One of the people groups I'm researching for a paper I'm writing is the Inuits. They fascinate me because of their ability to live quite effectively in very rough and remote conditions.

This book I'm reading says a few things in it's "conclusions" section, after doing years of research on the Inuits, which have caught my attention:


"One of the dominant concerns of modern society is that many adults are now falling victim to ischaemic heart disease and various types of cancer at a relatively early age. A commonly suggested reason for the growing prevalence of these conditions is that city-dwellers are eating the wrong sorts of food and are not undertaking sufficient physical activity. As a reaction to this concern, some of the urban populations engage in over-rigorous dieting or become obsessed with exercise to the point of developing anorexia nervosa or precipitating a heart attack during a session of heavy exercise.

Again, there seems much that 'modern' society can learn from the wisdom of the traditional circumpolar inhabitant. To our knowledge, the traditional Inuit never adopted a deliberate 'reducing diet', but because of a lifestyle where levels of physical activity were adequate, the energy was derived more from protein and fat than from refined carbohydrates, there was no significant accumulation of sub-cutaneous fat as the individual became older .... The lifestyle of the coastal peoples of the arctic was marked by a very low incidence of ischaemic heart disease and hypertension. This was linked to such favorable lifestyle practices as the choice of a diet rich in polyunsaturated fish oils and a high overall daily energy expenditure reached through sustained, moderate intensity activity. The typical city-dweller is so harried by 'lack of time' that any occasional bouts of exercise must be pursued at an exhausting rate. But in contrast, the arctic resident seeks to avoid sweating, and adopts a pace that can be sustained over much of the day. In 'developed' societies, the consumption of refined carbohydrates has also risen steeply over the past century. But finally scientists are beginning to commend the fish oils that are rich in Omega-3 fatty acids and to recognize that sustained low intensity activity may be the optimum exercise prescription for overall health."

Shephard, R., Rode, A. (1996). The Health Consequences of ‘Modernization’: Evidence from Circumpolar Peoples. Great Britain: Cambridge University Press


Hmmmm!!! So my "no sense killing myself out there" approach to long distance cycling might have something to say for itself!

I've also frequently said that if people want to lose weight and become healthy, one of the best ways to do that is to be generally active as much as possible ... to take the stairs, to walk to the grocery store instead of driving, to commute to work by bicycle, to weightlift or ride the trainer while watching TV rather than just sitting on the sofa ... and so on.

I'm convinced that while we live longer lives, we don't necessarily lead better ones. Medical science continues to stride along performing it's miracles, and yet our culture (at least in the technologically developed nations) encourages a certain passivity. All well and good that I can manage my life from the seat of my chair here, but I certainly wouldn't feel vital doing it. The stresses involved are mostly artificial; I don't have to worry about hunting for my food (or becoming food myself), but I risk an infarction from juggling too many tasks that my "labor-saving devices" assure me I can handle.

I'm willing to wager that for a truly healthy human being, effort and sweat, and even a bit of danger, are essential elements.

Another factor maybe that the Inuits have built their lifestyle over generations. In my mind that's the same as an endurance athlete building a good training base.

I must have some Inuit in me. :D Slow and steady wins after all.

One of the people groups I'm researching for a paper I'm writing is the Inuits. They fascinate me because of their ability to live quite effectively in very rough and remote conditions.

This book I'm reading says a few things in it's "conclusions" section, after doing years of research on the Inuits, which have caught my attention:


"One of the dominant concerns of modern society is that many adults are now falling victim to ischaemic heart disease and various types of cancer at a relatively early age. A commonly suggested reason for the growing prevalence of these conditions is that city-dwellers are eating the wrong sorts of food and are not undertaking sufficient physical activity. As a reaction to this concern, some of the urban populations engage in over-rigorous dieting or become obsessed with exercise to the point of developing anorexia nervosa or precipitating a heart attack during a session of heavy exercise.

