“Gluten Free”: Overblown?

[KevWind]

Originally Posted by Otterhound

Please explain the documented cardio vascular health of Inuit people .

No need the notion appears to not be well founded at best.

Please post the stateded documentation

Because according to this documentation, it is predominantly a myth

https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...21915007000494


And this https://nutritionfacts.org/2018/07/12/the-eskimo-myth/

And this
excerpt: from https://nutritionstudies.org/masai-a...a-closer-look/

Bertelsen, noted heart disease to be quite common, perhaps even more interesting given the young age of the population. He based this on clinical experience and medical officer reports going back for many decades(cited in 5). All told, the 2003 paper found “the hypothesis that mortality from ischemic heart disease is low among the Inuit compared with western populations insufficiently founded.” Further, “…a general statement that mortality from cardiovascular disease is high among the Inuit seems more warranted than the opposite.”

[Dirk Hofman]

Originally Posted by Otterhound

Please explain the documented cardio vascular health of Inuit people .

Please explain the documentation and why you think it’s relevant.

Ah, I see KevWind has taken the case. Here you go: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/12535749/

BACKGROUND: The notion that the incidence of ischemic heart disease (IHD) is low among the Inuit subsisting on a traditional marine diet has attained axiomatic status. The scientific evidence for this is weak and rests on early clinical evidence and uncertain mortality statistics.

METHODS: We reviewed the literature and performed new analyses of the mortality statistics from Greenland, Canada, and Alaska.

FINDINGS: The evidence for a low mortality from IHD among the Inuit is fragile and rests on unreliable mortality statistics. Mortality from stroke, however, is higher among the Inuit than among other western populations. Based on the examination of 15 candidate gene polymorphisms, the Inuit genetic architecture does not obviously explain putative differences in cardiovascular disease prevalence.

INTERPRETATION: The mortality from all cardiovascular diseases combined is not lower among the Inuit than in white comparison populations. If the mortality from IHD is low, it seems not to be associated with a low prevalence of general atherosclerosis. A decreasing trend in mortality from IHD in Inuit populations undergoing rapid westernization supports the need for a critical rethinking of cardiovascular epidemiology among the Inuit and the role of a marine diet in this population.

To dispute the study of over 100,000 subjects over decades, one would have to find fault with the study or its methodology. There certainly could be problems or weaknesses in the study I presented. Citing a totally unrelated population and some very old, questionable, and incomplete data isn’t enough.

[Otterhound]

My citing of Inuit populations in correlation to heart disease has little or nothing to do with Omega-3 consumption .
The native Inuit diet is rife with animal protein and fat , yet there is no corresponding increase of heart disease compared to diets containing less of both . That is my point .
Your citing studies aimed at addressing Omega-3 consumption has no relevance to what I am stating .
Then again , something is countering the claimed harmful factors that comprise a substantial portion of their diet or their numbers would be considerably higher .
Ponder this .

[KevWind]

Originally Posted by Otterhound

My citing of Inuit populations in correlation to heart disease has little or nothing to do with Omega-3 consumption .
The native Inuit diet is rife with animal protein and fat , yet there is no corresponding increase of heart disease compared to diets containing less of both . That is my point .
Your citing studies aimed at addressing Omega-3 consumption has no relevance to what I am stating .
Then again , something is countering the claimed harmful factors that comprise a substantial portion of their diet or their numbers would be considerably higher .
Ponder this .

Except that there is a corresponding increase in fatal stroke according to this article, where they have twice the rate of stroke as the rest of population.
And given that up until recently as a remote population they exercised extensively virtually every day just to gather food, which may well mean it was more the amount of exercise that kept the numbers from going completely off the charts.
And or that there may be particular genetics of a relatively closed gene pool involved as well (as yet to be well studied).
Both of which have no significant relevance to this discussion about what is going on the health wise in the US population at large It's not like the Inuit were driving their SUV's down to the local Micky D's for their raw Seal brains.

The reality is isolated exception case/s (even if actually true ) involving tiny numbers in a few isolated indigenous peoples, still does nothing significant to counter the massive amounts of research and study the indicates plant based diets are healthier.

