

us, but it seems that the unsaturated fats are also useful. Because of its

open bonds, it can bond with other unsaturated molecules and become

saturated. In this way, unsaturated fats can be used as neutralizing

agents, or buffers for otherwise toxic substances. It appears that both

fats are necessary, but for different purposes. One for building and the

other for detoxing or neutralizing toxins. Polyunsaturated fats are in all

whole foods including meats and dairy. Vegetables are also rich in

polyunsaturated fats and so maybe this is why a very sick person can go

vegan to recover from illness partly because the polyunsaturated fats in

vegetables help to neutralize toxins by bonding with them. There are so

many stories of people who have recovered from life-threatening illnesses

with vegetarianism (I'm one), that there really must be something to it. I

think the problem comes possibly when, after recovering, people just stay on

the vegan diet. They become unbalanced the other way. Who knows, maybe the

high unsaturated fat in their diets allowed the Eskimos to do just fine with

not very many vegetables?

Also, Bieler stated that even though the Eskimos had high fat diets--both

saturated and unsaturated, their blood cholesterol was normal and their

arteries were perfect. It really would be helpful to know what the Eskimos'

expected lifespan was and what they actually died of.

Marla

>

> It could be because of the rigors of Arctic life, or it could be because

of

> the high level of polyunsaturated oil in the Eskimo diet. Animals adapt

to

> cold weather by depositing polyunsaturated fats that don't harden and

> freeze, and the Eskimos would have of necessity eaten a lot of that fat.

I

> don't think humans, even when living in the Arctic, are ideally suited to

> such an unsaturated diet. In other ways the Eskimos ate an exemplary

diet,

> but that might well have had something to do with it.

>

>

>

>

> -

>

[Guest guest]

It is well documented that dietary factors will speed and or slow

onset of puberty and maturation the fact that eskimos have early

onset of these is a strong indication as to something awry in spite

of the other very positive outcomes in their health. is right

in regard to the excessive pufa consumption, while sat fat was

consumed and provided some protection from the pufa, the pufa

consumption would appear to be excessive. Add in the long periods of

darkness and you now have a very strong recipie for metabolic fault.

DMM

> Marla-

>

> >But, he believed that was not

> >because of a faulty diet, but due to the rigorous ordeal of

weather and the

> >long Arctic nights.

>

> It could be because of the rigors of Arctic life, or it could be

because of

> the high level of polyunsaturated oil in the Eskimo diet. Animals

adapt to

> cold weather by depositing polyunsaturated fats that don't harden

and

> freeze, and the Eskimos would have of necessity eaten a lot of that

fat. I

> don't think humans, even when living in the Arctic, are ideally

suited to

> such an unsaturated diet. In other ways the Eskimos ate an

exemplary diet,

> but that might well have had something to do with it.

>

>

>

>

> -

[Guest guest]

While Bieler's work is impressive. His understanding of lipids

is " folksey " at best. Realize that the benefits many vegetarians

point to and former vegetarians (myself) are the direct result NOT of

meat elimination or sat fat elimination. It is usually the

elimination of the garbage can diet. These people dealing with life

threatening illness, what do they do? They eliminate all sugar

consumption and they eat only real whole food, this alone can clearly

account for all the improvement they observe. The point that Pufa is

in nearly every available food merely stokes the point even more that

excess pufa is clearly not necessary and the documentation of the

undesirability of excess pufa is very clear.

DMM

> :

>

> I'm just learning about the issue between polyunsaturated fats and

saturated

> fats. Bieler states in his book that he doesn't think it matters

whether we

> consume saturated or unsaturated fats, but did believe that it's the

> condition of the fat. It should be in its natural state and not

cooked.

> Bieler brings up the issue of valances which seem to show why both

fats are

> necessary. I think we're in agreement that the saturated fats are

good for

> us, but it seems that the unsaturated fats are also useful.