Again, there seems much that 'modern' society can learn from the wisdom of the traditional circumpolar inhabitant. To our knowledge, the traditional Inuit never adopted a deliberate 'reducing diet', but because of a lifestyle where levels of physical activity were adequate, the energy was derived more from protein and fat than from refined carbohydrates, there was no significant accumulation of sub-cutaneous fat as the individual became older .... The lifestyle of the coastal peoples of the arctic was marked by a very low incidence of ischaemic heart disease and hypertension. This was linked to such favorable lifestyle practices as the choice of a diet rich in polyunsaturated fish oils and a high overall daily energy expenditure reached through sustained, moderate intensity activity. The typical city-dweller is so harried by 'lack of time' that any occasional bouts of exercise must be pursued at an exhausting rate. But in contrast, the arctic resident seeks to avoid sweating, and adopts a pace that can be sustained over much of the day. In 'developed' societies, the consumption of refined carbohydrates has also risen steeply over the past century. But finally scientists are beginning to commend the fish oils that are rich in Omega-3 fatty acids and to recognize that sustained low intensity activity may be the optimum exercise prescription for overall health."

Shephard, R., Rode, A. (1996). The Health Consequences of ‘Modernization’: Evidence from Circumpolar Peoples. Great Britain: Cambridge University Press


Hmmmm!!! So my "no sense killing myself out there" approach to long distance cycling might have something to say for itself!

I've also frequently said that if people want to lose weight and become healthy, one of the best ways to do that is to be generally active as much as possible ... to take the stairs, to walk to the grocery store instead of driving, to commute to work by bicycle, to weightlift or ride the trainer while watching TV rather than just sitting on the sofa ... and so on.


In my cultural anthropology course we are looking at culture bound syndromes. One of them we look at is Piblotoq, AKA arctic hysteria. It is belived that Inuit suffer from this disease because of a vitamin D deficiency as well as calcium. And that they somtimes poison themsleves with the food that they eat; the livers and kidneys of marine animals they eat contain high levels of vitamin A, and thus the hypervitaminosis as well as the somtimes cramped conditions and perpetual dark cause some of them to go crazy.

It is too bad that we only now start to listen to the people who have lived on the land so long; now that we screwed everything up we actually have to listen to the people that know the land the best.

No way you're gonna convince me to eat whale blubber! :eek:

No way you're gonna convince me to eat whale blubber! :eek:

Just watch out for the deadly yellow snow...

Az

The Inuit diet also lacks fruits and vegetables which can't be good for your health. Lots of japanese who are over 100 years old and in excellent health have had a steady diet of fish, vegetables, fruits and rice over the years.

I would eat fish everyday but I'm afraid of the level of contaminants in fish. I don't like the idea that the oceans of the world are getting fished out either.

There's a lot of nonsense and speculation that gets published as science. Who knows if the original quote about the Inuit is valid, or represents some romanticization of Inuit life by the author. Presumably the Inuit traditionally burned off a lot of fat calories just staying warm in the arctic climate. As for the carnivorous diet with no fruit and vegetables, and high fat/low carb, they have adapted to that over many generations, and it may not necessarily be healthy for others to emulate. Grains have been a staple of the European diet for several thousand (maybe hundreds of thousands) years.

I would eat fish everyday but I'm afraid of the level of contaminants in fish. I don't like the idea that the oceans of the world are getting fished out either.

I read a study somewhere that given the same environment, the bigger the fish (fish that eats other fish), the more contaminants it contains.

But anyways, I prefer a slice of fresh raw tuna or salmon over a bloody steak anyday.

I think the risks with eating contaminated fish are so much less than the risks of eating saturated fats in most meats and processed foods.

Sandy

I think the risks with eating contaminated fish are so much less than the risks of eating saturated fats in most meats and processed foods.

"Think" is the operative word here. It's possible that there may be a reappraisal of the dangers of dietary fat coming soon. It may turn out that natural saturated fats such as found in beef and tropical vegetable oils are not so bad, and the greater health risks are associated with artificially saturated (hydrogenated) fats added to processed foods, because they contain the abnormal "trans" chemical bonds not normally found in nature. Don't take my word for it, but watch for new studies.

