Hey folks, not going to respond to all the comments until next week. Tracy and I are on our honeymoon.
Only a few comments I have now:
1) Some of you need to read more carefully. I clearly stated numerous times that I was NOT claiming that ALL upper paleolithic stone age Eurpeans were obese, only SOME.
2) The literature shows that people can both lower insulin levels and lose fat on low fat high carb diets as well as on low carb diets, so long as it results in reduced caloric intake. This along with the Japanese experience directly contradicts the claim that 'carbs drive insulin drive fat storage.' People wedded to this hypothesis are resorting to ad hoc hypotheses--like "Japanese are a different subspecies," or "Different races require different diets," or "we are genetically different from stone age people" -- to "save" their hypothesis.
Some of you seem not to notice that I am including references to studies on present day Caucasians, that show fat loss on low fat diets, which contradict the hypothesis that high carb diets drive weight gain. Moreover, I started from citing a direct experience I had with present-day Caucasian subjects gaining fat on low carb, high fat diets. The Paleo paradigm is just a guide. Since we don't know exactly what people ate in the stone age, nor how it affected their health or longevity, we have to rely more on studies of present day people.
3) Studies following people prescribed low carb diets then allowed to range freely (not controlled metabolic ward studies) consistently show that people eat more carbs than prescribed (e.g. by Atkins guidelines). Why don't people comply? If you say weak character, you are falling into the same trap of people who claim people are overweight because they are gluttons and sloths.
I suggest that they don't comply because they have a drive to eat carbohydrate that is not satisfied by the low carb diet. We also have a drive for essential amino acids, and for essential fatty acids. These basic drives influence total food intake.
Please keep in mind that modern humans have 6 times more salivary amylase production than chimpanzees. This is a clear adaptation to starch consumption. I don't see any surprise in finding a drive to eat carbohydrate in an animal that has clear biochemical adaptation to starch digestion.
4) I cited both rat and human studies in the one post...so you can't dismiss the human studies (or Japanese experience) by saying that rats are different from humans.
5) STudies of weight loss using low carb diets show a range of responses....some subjects lose, some don't, some even gain. Only the average is reported, not the individual responses...if there is loss on average, this obscures individual variations. When I return, I will be presenting my hypothesis which I think covers all the bases and allows for individual variation...which is totally ignored in conventional science.
6) I never said that we should be eating only unsaturated fats. If you eat beef only, as your only fat source, you will get more unsaturated than saturated fats. Same with lard. So, I am only saying that most of the fat we eat should be unsaturated (mono and poly, just enough of the latter).
7) Protein-rich foods stimulate insulin release. Using Taubesian reasoning: If insulin drives fat gain, and protein causes insulin release, then a high protein diet could drive fat gain in SOME people.
That's enough. More when I get back, rejuvenated.