This doesn't seem out of the ordinary to me and unless I am missing something, I would not call it LCHF.
Low carb has varying definitions, depending on whom you speak to. My belief is that under 100 g/day is low carb, under 50 g/day is very low carb. I aim for VLC (under 50 g), but as you see I went a little bit over on that day. 5 grams here or there, not a big deal, 50 extra grams would be a very big deal for my health.
High fat is expressed as a percentage of calories. Over 65% is considered high fat. As My Fitness Pal calculator measured it, my fat percentage was well over 65%, so it was high fat.
That's LCHF by any definition I know of. Some people--as you are seeing here--go much higher in their fat percentages. But doing that means eating fewer vegetables. Personally I believe that there are micronutrients in the vegetables (vitamins and minerals) that are better obtained from real food rather than supplements or hoping and praying the vitamins and minerals in animals you eat are going to provide what you need. I'm a big fan of Dr. Terry Wahls and her protocols--I think she's on to something there, and nutritional deficits may eventually catch up with people who don't eat some veggies, too. So I aim for a moderate approach that includes plenty of veggies.
I think people have this perception that LCHF eaters eat meat and cheese and nothing else. And there are a few who do--I don't know how long people can last doing that, but there are some who swear by that approach. There are also some low carb dieters out there who eat LCHF by depending on crap products like Atkins and make tons of Frankenfood treats with artificial ingredients. LCHF junk food may help them lose weight, but not necessarily regain health.
So I get where some critics of LCHF are coming from. But, as you see, it's also very possible to eat a well-balanced, healthful LCHF diet. I don't have a diet "guru" per se, but the one who comes closest to expressing how I eat is Dr. Andreas Enefeldt at
http://www.dietdoctor.com/lchf. (Be sure to scroll down--there's a LOT of info there).
But we can't feed 7 billion people if we leave grains out. One solution is to continue to develop GMO products and aim for ones which avoid insulin spikes and inflammation.
I totally get that I am fortunate to have been born in the USA and to have food security when many people don't. I get that it would be hard to feed everyone without grains. I am extra fortunate because my husband's employer has some of the same values as I in terms of creating sustainable agriculture, and we get a discount at his farm store on vegetables organically grown, grass fed meat, and sometimes eggs. It would be hard to have meat on our table as often as we do without that discount. But ultimately I am responsible for my own health and that of my family, and as long as I can afford to eat this way (and more importantly, I cannot afford to NOT eat this way) I will do so for me and for my children who complain that they are ruined for life since they cannot stand eating American Cheese slices or chicken nuggets.
We budget carefully. We have cut a lot of things out in order to eat this way--we don't buy $5 boxes of cereal and $6 loaves of bread, sodas, chips, frozen pizzas and chicken nuggets like our friends and neighbors do. We only rarely eat out, and we carry our lunches to work/school and we prepare most of our meals from scratch. I'm not sure why anyone thinks I should feel guilty about the way I eat. It's essential for my health and a damn sight better than what most of our friends and neighbors eat without a thought or care. So, no, maybe 7 billion people can't be fed this way, but our family can. And we do.