Informative post as always, PaleoPhil.

I believe that the carnivore vs. omnivore discussion is in fact somewhat relevant to the topic, as a diet low in carbs will almost inevitably be a carnivorous one, while one high in carbs will be an omnivorous one. One of the benefits that are attributed to a LC/ZC which is mainly a diet of animal flesh is the lack of insulin spikes. If these insulin spikes do not contribute to the development of diabetis, then that benefit isn't actually one. At the same time, insulin spikes are an argument against carbohydrate in the diet, if insulin spikes are benign, though, we may well be supposed to eat a lot of carbs, i. e. be omnivorous rather than carnivorous.

Obviously low carb or zero carb diets make you feel better if you have problems with hypoglycemia / diabetis. That seems to be established. However, it does not remedy the problem. Matt Stone holds that it rather exacerbates it, which is also my experience. I thought if I just stay away from carbs, my body will recover and I will be able to tolerate them better. However, after abstaining from carbs, much lesser quantities of them made me feel bad, which led to my inability to digest any kind of "normal food", basically anything except animal flesh made me miserable.

Because of circumstances I will soon have to eat some "normal" meals, maybe for an extended time, so I got very interested when I read that Matt's HED could make that possible for me without feeling like shit. Trying to eat a diet high in (cooked) starches made me feel bad at first, but now my body seems to tolerate it much better. While previously an intake of any small amount of carbs made me feel off, I can now eat like 500g of carbs a day with diminishing and already minor discomfort. Obviously this makes me wonder if the low carb / carnivorous approach is the correct one.

I think the insulin spike issue might be THE reason why people come to believe that humans should eat animal flesh exclusively or almost exclusively in the first place. All the other explanations come with that and are somewhat stretching the facts in order to give the humans as pure animal flesh eaters theory more of a theoretical basis.

exactly, this discussion is preposterous. Like trying to differentiate a mule with a horse? I dont see how that has any relevance to this topic, nor a good analogy for the matter.

Is it that hard? You're comparing humans to herbivores and carnivores, which ignores the existence of another category, omnivores, which humans are considered to fall into.

Just like you're saying I "think" we're carnivores, I can turn that around and say you "think" we're omnivores but it doesnt change the facts one bit.

Yes, and the fact most everybody agrees on is that humans are omnivores. I haven't really seen anybody contest this, except for vegans and people talking about how humans are more like a wolf than a cow, conveniently leaving out that there is a third category. Both appear to considerably push the facts in order to make them fit their agenda.

Once again, could you please elaborate on how we resemble omnivores more than carnivores. I.E. the best way to go about that would be to give me an example of an omnivore in nature and show me how we are closer to the omnivore than the carnivore.

carnivores have short bowels and round stomachs, herbivores have bigger stomachs or several of them and long bowels. Human stomach shape is in between, as is the length of the bowels. Human teeth are also a mixture. Incissors and molars look very much like the teeth of sheep, which are notably missing the canines humans have. Dogs (carnivore) have premolars which humans don't have and only a few molars far back. Obviously, the human digestive tract is between the two, as is that of other omnivores like pigs, mice etc.

I am not saying that we are 100% carnivore, but ask yourself to pick between a herbivore and a carnivore and we are definitally closer to the carnivore.

That argument is just ridiculous though. Say your trying to classify a mule. You can classify it as a horse, a donkey or as a mule. Your argument is like saying "but it's more like a donkey" instead of saying "it's a mule." It doesn't matter if you think humans are closer to carnivores or to herbivores. Humans are omnivores, period.

Really, you can't get a significant amount of carbs without cooking.  (And actually, agriculture as well, if you consider that there weren't that many carb-heavy fruits until we started selectively planting things, as I understand.)

There are wild tubers like sago or arrowroot that could have been used pre-farming afaik

For the bones thing-- well, they could've had fire but didn't cook meat (or, not that thoroughly).  And so on.

IMHO it would make a lot of sense that people cooked tubers first and ate their meat raw, as cooking improves tubers A LOT and does nothing to make meat more digestible or nutritious, the opposite is the case.

And I believe, despite what the experts say, that cooking has probably been with us since pre-human days.

Can you elaborate on that?

I think when talking about the Inuit, the extreme living conditions they live under should be taken into account. Those might well speed up aging imho. Another example for low carb people would be some Native Americans WAP described - http://www.westonaprice.org/traditional-diets/628-guts-and-grease.html - It would be interesting to know if they showed signs of premature aging, too.

The guy is full of shit. Do you really believe that if you offered him sex on the first date he would say OH NO I DON'T DO THAT? Come on.

I've done that so it's not impossible 

GS, you live in paradise man...

One way that could be preferable over simple drying could be making sausage. Just grind / chop the meat and fill it into the bowels. A lot of work but it might reduce oxidation / nutrient loss somewhat. I've made sausages that way, and they are quite good. You'd want to get a meat grinder for that that has a funnel for making sausage if you want to make any quantities. Grind the meat first, then put it through the grinder again, this time using the sausage funnel on which you've wrapped a piece of bowel, tied at the end. You can see how it's done here (of course I didn't use all those other ingredients, just plain meat):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XKSSQc_c74I&playnext_from=TL&videos=uoOx2HtMXxo

Do you buy or make that coconut milk?

ban??

Even if they have simptoms, even if they get sick, even if they know they will die from it. Most won't change. They just don't. I recently read on another forum about a couple who's child has celiac, and they won't change the diet because they find it too bothersome.
I think for most people it's not that it's too hard. A lot of people work hard every day. It's just that people don't want to be different. They'd rather die than be different.