And to keep invoking a discredited myth is completely invalid as a counter to this mass of evidence .
Because in the case of the Inuit, in this supposed study that started this continuing myth......the researchers did not actually examine or test the Inuit, they simply reviewed death reports for cause of death, from various outlying field clinics with little or no actual autopsy equipment or capability for extensive examination or testing

Excerpt:
As I discuss in my video Omega-3s and the Eskimo Fish Tale, ( which BTW agrees with you that Om 3 arguably has no particular relevance) the fact is Bang and Dyerberg never examined the cardiovascular status of the Eskimo; they just accepted at face value this notion that coronary atherosclerosis is almost unknown among the Eskimo, a concept that has been disproven over and over starting back in the 1930s. In fact, going back more than a thousand years, we have frozen Eskimo mummies with atherosclerosis. From 500 years ago, a woman in her early 40s had atherosclerosis in her aorta and coronary arteries. And these aren’t just isolated cases. The totality of evidence from actual clinical investigations, autopsies, and imaging techniques is that they have the same plague of coronary artery disease that non-Eskimo populations have, and the Eskimo actually have twice the fatal stroke rate and don’t live particularly long.

[Otterhound]

Originally Posted by KevWind

Except that there is a corresponding increase in fatal stroke according to this article, where they have twice the rate of stroke as the rest of population.
And given that up until recently as a remote population they exercised extensively virtually every day just to gather food, which may well mean it was more the amount of exercise that kept the numbers from going completely off the charts.
And or that there may be particular genetics of a relatively closed gene pool involved as well (as yet to be well studied).
Both of which have no significant relevance to this discussion about what is going on the health wise in the US population at large It's not like the Inuit were driving their SUV's down to the local Micky D's for their raw Seal brains.

The reality is isolated exception case/s (even if actually true ) involving tiny numbers in a few isolated indigenous peoples, still does nothing significant to counter the massive amounts of research and study the indicates plant based diets are healthier.

And to keep invoking a discredited myth is completely invalid as a counter to this mass of evidence .
Because in the case of the Inuit, in this supposed study that started this continuing myth......the researchers did not actually examine or test the Inuit, they simply reviewed death reports for cause of death, from various outlying field clinics with little or no actual autopsy equipment or capability for extensive examination or testing

Excerpt:
As I discuss in my video Omega-3s and the Eskimo Fish Tale, ( which BTW agrees with you that Om 3 arguably has no particular relevance) the fact is Bang and Dyerberg never examined the cardiovascular status of the Eskimo; they just accepted at face value this notion that coronary atherosclerosis is almost unknown among the Eskimo, a concept that has been disproven over and over starting back in the 1930s. In fact, going back more than a thousand years, we have frozen Eskimo mummies with atherosclerosis. From 500 years ago, a woman in her early 40s had atherosclerosis in her aorta and coronary arteries. And these aren’t just isolated cases. The totality of evidence from actual clinical investigations, autopsies, and imaging techniques is that they have the same plague of coronary artery disease that non-Eskimo populations have, and the Eskimo actually have twice the fatal stroke rate and don’t live particularly long.

Inuit people living a traditional life live a life that is many times harder than what either of us could imagine or endure . This life struggle will tend to result in shorter lifespans as a rule .
You mention twice the fatal stroke rate . Could some of this be the result of less access to quick medical care after a stroke ? After all , I continually hear of the necessity of quick response after a stroke being the single most important factor .
Looking at raw data will often result in highly skewed results . I can site personal data to support this .
Back to the data concerning the Inuit . Much of their access to emergency medical care could , in all likelihood , be equated to access to emergency medical care on the American frontier of the early 1800's .
This is a huge variable that I doubt the data can possibly account for .
Please consider this .

[KevWind]

Originally Posted by Otterhound

Inuit people living a traditional life live a life that is many times harder than what either of us could imagine or endure . This life struggle will tend to result in shorter lifespans as a rule .
You mention twice the fatal stroke rate . Could some of this be the result of less access to quick medical care after a stroke ? After all , I continually hear of the necessity of quick response after a stroke being the single most important factor .
Looking at raw data will often result in highly skewed results . I can site personal data to support this .
Back to the data concerning the Inuit . Much of their access to emergency medical care could , in all likelihood , be equated to access to emergency medical care on the American frontier of the early 1800's .
This is a huge variable that I doubt the data can possibly account for .
Please consider this .

