Show me anyone that can do well on a diet that is ~45% simple carbs, which is what that poor Inuit would be eating. There is no society in the world that consumes sugar at that level and remains healthy.

“Similarly, why are Native Americans more susceptible to blood sugar problems when they eat modern food?”

I dunno, why are Asians, Africans, Europeans, Aboriginals, Polynesians and Arabs also more suceptible to blood sugar problems on modern diets? What you call the ‘modern’ diet is bad for any human, regardless of ethnic background.

Even though all MT diet plans include whole grains and dairy, I believe that one of the main reasons why MT enjoys such great success is that it gets people eating whole foods instead of processed crap. I think that’s something we can all agree on.

In my opinion, MT is not a contradicting alternative to the primal diet, but instead a more advanced implementation of it. I’m living proof of this because I follow both a primal and a MT diet. In fact, my diet is probably more primal than many of the people here!

Sure, if you want to improve your health without getting too involved with your diet, just focusing on the primal principles will get you bye without MT. But if you want to maximize your results, I think MT has a lot of value.

Mark mentions a range of 45% – 65% of animal food in hunter-gatherer diets. This is pretty close to the range for MT. 40% is recommended for the carb types (slow oxidizer or sympathetic dominant), 55% is recommended for the mixed types (mixed oxidative or autonomic balanced), and 70% is recommended for the protein types (fast oxidizer, parasympathetic dominant).

MT is also not just based on genetics. It inherently does takes into consideration the “age, gender, personal medical condition and hormone balance, exposure to toxins and allergens” that Mark mentions. This is the difference between a “functional” type and a “genetic” type. It’s also why people who are ill often transition to different types as they recover.

For what it’s worth, I’m a “fast oxidizer” and my meals consist of mostly meat and fat with a smaller portion of vegetables and/or fruit. (no, I don’t measure it out exactly, and that’s not recommended either) With less meat and fat than this, the meal doesn’t hold me over as well. (Yes, I know, Grok sometimes had to go extended periods without food). My wife is the opposite of me and neither of us would do as well if we swapped diets. In fact, my wife couldn’t even bring herself to eat the ratio of meat that I eat.

I’ll be a believer in MT until someone proves to me that an Eskimo can do just as well with half of their meat and fat intake being replaced by fruit. I doubt that’s the case, but I’m open minded to the possibility.

Similarly, why are Native Americans more susceptible to blood sugar problems when they eat modern food? Not only is this a potential indication that their metabolism is geared towards less carbohydrate, but it also shows that minor differences in metabolism can have significant effects.

Regarding the dominance of the sympathetic or parasympathetic side of the autonomic nervous system, either dominance is usually pretty obvious in someone’s behavior. Sympathetic dominants are usually intense and parasympathetics are usually laid back. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to expect that different foods will stimulate either side of the ANS for better or worse depending on a person’s dominance. My dominance is sympathetic and I definitely believe that following my diet balances my sympathetic tendencies.

It seems to me that the only significant argument against MT is that it’s too elaborate. That’s understandable, but what’s wrong with someone going the extra mile with their diet if they want to? While some people may not want to deal with the structured nature of MT, I think it deserves more credit than “hooey, humbug, and nonsense.”

If anyone can refute the validity of MT with a logical explanation, I’d be happy to hear it.

If one follows the primal blueprint (which is excellent), they would have a positive spin on this post by Mark.

They follow Mark = they eat according to the primal blueprint = the follow mark = they have a positive spin on this article.

conversely, a vegetarian, high carb low fat person would not be following Mark and probably not even be reading this post.

In my experience, being a protein type while living with a carb type, and me being 2.5 times her weight, if she eats what I eat, she feels like crap and gains fat. IF she eats high carbs, grains, fruits and sugars, she drops weight and feels great.

I think there is something to be said about individual needs.

and again, I eat primal.

I never wanted to jump to conclusions about MT, since at first glance it does seem that some people can simply handle grains/carbs/whatever much better than others (like myself).

But it’s interesting to see you’re stance on the issue.

The Hair Colour Diet