First of all I don't want to insult anyone by saying this but anecdotal evidences don't equate to strong proofs. It's not necessarily a lack of faith as I do believe that many people are honest when they share their interpretation of what they feel and happened to them, but it is still interpretation, we could intepretate it in other way or we could miss all the vital factors explaining a situation. I've read several accounts of breatharians and fruitarians stating how great their health was, how good they felt after 30 years of eating nothing but bananas, how wonderful their bloodwork results were; just to meet them and find out that they were not that healthy, that they didn't looked healthy and finding out that after years and years they had a crisis and developed diseases and deficiencies.
If I had to change my whole lifestyle it must be because of more than few simple personal anecdotes, in fact many people who switched to a low-carb diet wanted more concrete proofs than just "I hate carbs, I didn't eat them and I feel great" there wouldn't be so many books and websites around otherwise.vive

I'm not saying that science is the only source of truth but that I believe in following a certain pattern of reasoning, if we're talking about science and we imply that as long as we're discussing about science we believe in the premises of that science so we have a point of reference to judge one study or theory fron another then I don't think it's right or reliable to throw into the discussion personal anecdotes that can't be proved. If we were talking about personal anecdotes on the other hand throwing science in the discussion wouldn't be fair since the premises would have been difference and we would judge what is being said according to a different point of reference.
That's why I can't answer questions like: why that guy that vegan fruitarian guy who eats nothing but bananas claims to be healthy looking, strong and have high bone density.

So far the highest amount of evidence is toward acid overload as the culprit for bad bones health. Stefensson himself noticed that Inuits looked way older than us at a relatively young age. This is the effect of acid overload, the tissue are slowly eroded and aging rate is increased. One could have strong bone for year and suddenly the body would collapse. Many modern researches focus on mineral unbalance as the condition that triggers all diseases especially cancer, so there's more to calcium and electrolite balance than strong bone, because strong bones are also the result of exercise or weight bearing workouts. This would increase the bone density in spite of an acid overload and would at least delay the bones weaking.

It's absolutely true that calcium intake per se is useless, that's exactly the point. Supplementing with high intake of calcium doesn't prevent osteoporosis or acidosis and the balance of calcium/magnesium is another important factor.
Increasing your calcium intake is useless not because calcium is useless and there's no need in the body for calcium but because not even a very high intake of calcium 3000 mg daily can prevent an acid overload. Besides it would be too long to list here but I would advise to everyone to look for all the processes minerals are involved. Calcium for the bones, iron for the red cell count, zinc for the growth are just the tip of the iceberg.

Among the first symptoms of protein deficiency there's brittle nail and thin hair. There are many reasons why we may need more proteins sometimes and less proteins other times, stress is known to be one of them. Finger nails grow faster and stronger where there are more protein available. I believe the RDA underestimates the protein need even of sedentary people. Consuming more meat may have decreased the intake of calcium, we don't even know, but the calcium intake per se was not important as preventing an acid overload. So yes, higher intake of protein, if needed by your body, would make your hair thicker and your fingernail stronger and would also heal wounds much faster while the decreased calcium intake is not a problem if you're in a net alkaline balance and you are. When they studied the population with lowest rate of osteoporosis they not only noticed their diet was net alkaline producing but the calcium intake was lower not higher.

Calcium intake is less important than maintaning a net alkaline balance. If you consume 2000 mg of calcium daily but your body is in an acid overload, even twice that amount would be useless, if you're in a net alkaline balance on the other hand even 1400 mg of calcium would be enough for your body.