Because of its

> open bonds, it can bond with other unsaturated molecules and become

> saturated. In this way, unsaturated fats can be used as

neutralizing

> agents, or buffers for otherwise toxic substances. It appears that

both

> fats are necessary, but for different purposes. One for building

and the

> other for detoxing or neutralizing toxins. Polyunsaturated fats

are in all

> whole foods including meats and dairy. Vegetables are also rich in

> polyunsaturated fats and so maybe this is why a very sick person

can go

> vegan to recover from illness partly because the polyunsaturated

fats in

> vegetables help to neutralize toxins by bonding with them. There

are so

> many stories of people who have recovered from life-threatening

illnesses

> with vegetarianism (I'm one), that there really must be something

to it. I

> think the problem comes possibly when, after recovering, people

just stay on

> the vegan diet. They become unbalanced the other way. Who knows,

maybe the

> high unsaturated fat in their diets allowed the Eskimos to do just

fine with

> not very many vegetables?

>

> Also, Bieler stated that even though the Eskimos had high fat diets-

-both

> saturated and unsaturated, their blood cholesterol was normal and

their

> arteries were perfect. It really would be helpful to know what the

Eskimos'

> expected lifespan was and what they actually died of.

>

> Marla

>

>

> >

> > It could be because of the rigors of Arctic life, or it could be

because

> of

> > the high level of polyunsaturated oil in the Eskimo diet.

Animals adapt

> to

> > cold weather by depositing polyunsaturated fats that don't harden

and

> > freeze, and the Eskimos would have of necessity eaten a lot of

that fat.

> I

> > don't think humans, even when living in the Arctic, are ideally

suited to

> > such an unsaturated diet. In other ways the Eskimos ate an

exemplary

> diet,

> > but that might well have had something to do with it.

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > -

> >

[Guest guest]

>>>>> I did find at the end of the article it talked about the Eskimos

having a faster metabolism being meat eaters and how they age quicker, some

becoming grandmothers at the age of 23 even. Therefore, that could be why

Stefansson didn't live past 83.

I was wondering how his findings would fit in with Metabolic Typing

though?

----------->i'm guessing they wouldn't. even just sheer *individual* needs

that are determined by more than just one's metabolic type would suggest

that not *everyone* *everywhere* would find an Eskimo-type diet to be

optimal. I've got " Life with the Eskimos " on order and am eager to read

about Steffanson's experience, btw.

He gave examples of people on his expedition from other countries, that did

just as well on this diet. Therefore, were they all predisposed to a

protein diet? He talks of mixed dieters and vegetarians in the article, but

seems to indicate that people do better on a meat/fat diet. There just

seems to be a lot of factors there to think about.

----------->i wonder how these individuals would do long term on such a

diet? i can see where a paleo diet (predominated by meat and fat) might work

for many, or even most people for a period, but...may not be *optimal* for

each individual over the long haul. definitely a lot of factors to think

about...

Suze Fisher

Web Design & Development

http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg/

mailto:s.fisher22@...

[Guest guest]

At 01:40 AM 9/3/02 +0000, you wrote:

>     I was wondering how his findings would fit in with Metabolic Typing

though?  He gave examples of people on his expedition from other countries,

that did just as well on this diet.  Therefore, were they all predisposed to a

protein diet?  He talks of mixed dieters and vegetarians in the article, but

seems to indicate that people do better on a meat/fat diet.  There just seems

to be a lot of factors there to think about.

>     Be well,

>     Robin

who joined Stefansson in the NY research I believe was a Swede.

Steffansson, Icelandic. Both would tend to most likely be the fast oxidizer/

protein type most common of northern cultures. There was a Cape Verdean man

and

another southern latitude man with them and the Eskimos. Possibly their

ancestry and metabolisms come from protein cultures of the south. The Masai is

one example.

Wanita

[Guest guest]

----- Original Message -----

From: drmichaelmarasco

> It is well documented that dietary factors will speed and or slow

> onset of puberty and maturation the fact that eskimos have early

> onset of these is a strong indication as to something awry in spite

> of the other very positive outcomes in their health.

