Sorry, folks, I should have jumped in earlier than this.  I have in front
of me the paper from which the 80% figure is taken and about which there
has been a broad-ranging discussion.  It is clear that not all
contributors to our discussion have had the opportunity to study the paper
carefully.  Here’s a rundown of some of the key issues and background.

The sample reported upon was of full-blood aboriginals who had been on a
pretty low-class Western diet for many years.  Half were diabetic; most
were male; most had alcohol problems.  They were aged in their 50s and so
had some memories of living in the bush but not, apparently, as full
hunter-gatherers.  They willingly participated in an experiment, the
purpose of which is clear from the title of the paper: <Marked improvement
in carbohydrate and lipid metabolism in diabetic Australian aborigines
after temporary reversion to traditional lifestyle>.  That is, the study
was focused on the potential for improving health status, not on
replicating or examining the authentic aspects of hunter-gatherer eating
and activity patterns.  There was very careful monitoring of the
macronutrient intakes and the progress with the subjects’ blood glucose
and plasma insulin.  Their activity levels ranged from 1.0 to 3.4 where
1.0 was inactivity and 5.0 was hunting for 6 hours a day.

The study lasted 7 weeks: 1 1/2 weeks travelling from Derby to Pantijan, 2
weeks on the coast and 3 1/2 weeks inland.  The 80% protein applied to
their fortnight on the coast.  8o% of their caloric intake was fish and
20% birds, kangaroo and crocodiles.  <The lack of vegetable food in this
area precipitated the move inland...>  Inland their diet was 54% protein,
33% carbs and 13% fat

Unfortunately, the authors worked under the conventional nutritional
paradigm and the paper misses the clues we’d see as obvious: it advocates
a high carb and low fat diet to combat diabetes and refers to
urbanization’ of diet rather than ‘westernization; they refer to ‘weight
loss’ when they mean fat-loss etc.

But a very useful paper nonetheless, particularly because of the
meticulous documentation of a carefully applied methodology, and with,
still, huge public health implications’.

Please ask if you have any questions, but delete from your post all
unneeded text.

Keith