"Eskimo Diet" Lacks Support For Better Cardiovascular Health

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."

Comments

low carb and low PUFA vs high Omega-3?

[hazem]

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?

[hazem]

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:Fad diets based on new "science"

[hazem]

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.