That appears true, but (now I'm just a lay person here) aren't hormones

involved with puberty and maturation and doesn't light have major effects on

hormone production or suppression regardless of diet?

is right

> in regard to the excessive pufa consumption, while sat fat was

> consumed and provided some protection from the pufa, the pufa

> consumption would appear to be excessive. Add in the long periods of

> darkness and you now have a very strong recipie for metabolic fault.

>

I really need to read up on PUFAs. Are there any good references for this

type of info? I think Dezimid made a post that I feel rings true that PUFAs

in their natural states, not pressed out into oils and such, are probably

beneficial and quite different than the bottled variety. And in that case,

I assume the Eskimos were eating the PUFAs in their natural state and not

pressing them out and oxidizing them to cause them to become harmful. That

may be why their arteries were is such great shape even with their high PUFA

consumption. Just a thought, I really should read up on PUFAs first, but

this gives me a chance to hear the scoop from different perspectives. )

Marla

[Guest guest]

----- Original Message -----

From: drmichaelmarasco

> While Bieler's work is impressive. His understanding of lipids

> is " folksey " at best.

### I may be a little nit picky here, but " folksey? " Isn't this group of

the mind set to respect " native wisdom? " Bieler may not be quite as native

as the Eskimos Price studied, but I don't think folksey should count against

him. Unless I'm misunderstanding that word.

Realize that the benefits many vegetarians

> point to and former vegetarians (myself) are the direct result NOT of

> meat elimination or sat fat elimination. It is usually the

> elimination of the garbage can diet. These people dealing with life

> threatening illness, what do they do? They eliminate all sugar

> consumption and they eat only real whole food, this alone can clearly

> account for all the improvement they observe.

### I've made comments regarding this in my response to Kat.

The point that Pufa is

> in nearly every available food merely stokes the point even more that

> excess pufa is clearly not necessary and the documentation of the

> undesirability of excess pufa is very clear.

### I'm not advocating adopting a high PUFA diet, but merely considering

whether the PUFA, in the condition that the Eskimos used it, caused any

health problems or shortening of their lifespans. I'm assuming that all or

most tests on PUFAs were probably done on proccessed PUFAs and not in their

unadulterated states. We know that all whole foods have them, and all or

most whole foods are health giving. There must be some good use for PUFAs

in the body. (I'm not saying to take PUFA supplements or anything, but

possibly saying that " PUFAs are evil " may be going overboard.) Trust me, I

can't even get myself to drink any olive oil for one liver cleanse much less

advocate a high PUFA diet.

Marla

[Guest guest]

Marla-

>Trust me, I

>can't even get myself to drink any olive oil for one liver cleanse much less

>advocate a high PUFA diet.

In my brief experiment with liver cleansing, I found that drinking liquid

coconut oil was just as effective.

-

[Guest guest]

> > While Bieler's work is impressive. His understanding of lipids

> > is " folksey " at best.

>

> ### I may be a little nit picky here, but " folksey? " Isn't this

group of

> the mind set to respect " native wisdom? " Bieler may not be quite

as native

> as the Eskimos Price studied, but I don't think folksey should

count against

> him. Unless I'm misunderstanding that word.

-----------------In the case of discussing what fats are good and how

to use them in his comments that were cited, " folksey " counts against

him as he is flat out wrong. Folksey in the context I used it

meaning " of legend or myth with no factual basis or support " Dr.

Bieler particularly in this context does not understand lipid usage

or requirements. This does not make his body of work wrong or

useless it just simply means he's reasonably clueless when it comes

to this particular lipid issue and I would not regard his advice here

as sound, correct or advisable.

>

>

> Realize that the benefits many vegetarians

> > point to and former vegetarians (myself) are the direct result

NOT of

> > meat elimination or sat fat elimination. It is usually the

> > elimination of the garbage can diet. These people dealing with

life

> > threatening illness, what do they do? They eliminate all sugar

> > consumption and they eat only real whole food, this alone can

clearly

> > account for all the improvement they observe.