This is evidence that calcium intake is not as important as maintaining a net alkaline balance. On the other hand the protein may have been important for several growth and repair processes your body needed to engage with.
Basides I don't think amino acids in the meat are turning on specific genes, an aminoacid is an aminoacid is an aminoacid. All foods contain all essential amino acids and there are very exceptions among vegetable and fruits were certain fruit are short of or completely lacking certain amino acids.
Still if you have a look at your essential amino acids need you will see that even eating nothing but lime beans would result in you getting at the end of the day more than all the essential amino acids you need. Besides amino acids are stored in the amino acid pool and are reutilized in the protein turnover for days, some last more and some last less. The longer lasting is lysine which can be stored for 9 days. Hence when you eat whatever food it is broken into singular amino acids which are then mixed with the amino acids pool to construct new proteints required to your body from scratch. Amino acids from a macadamia nuts don't have a different effect than amino acids from beef, the only difference is your chance to get all the essential amino acids you need but this is more a problem of mixed diet as even foods that are short of certain amino acids are still an adequate mono source, when you consume enough calories to sustain your body out of them, of all EAA.
Your nails are made essentially of protein while containing calcium too, but calcium intake doesn't affect their health only protein does.
The bulding of stronger tissue happened because of an increased protein intake that your body needed. The source doesn't really matter, you could have got that protein from dehydrated sunflowers the effect would have been the same: for plastic material available to the body.

I'm not sure about getting calcium from biting bones. All hunter-gatherer societies that get calcium from bones make collagenous broth from them boiling them for hours or even days. When the bones are not cooked and boiled enough the calcium content of the broth is irrilevant and this suggests that getting calcium from bones even small ones is harder adn biting them may not be sufficient.

As Jared Diamond wrote "ice age" is a misnomer. The earth slips on its axis periodically as ice accumulates in the poles so that those places on earth that were cold becomes warmer and those places in the earth that was hot became colder. To date there's no proof that the earth was covered in ice and most experts disagree. Since most paleolithic sites have been found of earth zones who are low-mild climate nowadays they were warmer and more abundant in fruits and vegetables, it is estimated that earlier humans had access to more than 500 varieties of fruits, nuts and vegetables. Of course those foods leave no trace so as Diamond as Twohig said the only way to have a better picture of the diet of that era is either through indirect tests (calculating average among the modern hunter-gatherer societies) or new DNA analsys of fossilized feces. Most of the high density bones have been found on sites who are mild climate right now, and rest of nuts shells have been found too. We don't know what zones where really cold and devoid of fruits and vegetables, we don't know if the unlucky ones living in those zones survived or evolved, we don't know whether their bones showed signs of diseases. I suppose those that survived up in the north eventually adapted anatomically to that kind of diet as happened with the Inuits, if they did survive.

Green leafy vegetables are however a better source than we may believe.
We should also keep in mind that wild green contain way more nutrients than our market green, they're especially higher in calcium. Also the absorption of calcium from those greens is higher than absoption from milk and a cup of dark green leafy vegetables contain as much available calcium as half a cup of milk. Greens are an exceptionally good source of calcium because they're both high in calcium and prevent calcium losses, whereas other foods are either low in calcium and prevent calcium losses or are high in calcium and increase calcium losses. For example cheese would provide xx mg of calcium
Speaking of protein: they are a very important component of bones.
When we speak of bones we must not think of calcium but of calcium, phosphorous, proteins and preventing and decreasing calcium losses increasing the amount of foods that have a positive effect on calcium balance.
When I said that high bone density of bone found in paleolithic sites prove they had a high intake of calcium I meant way higher than what a diet of meat and fat alone could provide. But still lower than what a milk and cheese diet would provide. The RDA is 1000 mg daily but even 2000 mg are not enough if the body is in acid overload, and less than 1000 mg are more than enough when the body maintain a net alkaline balance.
You said your diet is 1:2 so if you consumed nuts and greens too I can assure you got at least 600-800 mg of calcium from plant alone. If one needs more then bone broths can be added to the diet.
There are other factors too that influence calcium balance like sodium/potassium balance. Decreasing our dangerous salt intake is another good thing that we can do to retain more of the calcium we get from food.

