3 ms·
You've fixated on a particular date (1 MYA) and understood "major component of diet" / "majority calories in some groups" to be "all of our ancestors ate mostly
by chlodwig 6y ago
You've fixated on a particular date (1 MYA) and understood "major component of diet" / "majority calories in some groups" to be "all of our ancestors ate mostly plants". Neither is what I said.
My working hypothesis is that from a few million years ago to 100,000 years ago, our ancestors primarily ate megafauna (80% to 100% of calories) and so that is the diet we are most evolved to thrive off of. In the last 100,000 years, with the rise of agriculture and the extinction of many megafauna, there has been rapid selection pressure for humans to tolerate grains and dairy (and also breeding of tubers and grains to make them much more nutrition for humans). Toleration of plant and dairy food by modern people varies by race and by individual; but everyone can thrive by eating a lot of megafauna.
I am interested in evidence that contradicts this hypothesis -- particularly whether there is evidence that from 100kya to 3mya our ancestors were eating 30% or 50% or 70% or 95% or 100% plants. It doesn't seem like the links you gave me have such evidence. Got anything more convincing? The evidence from dental collagen and brain size energy requirements arguing for an ancestral diet of 80%+ animals seem more convincing to me.