>

> ### I've made comments regarding this in my response to Kat.

--------------------Once again you are entitled to your opinion on

this however the only explanation for the clearly demonstrated fact

that people who have been ravaged by disease and recovered via

everything from vegan to meat and milk raw and virtually everything

in between, some with some of bielers ideas some with none of bielers

ideas and some with all of bielers ideas indicates that my statement

is the ONLY common denominator. Again I am not in any way damning

bieler and his work I am simply saying that the reason there is so

much contradictory anectdotal dietary info is simply that ALL of the

succssess vary in content except for these above points.

>

> The point that Pufa is

> > in nearly every available food merely stokes the point even more

that

> > excess pufa is clearly not necessary and the documentation of the

> > undesirability of excess pufa is very clear.

>

> ### I'm not advocating adopting a high PUFA diet, but merely

considering

> whether the PUFA, in the condition that the Eskimos used it, caused

any

> health problems or shortening of their lifespans. I'm assuming

that all or

> most tests on PUFAs were probably done on proccessed PUFAs and not

in their

> unadulterated states. We know that all whole foods have them, and

all or

> most whole foods are health giving. There must be some good use

for PUFAs

> in the body. (I'm not saying to take PUFA supplements or anything,

but

> possibly saying that " PUFAs are evil " may be going overboard.)

Trust me, I

> can't even get myself to drink any olive oil for one liver cleanse

much less

> advocate a high PUFA diet.

-------------------Marla I'm enjoying the diologue here with you but

you're nitpicking on all three points here. Pufa reasearch clearly

demonstrates that when consumed even in mild in excess pufa's are a

toxin that fundamentally harms endocrine function among other

things. The point I was simply making is that Pufa is widely

available nearly everywhere and when care is not taken in some

fashion to LIMIT its consumption issues show up. Considering the

clear demonstration that the eskimo longevity or lack there of was in

question and still is in question, this would be the most glaring

dietary issue to address that. Granted I am theorizing here however

of their very simple and wholesome diet this is the most glaring

toxin that they consumed in great excess. I'm not suggesting that I

must be right on this however in the realm of " what could be

responsible for these hearty, healthy folk having shorter life spans

aside from the 'death by bear, cold, etc...' " excess pufa is the

most likely observation.

DMM

>

> Marla

[Guest guest]

------------------- Pufa reasearch clearly demonstrates that when consumed

even in mild in excess pufa's are a toxin that fundamentally harms endocrine

function among other things. The point I was simply making is that Pufa is

widely

available nearly everywhere and when care is not taken in some

fashion to LIMIT its consumption issues show up. Considering the

clear demonstration that the eskimo longevity or lack there of was in

question and still is in question, this would be the most glaring

dietary issue to address that.

---------------------->i wholeheartedly agree that current american PUFA

consumption is excessive and likely a major contributor to chronic and

degenerative diseases. BUT, what i'm wondering, or what i'm trying to

understand, is how paleolithic shore dwellers with their heavy LC PUFA

consumption from seafood, had bigger bodies, larger brains, and were, by all

the accounts i've read, much healthier than neolithic man...

since our brains require a good amount of DHA and AA and marine foods are a

much richer source of these pre-formed long chain PUFAs...it makes me

question the idea that the eskimos ate 'too much' LC PUFA and that it might

contribute to their presumed (or confirmed?) shorter life span. how does

their marine mammal LC pufa consumption compare to the shore dwelling

paleoliths..? did the paleos who consumed lots of seafood have something

else in their diet that contributed to their larger size and superior health

that the eskimo don't? Africa is a long way from alaska, after all...

Are LC mammalian-derived PUFAs eaten in the context of an overall healthy

diet as destructive as processed vegetable/seed oil-based 18 carbon PUFAs?

