It’s not wrong at all. The amount of edible carbohydrates we ate then was basically nothing compared to the astounding amount of carbohydrates we eat now. We eat almost nothing else. Our bodies aren’t meant to be flooded with carbohydrates all the time, and chronic disease and diabetes is the result. Our ancestors didn’t have diabetes and it’s becoming clear that exercise doesn’t fill the gap.

There is no diet plan. They don’t sell you anything that you need in order to do the diet. And it’s just video testimony, long interviews from all kinds of people who experience things like sudden pregnancy. I have looked through all of this and practically everything else out there about this and it’s not a scam. I have never believed in or practiced a diet before in my life. I have never fallen for a scam in my entire life. It’s real.

> humans ate ruminant animals who’s herds they followed around, and almost nothing else.

This is the incorrect part. Meat was never the sole part of human or any human ancestors diet, for starters we don't have the teeth for it. The rest of the diet may have been lower carb than what we eat now but it was not meat only.

Fair enough. We strip fat out of everything now. Fat free this and fat free that. Red meat is demonized.it’s a part of our evolutionarily consistent diet…

Fat is really good for you, as long as it's fat you can find in nature. For example, the fat below the skin on a cut of salmon. Utterly delicious, super healthy, and will make your brain work better.

Some scientists seem to disagree [1] They theory is basically that for the first few millions years of evolution we were eating mostly meat, and switched to more plant-based diet when we ran out of big animals to hunt, which was quite recently.

[1] https://www.livescience.com/humans-were-super-predators.html

I'd recommend reading at least the the abstract of the paper linked therein, rather than the popsci summary. The authors are arguing that H. Erectus in particular was highly carnivorous (though not exclusively). That's about 1M years, not plural, and it's ignoring all the Australopithecines and H. habilis besides. The authors explicitly state that middle Pleistocene archaic humans moved back the other way and incorporated far more plants into their diet. By the time anatomically modern humans arrived, we had quite significant plant intake. Besides, the GP comment doesn't make sense archaeologically. We have shell middens from H. erectus and know that many archaic humans lived in near-coastal environments. There was no period in which we were purely pursuing ruminants even when archaic humans were more carnivorous.

It's one of those things we'll probably never have a conclusive answer to and even if we do it'll depend on when you decide to look at the diet to decide what we are 'evolved' to handle. At some times we may have been more meat heavy and others more grain/berry/etc heavy.

> I have never believed in or practiced a diet before in my life. I have never fallen for a scam in my entire life.

That second sentence alone is a bright red flag with sequins and bells on. But in this context... if you don't believe in this red meat diet, why are you pitching it so hard?

> I have never fallen for a scam in my entire life

Your username...

I’ve never subscribed to any religion of any kind. I was watching a documentary about Scientology right before I made this account. Im surprised anyone at all has even noticed the connection.

I noticed, and enjoyed the irony of the username-statement combination.