4 ms·
This seems to go against anything I heard about food, I'm confused now. We also have to account for the goal difference, meat was needed to survive in a very a
by Fire-Dragon-DoL 1y ago
This seems to go against anything I heard about food, I'm confused now.
We also have to account for the goal difference, meat was needed to survive in a very active environment with a lifespan of maybe 30 years per individual, if you were lucky, while now we have a very inactive environment with target about 100 years.
- KetoManx64 1y agoBut the reason for the shorter lifespans was not the red meat or cholesterol or fats. It was due to injuries, disease, sanitation and infections.
- geoka9 1y agoI mean, this is not scientific and all, but for the sake of the argument: your argument is not contrary to the grandparent's. I.e. a keto diet may be beneficial for a hunter-gatherer who only lives 30 years while bad for someone who lives well beyond that (because evolution never got to sort out that case due to injuries, disease, etc.).
- KetoManx64 1y agoWell, if we use that logic, the same can be said for a diet made primarily of vegetables + fiber.