(doubt that's been studied...) and what about context...are modern americans

consuming excess PUFAs exposed to more environmental toxins that result in a

much higher total body burden of reactive oxygen species (free radicals)?

did paleos have a healthier 'homeostasis' of ROS and anti-oxidant defense

systems so their higher LC PUFA consumption worked well within the context

of their lifestyle/environment?

these are just questions i have not been able to reconcile in my own mind,

and thought i'd toss them into the mix.

btw, for you pemmican enthusiasts, i just received my stefansson books

yesterday - " My Life with the Eskimos " and " Not by Bread Alone. " the latter

has 4 chapters all on pemmican!!

Suze Fisher

Web Design & Development

http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg/

mailto:s.fisher22@...

[Guest guest]

> since our brains require a good amount of DHA and AA

and marine foods are a

> much richer source of these pre-formed

===========I think it a big assumption that DHA in " good " amounts is

required. This study as just one example.

1: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1996 Oct;37(11):2243-57 Related

Articles, Links

Retinal light damage in rats with altered levels of rod outer segment

docosahexaenoate.

Organisciak DT, Darrow RM, Jiang YL, Blanks JC.

Petticrew Research Laboratory, State University, Daylon, Ohio

45435, USA.

PURPOSE: To compare retinal light damage in rats with either normal

or reduced levels of rod outer segment (ROS) docosahexaenoic acid.

METHODS: Weanling male albino rats were maintained in a weak cyclic

light environment and fed either a nonpurified control diet or a

purified diet deficient in the linolenic acid precursor of

docosahexaenoic acid (DHA). Half the rats on the deficient diet were

given linseed oil, containing more than 50 mol% linolenic acid, once

a week to maintain ROS DHA at near normal levels. Diets and linseed

oil supplementation were continued for 7 to 12 weeks. To replenish

DHA in their ROS, some 10-week-old rats on the deficient diet were

given linseed oil three times a week for up to 3 additional weeks.

Groups of animals were killed at various times for ROS fatty acid

determinations or were exposed to intense green light using

intermittent or hyperthermic light treatments. The extent of retinal

light damage was determined biochemically by rhodopsin or

photoreceptor cell DNA measurements 2 weeks after exposure and

morphologically by light and electron microscopy at various times

after light treatment. RESULTS: Rats maintained for 7 to 12 weeks on

the linolenic acid-deficient diet had significantly lower levels of

DHA and significantly higher levels of n-6 docosapentaenoic acid

(22:5n-6) in their ROS than deficient-diet animals supplemented once

a week with linseed oil or those fed the nonpurified control diet. As

determined by rhodopsin levels and photoreceptor cell DNA

measurements, deficient diet rats exhibited protection against

retinal damage from either intermittent or hyperthermic light

exposure. However, the unsaturated fatty acid content of ROS from all

three dietary groups was the same and greater than 60 mol%. In 10

week-old deficient-diet rats given linseed oil three times a week,

ROS DHA was unchanged for the first 10 days, whereas 22:5n-6 levels

declined by 50%. After 3 weeks of treatment with linseed oil, ROS DHA

and 22:5n-6 were nearly the same as in rats supplemented with linseed

oil from weaning. The time course of susceptibility to retinal light

damage, however, was different. Hyperthermic light damage in rats

given linseed oil for only 2 days was the same as for rats always fed

the deficient diet. Six days after the start of linseed oil

treatment, retinal light damage was the same as in rats given the

linseed oil supplement from weaning. Morphologic alterations in ROS

of linseed oil-supplemented rats immediately after intermittent light

exposure were more extensive than in either the deficient-diet

animals or those fed the control diet. The deficient-diet rats also

exhibited better preservation of photoreceptor cell nuclei and

structure 2 weeks after exposure. CONCLUSIONS: Rats fed a diet

deficient in the linolenic acid precursor of DHA are protected

against experimental retinal light damage. The relationship between

retinal light damage and ROS lipids does not depend on the total

unsaturated fatty acid content of ROS; the damage appears to be

related to the relative levels of DHA and 22:5n-6.

are modern americans

> consuming excess PUFAs exposed to more environmental toxins that

result in a

> much higher total body burden of reactive oxygen species (free

radicals)?

