It's easy to make declarations such as the above when you believe what you're saying is true, but repeating something again and again does not make it true.

Martin, you're continuing to miss/dismiss things that influence health outcomes when someone adopts a particular dietary approach - things like genetic mutations, epigentics, long-term adapations, etc.

Tackling just one, that I've mentioned before, MTHFR gene mutations....this one thing alone offers a view about the nutrient requirement differences between populations and individuals....that should give you pause, but doesn't seem to.

I've taken an interest in it recently since DH is seeing it at a higher rate in his practice than the general population, and that's likely because it is associated (doesn't necessary "cause") with infertility and recurrent miscarriage.

Anyway, there are a few different MTHFR genetic mutations that can occur; and one, two or a combination of genes influence nutrient requirements because the gene provides instructions for making an enzyme called methylenetetrahydrofolate reductase....specifically, this enzyme converts 5,10-methylenetetrahydrofolate to 5-methyltetrahydrofolate; this in turn fuels the folate cycle that converts the amino acid homocysteine to another amino acid, methionine. Other critical nutrients in the cycle pathway are B12 and B6, along with B2 (riboflavin), betaine and choline.

I'm including all that detail because there is some pretty neat data out there about the gene mutations and how nutrient status (environment) pulls the trigger to negative effects on health and reproduction in those carrying the mutation(s)......you see, having the gene itself doesn't automatically doom a person - the doom can come when there is an inadequate supply of folate or other critical nutrients in the folate pathway.

Now you do like to point to the Inuit as being a population we can learn from, that they eat an animal-based diet and have good health. You like to cite Steffanson, the Bellevue study and other things to support your belief that eating just meat can provide and/or restore good health.

But guess what?

The Inuit have a significantly lower incidence of MTHFR gene mutations than other populations investigated.....in fact, they and those born in sub-Saharan Africa (think Masai!) have the lowest worldwide incidence of the mutation, followed by the Tupi Parakana tribe of Brazil and the Cayapa population of Ecuador.

In one study of the Tupi Parakana in Brazil, not one person was found to have two copies of C677T or a combination of A1298C + C677T (the two worst combinations to have)....researchers noted that the absence of these combination suggest a reason for the lower incidence of NTD's found in that population....their lower folate diet isn't risky since they do not require more folate since their population is predominently "wild type" for the MTHFR genes.

Why am I pointing this out?

Well, when researchers have also investigated the gene mutation in ethnicly similar populations, simply located in different areas, they find something intriguing....sub-Saharan Africans have a very low incidence of MTHFR gene mutations, but African-Americans (locale South America) with sub-Saharan ethnicity have the gene within the range of the general population for generations born after emigration. How can that be? One answer is that folate in food and folic acid fortification reduces selective pressure against the gene because folate is available at higher levels, thus more babies can be born and survive with the mutation.

And there is good data to support that - in research investigating genetics of miscarried fetal tissue, researchers find there is a higher prevalence of MTHFR mutations.....but this finding isn't always statistically significant - it seems that maternal folate load matters; the data suggest that there may be an overall survival advantage for fetuses with the mutation when their mothers are exposed to sufficient levels of folate and folic acid during pregnancy. Kind of complicated, but very interesting stuff....and one reason I really think it's irresponsible to make blanket declarations that eating a diet that's just meat (and fat) is beneficial to all.

Which brings us back to the Inuit - their diet is low in folate, and as you've noted, they don't seem to have problems reproducing. Which, on its face, is valid. However, it does not take into account that genetically, it's unlikely they're carrying an MTHFR gene mutation.....whereas someone of Japanese or French descent has a higher probability of having an MTHFR gene mutation (the two populations with the highest prevalence), thus an all-meat, low-folate diet could be detrimental to not only their ability to reproduce, but long-term health issues.

So....seriously.....think before you make blanket statements!