What about native Inuit populations whose diets were nearly 100% meat?
> Which hunter–gatherer tribe are we supposed to mimic, exactly? How do we reconcile the Inuit diet—mostly the flesh of sea mammals—with the more varied plant and land animal diet of the Hadza or !Kung? Chucking the many different hunter–gather diets into a blender to come up with some kind of quintessential smoothie is a little ridiculous.
Quoting one of the many counter-arguments from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleolithic_diet :
> recent understanding of the human genome has shown that modern humans typically have many copies of the AMY1 gene for starch digestion—suggesting widespread evolutionary adaptation to starch consumption by humans
We did all come from more temperate climates and in such places, plant food is much more easily available than meat. Also, in most temparate places hunting for wild animals with stone age tools and without horses is very difficult and it is very unlikely that the prehistoric humans could get much meat at all.
There are stone age tribes in Africa and Brazil, and they usually eat very little meat, because it is very hard to obtain.
As that possibility was widely disbelieved, the two of them spent a year on that diet in New York, with observers. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vilhjalmur_Stefansson#Low-carbo... and the medical publication at http://www.jbc.org/content/87/3/651.full.pdf .
Others since then have done the same. Here's someone who's been on a meat diet for 5 years. http://www.vice.com/read/this-guy-has-eaten-nothing-but-raw-... .
And the scientific justification for paleo is just false. Ancient humans did not eat that much meat.
Sorry to rain on your parade, but you put in a mostly off-topic plug for paleo, so a response was justified.