While no doubt what you are saying may perhaps (or perhaps not) be factors, and I could not agree more about "just looking at raw data". (Which is kind of the whole point about how skewed and inaccurate the original study that launched the "Eskimo myth" was), being based on looking at death certificates from remote clinics hardly gets more raw nore more problematic validity wise than that. And It should be noted another unstudied possible factor would be (if) a segment of the inuit population were to go on a primarily plant based diet and then compare ? There are numerous possible variables
BUT

One last time, and yes "please consider", none of this about the Inuit really has much relevance or significantly counters all the other vast amounts of evidence that plant based keeps coming up healthier in comparison to more meat and fat based diets in the same populations .... Believe whatever you think you must,..... but I would suggest looking at and considering all the other evidence. You might start with " The China Study"
Well I think we have moved the op sufficiently sideways so I will stop now.

[seannx]

From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Zone

Blue Zones are regions of the world where Dan Buettner claims people live much longer than average. The term first appeared in the November 2005 National Geographic magazine cover story "The Secrets of a Long Life" by Buettner. He identified five areas that Buettner considers "Blue Zones": Okinawa (Japan); Sardinia (Italy); Nicoya (Costa Rica); Icaria (Greece) and among the Seventh-day Adventists in Loma Linda, California. He offers an explanation, based on data and first hand observations, as to why these populations live healthier and longer lives. The term "Blue Zones" is trademarked by Dan Buettner.

The concept grew out of demographic work done by Gianni Pes and Michel Poulain outlined in the Journal of Experimental Gerontology, who identified Sardinia's Nuoro province as the region with the highest concentration of male centenarians. As the two men zeroed in on the cluster of villages with the highest longevity, they drew concentric blue circles on the map and began referring to the area inside the circle as the Blue Zone. Together with demographers Pes and Poulain, Buettner broadened the term, applying it to validated longevity areas of Okinawa, Japan and among the Seventh-day Adventists in Loma Linda, California. Buettner and Poulain, under the aegis of National Geographic, then identified and validated longevity hotspots in Nicoya, Costa Rica and Icaria, Greece.

The people inhabiting Blue Zones share common lifestyle characteristics that contribute to their longevity...
Family – put ahead of other concerns
Less smoking
Semi-vegetarianism – the majority of food consumed is derived from plants
Constant moderate physical activity – an inseparable part of life
Social engagement – people of all ages are socially active and integrated into their communities
Legumes – commonly consumed

[Dirk Hofman]

Originally Posted by Otterhound

My citing of Inuit populations in correlation to heart disease has little or nothing to do with Omega-3 consumption .
The native Inuit diet is rife with animal protein and fat , yet there is no corresponding increase of heart disease compared to diets containing less of both . That is my point .
Your citing studies aimed at addressing Omega-3 consumption has no relevance to what I am stating .
Then again , something is countering the claimed harmful factors that comprise a substantial portion of their diet or their numbers would be considerably higher .
Ponder this .

The assertion that there is no increased risk of heart disease is false. See the study linked in my post above.

Your original ask was for me to "Please explain the documented cardio vascular health of Inuit people."

It's really on you to prove your assertion around the cardiovascular health of the Inuit, whatever your assertion is.

More importantly, your challenge was in response to my posting about a study of all-cause mortality, which is quite different than cardiovascular health in isolation, so your challenge really doesn't have any direct application to what I was talking about. Not that there aren't innumerable studies showing the cardiovascular benefit of a plant-based diet over any other diet. All-cause mortality is death by any cause, and includes diabetes, kidney disease, cancer, and other health problems. My comments were also specifically around a ketogenic diet, and I have no reason to conclude that the Inuit (where, they live in Canada, Greenland, etc. and presumably all don't eat the same diet) actually exist in ketosis. Maybe they do, maybe they don't. No idea.

