Thanks alpha for the detailed response as usual. Perhaps I should have asked, if you were ok with not having good non-self-experimental evidence that neolithic carbs are fine to eat.
I generally agree that it would seem that we generally destroy our bodies to process carbohydrate and that it is more likely that we would have our sugar control mechanisms compromised but it could also be the other way somehow as well. Perhaps years of eating processed carbs can leave some of us with a lower limit on the amount of carbs we must consume for optimal health. Perhaps this is why so many people fail with zero carb. I like to call it "carnivore", even though carnivore implies eating very small amounts of vegetation as well. I'm guessing children would be much more likely to adapt to being carnivore than us.
I'm still not comfortable with the majority of the argument being based on self-experimintation. Seeing that everyone here who eats carbs feels good or better than they do as a carnivore. This is fine I suppose and I'm very soon going to tinker with adding vegetation but I was looking for more. I'd rather not end up completely bald with cancer at 56 because I felt the same eating vegetation as I did without and the only vegetation I did eat was the highly modified stuff of the 20th century. I know that sounds a bit absurd but if I'm in it for the long run I want to get it right. My 7 weeks of being carnivore hasn't gone all that well and I really want to tinker with it but I also haven't given it near enough time to work. I go back and forth on whether to add vegetation all the time now.
Finally let me emphasize that there are not "neolithic carbs" on the one hand and "paleolithic ZC animal foods" on the other hand. Both animals and plants have evolved since paleotimes. Both have been domesticated. Beef for instance is meat from domesticated animal and I had the opportunity to compare it's taste to wild beaver or bear meat and fat. The difference seems to me comparable to the one between wild and man grown fruit.
Once more I'm a scientist very much interested in "ZC" experiments but not at all in ZC ideology.
Sure both plants and animals have both changed drastically from paleo times but I agree with van that the nutrient profile of meat for most, if not all animals we eat today should be very similar to those of the past. The fruit on other hand has changed more drastically with respect to its nutrient profile and is much bigger, available year-round, more calorie dense, has more fructose with a lot of it changing even in the last 50 years. Perhaps someone can give a fuller more detailed unbiased argument here.
I like the link of the bushfood in Australia I posted earlier as vegetation that was much more similar to how it was in paleo times.
