By the way, is this the same group that was falsely claiming that insulin transported fats in to the arterial walls causing heart disease?

and they put all of their Type II patients on a restricted carbohydrate diet allowing only 15 per meal for a total of 45 per day.  That's fewer than the Atkins induction diet which allows 50 per day total.  I've personally seen the positive results in myself and several other of their patients as we met over time.  Humans were not designed for refined carbohydrates - let alone grains.

Why is it you have groups out there claiming we were never designed to eat grains?  And others out there claim that we were never designed to eat meat?  And yet both groups never provide to any of their claims.  Actually the fact is that we are designed to eat both.  The evidence is in our teeth.  All animals with teeth have teeth designed to handle the food they are intended to eat.  Meat eaters tend to have canines to grab a hold of meat and thinner sharper teeth for cutting through the flesh.  Animals designed to eat grains and roots have flatter, thicker teeth designed for crushing.  So which do humans have?  Oh, that's right, we have both!!!  And if we look at our closest genetic relative, the chimpanzee what do they eat?  Well they have the same type of teeth we do and they are omnivores.  So they feed on meats, fruits, roots, seeds........

Even many of the "vegetables" that we eat were not available to the early hunter gatherers from squash,

So you think squash is modern "invention"?

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/843578/posts

"Piperno and Stothert compared phytoliths from squash fruits they found in sites on the Santa Elena peninsula in Ecuador to others in a huge reference collection, including wild and cultivated squash species collected throughout the Americas. Larger phytoliths like those found in domesticated varieties of Cucurbita ecuadorensis, the only cucurbit squash native to Ecuador, were clearly evident in undisturbed strata dated to 10,130 to 9320 carbon-14 years (roughly 12,000 to 10,000 calendar years ago).

The carbon remaining from plant cells that survives inside phytoliths was dated using new methods developed by the authors in collaboration with a radiocarbon laboratory.

Hunter gatherers in coastal Ecuador probably took advantage of resources from marine, mangrove and forest ecosystems, and began to domesticate wild squash varieties as they formed fairly stable settlements at the end of the Pleistocene, a plausible scenario for one of the most important economic and social passages of prehistory."

potatoes

Again, not a modern invention.

http://darwinstable.wordpress.com/2008/11/27/did-hunter-gatherers-eat-starchy...

" He recently weighed in on a contentious issue that developed eight years ago when isotopic evidence gathered from fossilized hominin teeth suggested that our early ancestors subsisted on a diet primarily of grasses and sedges. This was in contrast to the morphological work on dentition which suggested that our early ancestors flat teeth appear better adapted for chewing on anything but tough grass.

Dr Nathanial Dominy further investigated this dilemma using stable isotope analysis, which tests the chemical signature on tooth enamel and is able to inform the researcher what type of food that chemical originally came from. He tested the tooth enamel of early hominins, todays mole rats which feed exclusively on bulbs and tubers (underground storage organs such as onions and potatoes) and fossils of mole rats, which were taken from sites where hominins were also discovered. The enamel of both rat samples matched that of the human sample providing strong evidence that early humans consumed tubers and bulbs.  His research published in Nature further tested this hypothesis using molecular genetics. In this research they focused on the gene for salivary amylase, an enzyme in saliva that digests starch. Plants use starch to protect their fuel stores making them difficult to digest. He found through his research that chimpanzees, which subside mainly on fruit, had only two copies of this gene whereas humans have several copies of this gene. Having several copies allows more salivary amylaze to be made thus more easily breaking down starches. Thus, at some stage between the evolution of humans and chimpanzees, the duplication of these genes occurred, allowing humans to more easily subsist on tubers."

and other night shades,

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080628065632.htm

 "In general, domesticated food plants have larger fruits, heads of grain, tubers, etc, because this is one of the characteristics that early hunter-gatherers chose when foraging for food."

to loads of hybridized non-processed food. 

