David, first of all the Inuit do not traditionally eat the stomach content of caribou. It is a myth perpetuated by researchers who desperately need to escape from the possibility that an all meat diet could maintain an entire population in remarkable good health for millenia. The fascinating thing for me is that someone like the Bear, who has no Inuit heritage but is probably human has fared so splendidly on an identical diet for most of his adult life. It is unfortunate that statistically he is an aberration. But as he pointed out enculturation in vegetation consuming habits has loaded the statistical dice somewhat. So what are we to do?. Disregard his story because he is a statistical anomaly in the West. Or look a bit more carefully at the cultures who thrive on an all meat diet and try to discover if the research discrediting this dietary approach as somehow inferior to a diet including some vegetation is sound. I've only taken a close interest in Inuit dietary research, because it seemed to conflict so starkly with Stefannson's first hand observations in the field. And I'm afraid the data collection methods and statistical analysis leading to the conclusion that traditional eating Inuit suffered premature aging or osteoporosis are entirely suspect. But if sober professional 'researchers' like Cordain can manipulate and distort shonky Inuit data to somehow support the calcium leeching hypothesis and get plaudits for good science then I think I'd rather go for the testimonial reports of an individual long term all meater like the Bear. But like you said that's not good science.

Soooo bad science pretending to be good science (like Cordain's Inuit osteoporosis hypothesis) is more convincing than first hand testimonials of a lifetime's experience (like the Bear's) which manifestly is hardly good science?.
Come on David, wake up!

And I'll try to get a response again. Do you think the Bear is lying about his excellent bone density (and extraordinary health) after 40 years of an apparently ' net acid load' diet?. Or are you just saying that because n equals one in this case it can just be conveniently ignored and put in the same basket as the fruitarian banana eater?. Or perhaps you may be suggesting that the Bear obviously just has an iron constitution and the damage he must have been doing to his body by eating nothing but meat for over 40 years just hasn't shown up. So come on, you obviously don't think an all meat diet is a particularly good way to maintain optimal health for life. So would you care to speculate on the Bear's experience?. I mean I think that he has been pretty honest from the start. He has tried to point out the shonky aspects of 'research' discrediting traditional Inuit diets as optimally healthy, while proferring his own (adult) lifetime's similar experience on a 'take it or leave it basis. You obviously would rather leave it. But the fact that one of the reasons you would rather leave it is spurious research on the traditional Inuit diet, is pretty troubling.

Btw. the Bone density of both Stefannson and his mate actually IMPROVED during their Bellevue Hospital all fatty meat sojourn. And one year is certainly long enough for a so called 'net acid load' diet to produce measurable changes in bone density.