Originally Posted by
AlmostTrick
I look at Keto threads/articles and talk with people I know doing Keto diets. Carbs are always considered the devil but fiber virtually never comes up. And an analysis of the actual foods eaten are almost always devoid of fiber. If the Inuit people did ok on an animal only diet, (I question how well they really did) they most certainly would have done even better with some whole grains, fruits and vegetables added to their diet. No credible modern nutritional studies would argue otherwise.
Sure, and like all animal food sources, zero fiber.
I suspect the Inuit did okay for a number of reasons:
1. It's probably not as bad as many here are fearing. Humans are pretty resilient (we have to be since dietary choice was far, far lower for almost all of human history). It's a very small sample size (n=2 IIRC) but a guy named Stefansson subjected himself to a simulated Inuit diet back in the 20s or 30s and generally did quite well (although they didn't know about things like cholesterol back then so the results are mainly qualitative). People can achieve favourable health outcomes following Keto or veganism. The fact that two seemingly opposite diets can lead to improvement shows how resilient we are.
2. Caloric balance matters a lot. People have improved their health numbers by eating terrible foods (twinkies, McDonald's etc.) but also losing a lot of weight. I doubt there were a lot of fat Inuit people back in the day. And, I suspect this is why diets that are wildly different can both work.
3. In most hunter-gatherer societies, people aren't living long enough to have to worry about things like cancer or heart attacks. You can get to 50 on pretty much any diet.
4. People were likely quite active which matters a lot.
I think you're correct, getting fibre would be beneficial for them. But, it's clear that it isn't 100% needed, or at least, if you don't get enough for a few days, that's not reason for alarm.