Paleo prepper?

Not Paleo as such but a low starch somewhat grain free diet (mainly because of the starch).

I started a ketogenic diet last December. After a few months I morphed into more of an Atkins diet (extremely low carb, but not as much fat as Ketogenic).

I lost 22 kg over 7 months before I went off it during a recent holiday. Cut carbs back out (less than 20g/day) 10 days ago.

My diet never stopped me from stockpiling rice, grains, legumes, cereals, etc. I figure that I will rotate those stocks when I am eating carbs, and/or suffer some small losses on an annual basis that I am prepared to accept in the name of weight loss. Unless you keep a lot of livestock maintaining my current diet in a SHTF scenario would be near impossible. Besides, if it is an TEOTWAWKI event, I won't be worried about losing weight...

I will live forever...

I'm not certain on this topic, I know a little about nutrition and not enough to give any kind of conclusions here.  I think you could come to some approximations by considering who your forefathers were into some approximations of diets. For instance 'the frequency of lactose intolerance ranges from 5% in Northern European to more than 90% in some African and Asian countries.'   Typically cultural meals/food have been eaten because they were both grown and consumed locally and well.  'Bangers and mash' makes sense with pigs and potatoes in England.   They would certainly get you over the line to make a baby and raise it long enough that it lived, after that the genes don't really care.  How often would have our forefathers eaten meat do you think?  I would guess a couple of times a week most likely for most of us in poor quality cuts.  Would our body prefer more often? 

"The frequency of lactose intolerance ranges from 5% in Northern European to more than 90% in some African and Asian countries." -  The fact you have a protein making factory walking around that you milk gives you a constant source of protein, as would eggs.  We also stored this milk as cheese which would get us through the harsh winters and they are 16 times lower in lactose.  Biologically speaking most animals loose their ability to process lactose after being weened, though humans clearly have some adaptations to protein sources, those who didn't mostly fell out of the genepool in Europeans suggesting it to be a fairly necessary part of survival at some points.  Europeans also drank a lot of low strength beers as their water supplies were dangerous.  Asians did teas.  We see this in Aboriginals who whilst having similar levels of alcoholics [despite the myths] have far less tolerance for it as they had little exposure to it and not the necessity for that clean stationary water source due to being nomadic and small in numbers. 

Historically 15% of people died due to starvation, so 'any' bonus protein was a great advantage.  Conversely those of African descent had differing farming practices such as goat herding and perhaps they milked the goats in some regions [hence the 10%] or were hunter gatherers until more recent times.   Also we are from primate stock and we eat fairly similarly to them. 

And of course, we are omnivores, and clever. We have turned food that in it's raw form is close to inedible or poor in nutrition because of it's antinutrients such as grains/legumes/starches and with our cleverness have over the tens of thousands of years learned through trial and error to convert these easily grown foods into food that we can store and eat, to get us through the winters.  To think that we're not able to eat our staple diets successfully after years of just scraping by when only small fluctuation of 10% less food production in history would often lead to famine.  I also have a theory that inactivity during winter tends to conserve nutrients very well in Europeans, which is why we're so obese, we're great at survival.  I've noticed this first hand, though it's anecdotal.  The point is, diets are confusing and what suits us when we don't look at our history. 

I'm skeptical of the claims and I would like to see actual evidence on this topic to come to conclusions to follow such a diet.  We have elements of hunter gatherers in us, though a lot of adaptations to farming practices of whatever region we hail from.  We are all the successful ones genetically remember, those who didn't adapt to their environment died out, so it's reasonable to assume that we would do better with certain diets and mostly....  we're omnivores, we successfully eat lots of different things and realistically we're probably only talking about a few percentage difference in optimum nutrition anyhow, we're about as well fed as we could be, surely. 

You and me both, brother!

I'm more concerned about the long term health impact of excess fat and my fight-fitness than famine.

I'm on a fairly strict diet, limited to 5500kJ a day, no processed sugars or grains, bulk veges, eggs and lean meat plus a few bits of fruit.

I get hungry at night but it's been 11 days and I've lost 2.6kg

Sounds fairly similar to my current eating AT. No sugar, pasta, rice and try to avoid to much processed food (although this gets difficult at times with my current working situation); plenty of green veges, a fair bit of meat and a little bit of fruit. Works for me and I like eating plenty of meat so actually enjoy it. And in general feel heaps better staying clear of the sugar and processed food

Water loss yo-yos your actual scale weight, though that puts your metabolism at about 8272KJ higher than your intake, aka 13772Kj/day.  You've got to watch out for the metabolism slow down that comes with dieting, natures way of saying, hey look we've in famine..  aka keep up your activity.  Protein retards the diet hormone somewhat and some reports caffeine has a similar effect [seemed to work for me anecdotally].