@v...

================this I would agree with 100%

DMM

[Guest guest]

This is really interesting stuff and I plan to read through the

entire thread. I'll also go check out the link, thank you for

including that in your original post that started this thread.

When I was a child, my parents took me and my two brothers (I was 8

years old) to live for a short time in the Arctic, in an Eskimo

village. We ate mostly our own food, which they had shipped up to

the village ahead of time. However, we did eat some of the food

there.

We were there for the summer, but it could still get pretty cold

when the ice fog rolled in, and the high fat of their foods was like

eating food that started a fire inside you. It really helped to

cope with the cold.

Everyone seemed very healthy and there were some pretty old folks

there who were active and strong. My parents' impression was that

they used and or ate everything. Whale intestines was on the menu,

for example. (these people didn't decimate the whale population,

hopefully no one is offended, the respect for the animals was

very mystical and strong).

They also ate fermented meat, lots of raw meat and fish. I wonder

if there is also a big difference in the meat of mammals that eat

fish? I was back to Arctic several years ago and had dinner with

some people who served up Bearded Hair Seal roast for dinner and it

was very good, but had a distinct flavor. There must be an

incredible amount of fish oil in the meat and fat of those animals.

Strokes are not always caused by clogged arteries. It happens when

the brain is deprived of oxygen and this can happen from blood

clots. Some people are genetically more susceptible to thickening

and clotting of blood, which can exacerbated by chronic infections.

So, I'm disinclined to assume that Stefansson's stroke was directly

related to his diet.

Laurie

[Guest guest]

At 04:43 PM 9/4/02 +0000, you wrote:

>Strokes are not always caused by clogged arteries.  It happens when

>the brain is deprived of oxygen and this can happen from blood

>clots.  Some people are genetically more susceptible to thickening

>and clotting of blood, which can exacerbated by chronic infections. 

>So, I'm disinclined to assume that Stefansson's stroke was directly

>related to his diet.

>

>Laurie

Strokes can be electrical in origin too. Maybe preventable by sufficient

magnesium intake. He did have warning signs prior. I believe the common blood

type of Alaskan Natives is O. If Steffanson was different it could be there

was

at the time of the stroke some food he was eating or had ate primarily that

had lectins that agglutinated his blood type. Metabolic Typing Diet charts

this

out.

Wanita

[Guest guest]

> since our brains require a good amount of DHA and AA

and marine foods are a

> much richer source of these pre-formed

===========I think it a big assumption that DHA in " good " amounts is

required. This study as just one example.

----------->OK, i guess 'good amount' is a vague descriptor. the human brain

is about 60% lipid and 25% of that is DHA. how many fatty acids are in

existence...dozens? hundreds? of all these, the brain requires a quarter of

it's fatty acids as DHA. so, that's what i meant by 'good amount.'

the abstract you posted is interesting, but it doesn't refute the fact that

our brains require a certain amount of DHA. it only shows us that *albino*

rats (aren't they light sensitive in the first place??) which are fed

linseed oil and subjected to light of an unknown intensity for a duration of

unknown hours per day had more *retinal* damage than those not fed the

linseed oil. however, ALL had equal amounts of FA ROS (perhaps the other FA

ROS were causing damage in other tissue where *they* are concentrated, but

were not a part of this study).

i'm not at all arguing that it's good to eat a ton of PUFAs (geez, i'm

always arguing against people loading up on fish oil just because...) BUT, i

do believe that everything comes down to homeostasis IN the organism and

BETWEEN an organism and it's environment. too *little* DHA has also been

shown to be harmful, especially to brain and eyes. too much is harmful, too

little is harmful. how much is a healthy amount? i imagine that depends on a

number of individual factors including climactic region, antioxidant defense

system status, total ROS load, diet, ethnicity(?), n-6 intake, etc, etc...