There's a lot of nonsense and speculation that gets published as science. Who knows if the original quote about the Inuit is valid, or represents some romanticization of Inuit life by the author. Presumably the Inuit traditionally burned off a lot of fat calories just staying warm in the arctic climate. As for the carnivorous diet with no fruit and vegetables, and high fat/low carb, they have adapted to that over many generations, and it may not necessarily be healthy for others to emulate. Grains have been a staple of the European diet for several thousand (maybe hundreds of thousands) years.

In hunter gather societies people usually use about the same amount of energy as they take in, since alot of the day is spent looking for food. Their population numbers also stay static over the years. I am sure there is a reason for this, and I think it is because they maintain more of a balance throught the years

People have done things a certain way for many years, it does not mean that there is not a better way. I think the reason that Europeans have eaten the way that they do for thousands of years was because in the old days all they could afford to eat was bread and grains. The only fat people in the olden days were the rich, and thats because they could afford to get fat and did not have to work it off.

The Inuit are known to have been poisoned by the food they eat because some of the organs posses very high doses of certain vitiamins, which they eat in great amounts, so even though they have been eating that way for thousands of years they still have not fully adapted to it.

But anyways, I prefer a slice of fresh raw tuna or salmon over a bloody steak anyday.

Same here. Why people even cook fish anymore I don't know.

Same here. Why people even cook fish anymore I don't know.
Parasites?

Same here. Why people even cook fish anymore I don't know.
Time to update your sig :)

Well, I wasn't so interested in the diet. I was more interested in the exercise aspect of that article.


"a high overall daily energy expenditure reached through sustained, moderate intensity activity. The typical city-dweller is so harried by 'lack of time' that any occasional bouts of exercise must be pursued at an exhausting rate. But in contrast, the arctic resident seeks to avoid sweating, and adopts a pace that can be sustained over much of the day."

Well, I wasn't so interested in the diet. I was more interested in the exercise aspect of that article.


"a high overall daily energy expenditure reached through sustained, moderate intensity activity. The typical city-dweller is so harried by 'lack of time' that any occasional bouts of exercise must be pursued at an exhausting rate. But in contrast, the arctic resident seeks to avoid sweating, and adopts a pace that can be sustained over much of the day."Makes sense, but again, a lot of caloric expenditure went to keeping warm. I read an article in Pedal magazine about some guys doing winter cycling in Alaska or the Yukon, and they ate slabs of frozen butter as if they were chocolate bars to try to maintain their weight and bodily warmth. Also Inuit seal hunters would lie beside an air hole in the ice motionless for hours waiting for seals to surface. So it might be the cold that kept the Inuit thin as much as the exercise.

Makes sense, but again, a lot of caloric expenditure when to keeping warm. I read and article in Pedal meagazine about some guys doing winter cycling in Alaska or the Yukon, and they ate slabs of frozen butter as if they were chocolate bars to try to maintain their weight and bodily warmth. Also Inuit seal hunters would lie beside an air hole in the ice motionless for hours waiting for seals to surface.

Well, I would be interested in knowing just how many extra calories are burnt when exercising in the winter ... seeing as how I do quite a lot of cycling in the winter.

But ... I don't think I could eat butter like that ... blech!!

This doesn't address the original thought, but with respect to a diet with a lot of fish, the Inuit were found to have ingested a lot of pollutants from fish. In fact, the breast milk of Inuit women was contaminated with dioxin and other chemicals:

Perched at the top of the Arctic food chain, eating a diet similar to a polar bear's, the Inuit also play unwilling host to some 200 toxic pesticides and industrial compounds. These include all of the "Dirty Dozen" -- the 12 pollutants capable of inflicting the most damage -- including PCBs and chlorinated pesticides such as chlordane, toxaphene, and DDT, long banned in most of North America and Europe. Other compounds still in use today -- flame ******ants in furniture and computers, insecticides, and the chemicals used to make Teflon -- are growing in concentration as well.

The first evidence of alarming levels of toxic substances in the bodies of Arctic peoples came from the Canadian Inuit. In 1987, Dr. Eric Dewailly, an epidemiologist at Laval University in Quebec, was surveying contaminants in the breast milk of mothers near the industrialized, heavily polluted Gulf of St. Lawrence, when he met a midwife from Nunavik, the Inuit area of Arctic Quebec. (Across the Hudson Bay, the Inuit also have their own self-governing territory, Nunavut, or "our land.") She asked whether he wanted milk samples from Nunavik women. Dewailly reluctantly agreed, thinking they might be useful as "blanks," samples with nondetectable pollution levels.

