There's a difference between these several statements: there difference between realizing that the less refined carbohydrate foods the better, that people who increase their sat fat intake and meat intake feel better, that grains are not meant for human consumption and that we've the evidences that an all meat diet is the optimum and natural diet for humans.

Maybe we are all under the illusion that there's a natural diet, while there are just diets we can consume.
Just consider the example of the white and brown bear.
They've identical anatomy and teeth structure.
Yet one consume mostly vegetation and only small animals, the other is carnivorous and eat small amount of berries.
The difference is their environment and what they can get from their envinronment. This difference brought also a certain degree of adaptation but we're talking basically of the same animal.
The bear is the true omnivorous archetype, so Huxley used to said. And the difference between the white bear and the brown bear shows to us what being omnivorous entails.
We omnivorous animals are meant by nature to be able to consume plant matter, that's why we have vegetation/fruits consumption characteristics that carnivorous animals don't have and to consume animal food, that's why we have mear consumption characteristics that herbivorous animals don't have.
This makes us opportunistic feeders who are able to consume from both the spectrums of our nature and even physically adapat to extreme conditions because of this.
So the "should" is less strong than the "be able to" and for all the world examples that one can bring of healthy populations living on nothing but fat, organs, blood and milk there as many example of people living on nothing but potatoes and coconuts or just 10% meat.
Both the ones pointing at the meat spectrum and calling that our natural diet and both the ones pointing at the starch/fruits spectrum and calling that our natural diet are blindly missing the obvious point.
The bear itself, funny, is the most important example that omnivorous can eat on either end of the spectrum.
The potatoes/coconut eating, the Borneo population, the Inuits and the Masai though are just extreme nonstatistical example that shows a certain degree of adaptation to extreme the conditions, but the vast majority of humans (hunter-gatherer) that didn't adapted to eather spectrum extreme eat a diet which is abundant in plant matter (fruits, nuts, leaves) and abundant in animal food (fish, meat, eggs)

What is most important is that not only did the ends of the spectrum adapt physically to their diet but that peculiar conditions and human manipulated means allow them to make those diets beareable. So the Inuits eat the fat and stomach content of caribous for example which has a nutritional content that your marker or grass diet meat will never have, Masai eat milk which is not a natural food for any kind of animal on planet and it's a mean to adapt to a certain diet. The same way the almost vegetarian populations adapted because of special plants or nuts that are able to make up for the other things they're missing because of their inuque nutritional profile.

When people on a law-carb diet begin claiming that it's the all meat spectrum the most healthy diet possible and the one humans have alwaus been meat to, they do exactly what their dectractors are doing; looking thoroughly for an healthy population at the end of the spectrum and calling it without evidences whatsoever and going against the most basic comparative anatomy facts the natural human diet.
Your detractor can then look thoroughly for another healthy population at the end of the spectrum near the equator and calling it the natural human diet.
Both have the same chances of being considered right and that's not the way to wake up people from the SAD diet and show them there're healthy ways of eating, that's just a dishonest game where someone is right because he/she says so and it's the same dishonest game of USDA, AMA, ADA & company.

Then again, making broad universal statements according to ones limited anecotes is even more dishonest and useless.
You can't make broad statements you would like to apply to human as a species based on your experiences, this is not only irrilevant at best but it's ecogentric as few thing can be.
It's a logical contradiction, as you can see that modern researches are suspect, everyone can say that your experiences and claim are suspect.
As for the title of the thread I didn't know this was a thread were you claim some universal truth based on your limited and statistical irrelevant experience and others are not allowed to reply unless they agree with you.
In fact this is not a thread for the ones who think that humans are carnivorous, the proof is that dozen of replies have been made by many posters to say that you're wrong. So if there's someone who has a problem with his ego that's you. You're posting under the delusion that this board is here to support you and that everyone is supporting you and I should post in other board if I don't believe your simplistic and irrelevant claims.
Sorry but not everyone here is supporting you and this board and this thread are not meat as a support chat for your claims. Speaking of egocentrism ...
You then keep contradicting yourself first by basically claiming that all you care is your experience because you don't trust modern studies and researches and then you defend your broad statements, whose foundation make them true statements just for you and your life not for others that can't clearly base their diet and your limited experience, speaking of anatomical and nutritional fact you mut have read somewhere even if you don't understand them, but that contradicts your lack of faith on those studies in the first place. You shouldn't even say that your diet provide you all the nutrients you need, because that would mean that you after all believe in those studies and researches that claim to have discovered and quantified those nutrients.
So, suit yourself, either you base your broad statements on your experiences an you must accept that those statements are limited to you and your life, or either you base them on scientific studies and researches too, and you must accept that that science proves you wrong totally, it doesn't prove that your experience is wrong but that your egocentric and unfounded broad statements are wrong.
To me you're wrong not because of the topic per se, you're wrong because you're making broad unsupported statements you want to back up with interesting anecdoted you tell to us, and what's funny is that this is the attitude of the low-carb detractors of the junk food industry and the nutritional political correct institutions. Way to go

David