Ok - so this isn't really about a cage match between Inuit or Kitavan.
It's a question about reassessing why we feel so strongly about eating a Paleo diet.
The pro-tuber camp has a single card they play... I call this the Kitavan card.
The low-carber camp has a single card they play... let's call this the Inuit card.
I dont see a lot of "middle grounders" - those of us that eat much less starch than a kitavan, and much more carb than a inuit. However, the majority of the major Paleo authors advocate this without going to either extreme... and yet many who are new or uneducated about it still believe it's one or the other.
I just hope we don't unearth some rare tribe in some obscure jungle that lives off some form of proto-neolithic food, so people can justify x by saying "The Y tribe did it!".
I understand using modern hunter-gatherers as a benchmark into what is healthy, but the inuit rely heavily on neolithic agents (and major illnesses have followed in their wake). The kitavans are heavy cigarette smokers. In fact, even though modern hg's are a great window into the past, I would argue they aren't as much an insight into our Paleolithic ancestors - as our ancestors had a much more migratory lifestyle that wasn't as geographically limited (and more importantly, wasn't influenced by the modern world).
Whatever happened to "I eat this way, and it keeps me from getting sick... and I've modified it to suit my needs." ?
At it's base, eating a whole foods diet, rich in animal-based calorie sources, devoid of refined sugars, grains, or pulses, is good for everyone... the rest is just details into what works the best personally.
Honestly, there seems to be a lot of "them vs. us" lately and it seems to revolve around which card you play. But in all truth, we are more alike than different.