Our paleolithic ancestors ate a 'good amount' of DHA from marine foods...was

that " bad " ? If so, why were they bigger, healthier and larger brained than

the neoliths? maybe it was part of an overall diet/lifestyle/environmental

adaptation that worked well for them in their regional/lifestyle context...?

As for the eskimo...yep, i do question the notion that their consumption of

PUFAs was 'life-shortening'. maybe it is, maybe it isn't. But to me, their

diet just looks like a natural pattern found in arctic regions, and is

simply an adaptation to their environment as it was with other arctic

mammals/plants. the PUFA concentration of plants and animals *increases* as

you move further away from the equator and its incessant light and intense

heat. Coconut and palm are equatorial plants and are very saturated as would

be a necessary adaptation to the intense light and heat. the opposite seems

to be so in very cold regions - they are much more hospitable to high PUFA

concentration, and the PUFA concentration may in fact, be an adaptation to

cold. there is some evidence that PUFA concentration in extremities (feet,

ears,tail etc) of mammals living in cold climates allows adipose depots to

remain fluid (which *saturated* FAs can't do at low temps) so that

triacylglycerols may be 'metabolically usable.' according to Pond in " The

Fats of Life " these appendages may typically be at temps as low as 5 celcius

(like a refrigerator).

so...both plant and animals (especially marine) in cold climates tend to

concentrate PUFAs, maybe for 'metabolic usability' of triacylglycerol

depots, maybe for other reasons, but they do, whatever the reason may be. so

why would eskimos be any different? they are mammals that have adapted to

the food supply/conditions of their specific region. is that

'unhealthy'...it doesn't seem to be to me as the unhealthy are typcially

selected *out* of a population, and the 'healthy' ones are those that adapt

to their specific region and it's natural food supply, like the eskimo.

(inuit, to be perfectly politcally correct!)

i would like to see a study that clearly proves a causal relationship

between the PUFA consumption of eskimos that live(d) the traditional

lifestyle and ate a traditional diet, before i make the leap that their PUFA

consumption somehow shortened their lives. anyway, those are just my

personal thoughts on the subject...i guess it's just as speculative as the

notion that their high PUFA consumption caused them to die young. <G>

Suze Fisher

Web Design & Development

http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg/

mailto:s.fisher22@...

[Guest guest]

Suze-

>But to me, their

>diet just looks like a natural pattern found in arctic regions, and is

>simply an adaptation to their environment as it was with other arctic

>mammals/plants. the PUFA concentration of plants and animals *increases* as

>you move further away from the equator and its incessant light and intense

>heat.

Quite so, but look how much time other cold-weather animals had time to

adapt to their environment -- and their PUFAs -- compared to the Eskimos,

or humans generally.

>i would like to see a study that clearly proves a causal relationship

>between the PUFA consumption of eskimos that live(d) the traditional

>lifestyle and ate a traditional diet,

Something that's unfortunately impossible now, even if commercial and

political factors weren't in play. However, for all his flaws, look at Dr.

Ray Peat's work.

-

[Guest guest]

>But to me, their

>diet just looks like a natural pattern found in arctic regions, and is

>simply an adaptation to their environment as it was with other arctic

>mammals/plants. the PUFA concentration of plants and animals *increases* as

>you move further away from the equator and its incessant light and intense

>heat.

Quite so, but look how much time other cold-weather animals had time to

adapt to their environment -- and their PUFAs -- compared to the Eskimos,

or humans generally.

------------->paul, how long have the eskimos been in the arctic? i was

under the impression that it's been many thousands of years, and that they

likely came from Mongolia or some other northern area of asia...?

i also don't know how long each of the arctic animal species has been

there...it would certainly be an interesting comparison if the data is

available.

Suze Fisher

Web Design & Development

http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg/

mailto:s.fisher22@...