"And yet, where are the hunter gatherers? Seems the agriculture people won, for the most part." There are no hunter gatherers because agriculture will guarante

"And yet, where are the hunter gatherers? Seems the agriculture people won, for the most part." There are no hunter gatherers because agriculture will guarantee a more prosperous and growing population. There is absolutely no doubt about that. However, just because hunter-gatherers died off doesn't mean their average health was less than the average health of the agricultural population. In fact, the hunter gatherers that were proficient enough to survive were probably much, much healthier than agriculture population. (This is assuming both populations are getting enough nutrients that malnutrition is not a factor.) Even though the average health of the agricultural population may have been lower, the methods allowed more in the population to survive. In a food constrained world, this is the optimal solution for health. We don't have the problems of food constraint (at least in the first world provided you have an income). That is why now we can look back out or diets and selectively pick and choose the most optimal combinations because there is no longer a problem of food scarcity.