A few months later, glass vials holding half a cup of milk from each of 24 Nunavik women arrived. Dewailly soon got a phone call from his lab director. Something was wrong with the Arctic milk. The chemical concentrations were off the charts. The peaks overloaded the lab's equipment, running off the page. The technician thought the samples must have been tainted in transit.

Upon testing more breast milk, however, the scientists realized that the readings were accurate: Arctic mothers had seven times more PCBs in their milk than mothers in Canada's biggest cities. Informed of the results, an expert in chemical safety at the World Health Organization told Dewailly that the PCB levels were the highest he had ever seen. Those women, he said, should stop breastfeeding their babies.
http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2005/01/12_402.html

Here's (http://www.pedalmag.com/index.php?module=Section&action=viewdetail&item_id=2533) the link to that arctic cycling story.

Well, I wasn't so interested in the diet. I was more interested in the exercise aspect of that article.


"a high overall daily energy expenditure reached through sustained, moderate intensity activity. The typical city-dweller is so harried by 'lack of time' that any occasional bouts of exercise must be pursued at an exhausting rate. But in contrast, the arctic resident seeks to avoid sweating, and adopts a pace that can be sustained over much of the day."

While there is little doubt that regular moderate exercise reduces one's risk of heart disease, the statement you quote does not address whether individuals who regularly exercise at a high intensity are more, or less, susceptible to heart disease than those who engage in moderate levels of exercise.

This statement:

some of the urban populations engage in over-rigorous dieting or become obsessed with exercise to the point of developing anorexia nervosa or precipitating a heart attack during a session of heavy exercise.
bothers me somewhat. I don't believe I have ever read anything about a tendency for adults to develop anorexia nervosa, let alone in response to a concern about heart disease. This seems to be primarily a disorder that strikes teenage women in response to distorted body image concerns. And as far as I know, an otherwise heathy person will not have a heart attack simply from high levels of exertion.

And as far as I know, an otherwise heathy person will not have a heart attack simply from high levels of exertion.


Happens all the time. Presumably they weren't as healthy as they thought they were.

Happens all the time. Presumably they weren't as healthy as they thought they were.

It happens to people who have some form of heart disease which may have been previously undetected. These people might just as well have a heart attack climbing the stairs to their bedroom or sitting in their office.

If you do not have heart disease, then you can safely exercise right up to your HRmax. Well, safe so long as you don't pass out and fall off the bike!

It happens to people who have some form of heart disease which may have been previously undetected. These people might just as well have a heart attack climbing the stairs to their bedroom or sitting in their office.

If you do not have heart disease, then you can safely exercise right up to your HRmax. Well, safe so long as you don't pass out and fall off the bike!

The point the author quoted by the OP was making, is that intense intermittent exercise can be dangerous, compared to sustained moderate activity.

The point the author quoted by the OP was making, is that intense intermittent exercise can be dangerous, compared to sustained moderate activity.

I understood the authors point. I just don't agree with it. Based on this theory, interval training is dangerous. Sprinting is dangerous, weightlifting is dangerous. Presumably, anything that raises your heartrate in the anerobic range (and maybe simply high enough to break out in a sweat) risks sudden cardiac failure. I don't believe this one bit.

I also don't believe that adults are becoming anorexic in any significant numbers. I've seen plenty of folks in fitness centers and there aren't very many anorexic ones there. The people I work with are not showing any signs of becoming dangerously thin from eating disorders.

Now, I would accept that people who wait until they are middle aged and suddenly decide to jump off the sofa and try to run a marathon are risking serious health problems. But this is more because their previous sedentary lifestyle may have resulted in an underlying health problem that could be triggered by the increase in exertion. A person who exercises strenuously for an hour several times per week throughout his/her adult life is not necessarily prone to heart attack simply because of the exertion level.