Of course they did not process their foods.  Fire was not widely available and food factories did not exist.  As far as hybridized though, you are wrong here as well.  All plants have hybridized pretty much since there existence. This is why we have so many species of the same plants.  Take for example corn, which is actually a grass.  Wind pollinates corn.  So it readily cross pollinates with other types of corn in the same vicinity.  This is an example of natural hybridization.  And speaking of corn, again the original corn were small grass seeds collected and eaten by the earliest hunter gatherers.  Luckily they had some flat thick grinding teeth for that kind of diet.  These grass sees have since been further hybridized by wind pollination and man in to what we now known today as corn.

The Inuit of Greenland ate a lot of fat and few carbohydrates

http://darwinstable.wordpress.com/tag/hunter-gatherer/

"It has often been assumed by past researchers that plants were the dominant component of the diets of hunter gatherers, and therefore our paleolithic ancestors, and this reasoning was formed on the basis that plants were more readily available. This is especially true for those tribes found at lower latitudes or nearer the equator. Tribes like the Inuit were considered to largely eat meat because plant resources were simply unavailable to them."

and had no history of heart disease or stroke

Not true.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18774134?ordinalpos=4&itool=EntrezSyst...

Low occurrence of ischemic heart disease among Inuit around 1963 suggested from ECG among 1851 East Greenland Inuit.

Low occurrence hardly means absence of.  So you are embellishing your claim.  Then there is this study, which found a higher incidence of heart disease is the less Westernized areas of Greenland:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17306273?ordinalpos=15&itool=EntrezSys...

High prevalence of markers of coronary heart disease among Greenland Inuit.

"The overall prevalence of CHD (AP+self-reported MI+ECG defined MI) was 10.8% in men and 10.2% in women. The highest prevalence was observed in the least westernized areas in Greenland. Physical inactivity, low education, dyslipidemia, hypertension and diabetes were associated with CHD."

And apparently diet is not the only factor:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18324567?ordinalpos=8&itool=EntrezSyst...

Prevalence of smoking and its relationship with carotid atherosclerosis in Alaskan Eskimos of the Norton Sound region: the GOCADAN study.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7669126?ordinalpos=68&itool=EntrezSyst...

Body fat distribution and other cardiac risk factors among circumpolar Inuit and nGanasan.

 "The majority of both Inuit and nGanasan are current smokers and many fail to meet minimal standards of aerobic performance. Plasma cholesterol levels are still not very high, but a substantial proportion of the nGanasan are affected by hypertension; their source of animal protein is reindeer meat rather than the marine mammals eaten in Igloolik. Alcohol consumption is also higher in Volochanka than in Igloolik. Action is needed to control smoking, reduce body fat content and increase physical activity if circumpolar populations are not to experience an epidemic of cardiovascular disease."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15736670?ordinalpos=27&itool=EntrezSys...

Incidence of myocardial and cerebral infarction in Nuuk, Greenland.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12535749?ordinalpos=35&itool=EntrezSys...

Low incidence of cardiovascular disease among the Inuit--what is the evidence?

 "The evidence for a low mortality from IHD among the Inuit is fragile and rests on unreliable mortality statistics. Mortality from stroke, however, is higher among the Inuit than among other western populations. "

- until they began eating sugar and other Western foods in the past 40 or so years. 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9447397?ordinalpos=55&itool=EntrezSyst...

Cardiovascular risk factors in Inuit of Greenland.

 "In spite of an increased westernization of the Greenlanders' lifestyle and a high prevalence of several cardiovascular risk factors, mortality from IHD is still low. "

This can be explained by these studies:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9187021?ordinalpos=58&itool=EntrezSyst...

Homocysteine in Greenland Inuits.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10416047?ordinalpos=47&itool=EntrezSys...

High serum coenzyme Q10, positively correlated with age, selenium and cholesterol, in Inuit of Greenland. A pilot study.

There are about 5 more pages of studies I have not gone through yet.  But I think I have made my point.  First of all heart disease has always existed in the Inuit contrary to what you claimed.  And there are various factors, other than sugar intake, that influence both the low rate of heart disease, and the supposed climb in heart disease rates in the last 4 years.  As we have seen evidence is weak for this last claim.  I am surprised that you and all these researchers you cite missed all these studies.  They were not hard to find at all.