But a net alkaline balance is more of a mean to maintain a general electrolites balance. We shouldn't focus on the effect of an acid overload per se but of electrolites deficiency which is considered by some the trigger of all diseases.
We've read lot of claims and theories about what causes "modern diseases" and I'm sure everyone as realized that both pro-vegan theories and pro-meat theories are biased and contradictory. For example modern Thailand has the lowest rate of cancer worlwide and is the diet highest in the GI. Yes, traditional Thailand cuisine included fat rich meat but the staple is still white refined rice. The Pima indians in Mexico consuming a diet comprised of foods with an high GI and mainly corn, tortillas and potatoes. Diabetes rate is one of the lowest there, when they move toward usa frontier and begin consuming a SAD diet they develop the same diseases that were unknown to them in mexico. Although many would agree that diverting from a natural diet is what is unhealthy per se, in other words the consumption of refined and non suitable for human organism foods, this doesn't seem to solve the contradictions surrounding the source of modern diseases, neither physical activity does nor smoking. Minerals balance and mineral deficiencies appear to be a more probable reason explaining the maintenance of health and the loss of health. This would be clearer to people is they had a look at all metabolic and physiological processes that requires minerals to function well and at the efforts that the body does to maintain a mineral balance at all cost.
I'm sure that if we repeated again the epidemiological studies worldwide just for alkaline balance vs. acid overload, that would explain more about the contradictions of those data and the reasons for the incidences of specific diseases in certain populations.

Vitamin A in high amount of toxic. Laboratory synthesized Vitamin A is toxic, period and more and more supplements companies are making vitamin A free supplements for this reason. For carnivorous animals not even high amount of synthesized vitamin A is toxic.
Vitamin C is indeed harmful when the intake is too high, such high intake could result only from either getting vitamin C from the food we eat and either synthesizing our own. That's why we don't synthesize it as vitamin C sources are suitable food for humans.

It's true that there are few studies about Inuits and all from 1920-1970 circa. The ones I know of discriminate between modern diet and traditional diet. The liver enlargement problem disappeared when they consumed less animal food. The Inuits consuming western food didn't suffer from this condition.
Even if those health problems were observed in modern Inuits eating a modern diet, nothing would explain the highest incidence of osteoporosis as by logic there should be many countries and populations before them having an higher incidences of those diseases because of an higher incidences of incrimated foods consumption. Even the modern Inuits eating a modern diet have not a special consumption of junk food, alcohol or refined grains. In that respect they are like many others countries and way better in their junk consumptions than many.
Nevertheless Inuits have adapted to that high animal food diet in a way that we will never do. The diet they traditionally consumed, and we're not talking about a simple meat diet but a a peculiar diet made of caribou and seal fat, fermented stomach content of their prey, fish organs soup, and their environement did caused an adaptation in their body which is demonstrated by their specific body fat distribution and metabolic rate. Stefansson eventually "claimed" that a diet of only meat could be suitable for humans but this is just a personal interpretation of what he saw; and what he saw is a population that generation after generation adapted physiologically and anatomically to a peculiar diet that they didn't chose but had to follow to survive where they lived. But the most important thing Stefansson said is that Inuits looked way more older than their age, this is the effect of an acid overload. The effect on the bones for example would be 1% loss of calcium from the bones each year. They would have the time to be the strongest people on earth in their 20s and look 70 when they're 40.
There's more to the effect of acid overload than the claims of Stefansson.
It's possible to detect whether an organism is maintaning a net alkaline balance or is in an acid overload, is possible to measure the increased calcium losses year by years and the electrolites unbalance when there's acidosis.
Weight bearing activities delay the effect of acid overload on the bones but not its effect on the rest of the body. Not to mention that Inuits even if partially had nonetheless adpated their anatomy and physiology to that kind of diet and environment generation after generation.
Also electrolites balance and increased mineral losses shouldn't be confused with other theories of acid/alkaline promoted in those books with the chart of acid fruits, alkaline fruits, acid nuts, alkaline nuts and so on.
When a serious factor is commercialized and spread like a kind of sci-fi nonsense it is normal that people are sceptic. But I do suggest people here who think of acid/alkaline as that kind of new age concept promoted in those books to spend a day reading pubmed results about acid overload and alkaline net balance it's effect on absorption of calcium from guts and on icreasing aging rate. It's a concept supported and proved by way more researches than Sears theories or certain Paleodiet authors theories about insulin and glucagon are and has nothing to do with the acid/alkaline foods charts and the Hay diet and whatnot.

David