Further, even if there were a population like the Inuit who did in fact live in ketosis, and did have better cardiovascular health than the populations I was referencing (they don't), there could be any number of reasons for this supposed better CV health. Location, genetics, amount of exercise per day, lifespan, and on and on, would have to be ruled out for your (implied) assertion to make any sense. That's why we're asking for the details of what you're asserting.

You have to make your case and then people can reply.

My strong feeling is that the Inuit myth is just another way some folks seize on a tiny bit of data which tells them what they want to hear, and expand it to mean things which one could not reasonably conclude. People love to hear good news about their bad habits. People can eat whatever they want, but I wish they would do it with good information and make informed choices.

[Otterhound]

Originally Posted by Dirk Hofman

The assertion that there is no increased risk of heart disease is false. See the study linked in my post above.

Your original ask was for me to "Please explain the documented cardio vascular health of Inuit people."

It's really on you to prove your assertion around the cardiovascular health of the Inuit, whatever your assertion is.

More importantly, your challenge was in response to my posting about a study of all-cause mortality, which is quite different than cardiovascular health in isolation, so your challenge really doesn't have any direct application to what I was talking about. Not that there aren't innumerable studies showing the cardiovascular benefit of a plant-based diet over any other diet. All-cause mortality is death by any cause, and includes diabetes, kidney disease, cancer, and other health problems. My comments were also specifically around a ketogenic diet, and I have no reason to conclude that the Inuit (where, they live in Canada, Greenland, etc. and presumably all don't eat the same diet) actually exist in ketosis. Maybe they do, maybe they don't. No idea.

Further, even if there were a population like the Inuit who did in fact live in ketosis, and did have better cardiovascular health than the populations I was referencing (they don't), there could be any number of reasons for this supposed better CV health. Location, genetics, amount of exercise per day, lifespan, and on and on, would have to be ruled out for your (implied) assertion to make any sense. That's why we're asking for the details of what you're asserting.

You have to make your case and then people can reply.

My strong feeling is that the Inuit myth is just another way some folks seize on a tiny bit of data which tells them what they want to hear, and expand it to mean things which one could not reasonably conclude. People love to hear good news about their bad habits. People can eat whatever they want, but I wish they would do it with good information and make informed choices.

I'll refer you to KevWind since the scientific data he supplied fails to document any increase in cardio vascular issues . Of course , one need to think past the raw data and consider factors that the data does not reflect , like access to emergency services .
The fact that no data seems to reflect a considerable increase in cardio issues points to a single or number factors countering cardio issues if one bases their conclusion/s on the concept that high protein and fat diets are harmful to the cardio vascular system . If the fat and protein are so harmful , one would think that there would be human bodies dropping like flies amongst the Inuit .
To not consider these factors shows a lack of scientific process and a bias towards gathering data to support a predetermined outcome . Shame , shame , shame .

[Swamp Yankee]

I've noticed pretty significant improvements after cutting most of the gluten out of my diet - particularly with the joint pain I had been getting in my fingers, but also in other regards as well, such as a reduction in the small patches of psoriasis that had been with me for many years. I've also noticed a.big reduction in intestinal gas as well.

I don't adhere to it 100%. I simply replaced the bread I had been eating with gluten free bread. It took a few tries to find a bread I liked but I settled on Canyon Bakehouse products. Now, I prefer that even to my old favorite sandwich bread I'd eaten before.

I'll still have real pizza now and then.. and pasta in soups and salads... but if I eat too much, I do notice a difference.

[KevWind]

I certainly feel for those with gluten issues

[Dirk Hofman]

Originally Posted by Otterhound

I'll refer you to KevWind since the scientific data he supplied fails to document any increase in cardio vascular issues . Of course , one need to think past the raw data and consider factors that the data does not reflect , like access to emergency services .
The fact that no data seems to reflect a considerable increase in cardio issues points to a single or number factors countering cardio issues if one bases their conclusion/s on the concept that high protein and fat diets are harmful to the cardio vascular system . If the fat and protein are so harmful , one would think that there would be human bodies dropping like flies amongst the Inuit .
To not consider these factors shows a lack of scientific process and a bias towards gathering data to support a predetermined outcome . Shame , shame , shame .

So the data I linked shows in fact that there are more CV issues for the Inuit than other populations, so I don't really follow that point.

