I'm aware that the article claims that these two went on an exclusive meat diet for a year. I'm saying that personally I don't believe the claim. Alternatively, that it's true but that they accidentally got required nutrition in ways similar to the Inuit.
Do you think they were lying/cheating on the food they ate, as published in http://www.jbc.org/content/87/3/651.full.pdf ?
Do you discount the observation that "Inuit would often go 6 to 9 months a year eating nothing but meat and fish"?
Do you think the meat items mentioned in the JAMA are incomplete sources of nutrition?
Why "accidentally got required nutrition in ways similar to the Inuit"? After his many years of polar exploration and friendship with the Inuit, how can you dismiss that it was a learned practice?
Do you know of subsequent papers casting doubt on the results? Or replicating it, for that matter?
I found http://home.exetel.com.au/surreality/health/A%20Review%20of%... which says
> This level of protein intake may have been sustainable if hepatic enzymes were given time to upregulate (as there were several years between Stefansson living with the Inuit and the experiment at Bellevue Hospital and any previous upregulation of hepatic enzymes would have diminished), but the result for this limited study (where n = 1) indicates that the values shown in Table 1 are at least realistic, although we would speculate that individuals would tend to be at the lower end of the range for MRUS without a lead-in time for upregulating hepatic enzyme function.
which considers it feasible.
You write "An explorer might last a little while on an all-meat diet".
As the Maclean's article points out, "The Arctic explorer Stefansson and a former Arctic confrère, Andersen, went on an exclusive meat diet for a year".
I think of "little bit", for a diet, as being somewhat less than one year. How long do you mean by it?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vilhjalmur_Stefansson#Advocacy... further points out "In the end, the one-year project stretched to four years, during which time the two men ate only the meat they could kill and the fish they could catch in the Canadian Arctic. Neither of the two men suffered any adverse after-effects from their four-year experiment."
Surely four years is enough to show that one can last a long time on an all-meat diet, yes?
You write "The Inuit for example, only avoid scurvy by getting their vitamin C from raw fish."
The Wikipedia article on Inuit cuisine, at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inuit_cuisine , says instead, "Vitamin C is obtained through sources such as caribou liver, kelp, whale skin, and seal brain; because these foods are typically eaten raw or frozen, the vitamin C they contain, which would be destroyed by cooking, is instead preserved."
Note that while those meats are raw, they are not fish. The Wikipedia page cites http://discovermagazine.com/2004/oct/inuit-paradox (which in turn cites the same Stefansson described in the Maclean's article) wherein we can read:
> Native foods easily supply those 10 milligrams of scurvy prevention, especially when organ meats—preferably raw—are on the menu. For a study published with Kuhnlein in 2002, Fediuk compared the vitamin C content of 100-gram (3.55-ounce) samples of foods eaten by Inuit women living in the Canadian Arctic: Raw caribou liver supplied almost 24 milligrams, seal brain close to 15 milligrams, and raw kelp more than 28 milligrams. Still higher levels were found in whale skin and muktuk.
This makes it seem that the Inuit were not "only" dependent on fish, but also had non-fish sources for dietary vitamin C.
The underlying scientific article is at https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S088915750... . It lists raw fish eggs, raw whale, caribou liver, ringed seal liver, and blueberries as the most notable sources of vitamin C in traditional foods.