As the trend towards even higher fat diets continues in a faction of the community, it should become ever the more clear to those not engulfed in dogma that this is not consistent with our evolution. There is no way, repeat NO way, that our ancestors could have eaten a diet of the 80-10-10 variety -- as in 80% fat, and 10% protein, 10% carbs ... or any of the various higher fat lower carb ratios, perhaps allowing for an extra couple few percent of protein.
One would have to believe that humans evolved in an environment of such abundance where killing was accomplished with such ease, that they would kill another animal to eat just its fatty parts before consuming the meat. Does that sound plausible to you? Or that humans foraged for only fatty plant stuffs like nuts and fatty fruits like avocados and left the sugary and starchy stuff they may have happened upon in the process alone. Sounds right, eh? We're to believe that cultivation of plants has altered their sugar and starch content vs. the days of old, but domestication of animals and even "wild life" existing on the fringes of human developments has not altered the composition of said same ... even if fed a "natural diet" (e.g. grass fed beef). Your fatty fish are mostly around 60% fat or less. Are all these paleo lipophiles having seal oil and whale blubber shipped in from the Arctic?
The reality of the matter is that those consuming an 80+% fat diet are eating a diet that is unnatural for humans in every way. Paleolithic man did not have access to coconut oil by the spoonful, or time to argue the differences between coconut oil and coconut butter. And just as sugary fruits are seasonal, so too are fatty ones ... not to mention other reproductive forms of fats like eggs which you can be damned sure of they didn't toss the whites. There's no such thing as paleo mayo. Few if any of these nutritionally ketotic folks are getting fat scraps from the butcher to gnaw on for the mammoth's share of their energy. Most are eating a ton of dairy fat, be it cream, high fat cheese, cream cheese or butter (clarified or ghee of course) to supplement refined coconut fats. There are paleos who make allowances for the very real fact that large populations of humans are well adapted to dairy, but this is merely an allowance -- some would say a rationalization for convenience to optimize buy-in/accessibility/sustainability of the diet that would otherwise be too austere for widespread adoption. Still, dairy ain't a paleolithic era food. There isn't even a case to be made for dairy being a natural food for any adult mammals. You don't see it in nature, and it would have been the true odd "luck" for our prehistoric ancestors to have killed a lactating female animal ... though yeah, they probably would have eaten the mammary glands. Then they would have had milk. Not cream, not butter ... milk. Not kefir, not yogurt, not cheese... milk. Whatever was in the slain animal and none more.
It's so very odd to me this disconnect between what has transpired since last year's AHS and the one upcoming in a couple of days, with its ultimate make-up of the presenters. There is a decided trend in the community towards either eating or acknowledging having eaten all along, diets what could be described as anywhere from moderate carb to high carb amongst those claiming paleo roots. Meanwhile the Taubes-inspired low carb wing has suffered set back upon crippling set back to all but the most blinded by dogma. Yet despite this, when one looks at the final speaker lists and the panel makeups, you could swear it was a program for AHS09 or something. Not even the Kruse Missile Crisis seems to have stemmed the tide of the low carb hijacking of the greater ancestral community. The low carbers continue down this path of the less of anything associated with the term carbohydrate the better, despite the fact that there's not only scant scientific support for this lifestyle, there aren't even human cultures to witness the long term effects of such diets on.
Meanwhile we have billions of long-lived healthy cultures eating closer to the 80-10-10 carb-protein-fat proportions espoused by those derided routinely in this community. I'm not a vegan, or a vegetarian, never have been, and don't see any reason ever to become one unless I contract that mysterious tick born meat allergy I heard about on the news a few months back. But my dietary preferences for animal proteins and dairy do not stop me from acknowledging the abundant scientific literature on ancestral human diets. Diets, I might add, that have been observed and quantified, not just guessed at and, in many cases, conjured up out of thin air. Sure, the quality of the carbs was different, but they were carbs -- digested and metabolized in glycolytic and related pathways, not the medium-to-long chain fatty acid beta oxidation pathway. Just don't remind the movers and shakers of such inconvenient facts. And just to make sure the "antagonistic" facts don't get in their way, expect to hear a goodly dose of that word "addiction" thrown around in the coming days as well -- though the butter addicts get absolution, it's only you carbaholics who are rationalizing bad nutritional advice. Don't expect to hear the truth about the ancestral diets of some well-known cultures in the community, especially those known to be ravaged by metabolic disease in the modern environment. Like the Pima in Arizona who used to eat far less fat and more carbohydrates before having a Western SAD diet foisted upon them. You probably won't get that at AHS12 ... it just doesn't fit in with the Taubes-inspired version of things this symposium seems designed to exhume and defend to the end. Sadly ...