I honestly don't know how to address your critique of the science here, other than to say it's not compelling. To imagine that scientific studies of population and mortality are not controlled for things like access to services, smoking rates, lifespan, and any number of other variables suggests a lack of understanding of the methodologies typically used, and is meaningless when not referencing a particular study. You can critique the methodology of a study, but you have to actually reference the study and state what specific issue you're seeing. What you're doing is asserting bad science without any specific critique, and without demonstrating an understanding of what methods were used in a particular study. Not sure what progress can be made discussing it further given this situation.

If you just want to believe that a diet consisting mostly of fat and protein is good for you, you're free to do so.

[Otterhound]

Originally Posted by Dirk Hofman

So the data I linked shows in fact that there are more CV issues for the Inuit than other populations, so I don't really follow that point.

I honestly don't know how to address your critique of the science here, other than to say it's not compelling. To imagine that scientific studies of population and mortality are not controlled for things like access to services, smoking rates, lifespan, and any number of other variables suggests a lack of understanding of the methodologies typically used, and is meaningless when not referencing a particular study. You can critique the methodology of a study, but you have to actually reference the study and state what specific issue you're seeing. What you're doing is asserting bad science without any specific critique, and without demonstrating an understanding of what methods were used in a particular study. Not sure what progress can be made discussing it further given this situation.

If you just want to believe that a diet consisting mostly of fat and protein is good for you, you're free to do so.

I imagine nothing . This is where we differ . Show me where the factors you imagined to be real are real and how they were factored in . Then , I will agree . You are projecting unknown information into the study .
I have clearly stated my position . I am not attempting to use their study to prove anything . On the contrary , it is the responsibility of those conducting the study to convince me . If they don't care to convince me , I am comfortable with that , but I am not convinced . It really is quite simple .

[Dirk Hofman]

Originally Posted by Otterhound

I imagine nothing . This is where we differ . Show me where the factors you imagined to be real are real and how they were factored in . Then , I will agree . You are projecting unknown information into the study .
I have clearly stated my position . I am not attempting to use their study to prove anything . On the contrary , it is the responsibility of those conducting the study to convince me . If they don't care to convince me , I am comfortable with that , but I am not convinced . It really is quite simple .

You’re making the assertion that there’s a problem with the study, therefore it’s on you to support the assertion. No one is going to do your homework for you. First you’d have to identify what study you’re referring to, then dig into the methodology. Methodology is generally quite clear and easy to find. Don’t want to bother? Fine, but it’s hardly on anyone else to disprove some rather vague assertions.

Recall, this started when after I posted about a study citing "all-cause mortality" you asked me to "explain the cardiovascular health of the Inuit". That's not how it works. You need to demonstrate that there is something interesting about their CV health, and demonstrate what that has to do with what I posted. You seem to want me to do the lifting for you in this discussion. If you disagree with what I posted, make your case. Don't ask me to make it for you. That would mean me making a million assumptions and granting your unfounded assertions. Logic doesn't work that way.

[Otterhound]

Originally Posted by Dirk Hofman

You’re making the assertion that there’s a problem with the study, therefore it’s on you to support the assertion. No one is going to do your homework for you. First you’d have to identify what study you’re referring to, then dig into the methodology. Methodology is generally quite clear and easy to find. Don’t want to bother? Fine, but it’s hardly on anyone else to disprove some rather vague assertions.

Recall, this started when after I posted about a study citing "all-cause mortality" you asked me to "explain the cardiovascular health of the Inuit". That's not how it works. You need to demonstrate that there is something interesting about their CV health, and demonstrate what that has to do with what I posted. You seem to want me to do the lifting for you in this discussion. If you disagree with what I posted, make your case. Don't ask me to make it for you. That would mean me making a million assumptions and granting your unfounded assertions. Logic doesn't work that way.

On the contrary . It is up to the promoter/s of the study to convince me and others . Prove your case and expose everything .
The circumstances of the Inuit is long established common knowledge . Should you choose to debunk it , show me the evidence to back that up . Assumptions and imaginings are not evidence .
This is a circular issue . I am not convinced . Nothing personal .