4 ms·

There was no gene flow from the Americas to the rest of the world during that time period. So unless you're Native American, it doesn't really matter. More imp

by thras 17y ago

There was no gene flow from the Americas to the rest of the world during that time period. So unless you're Native American, it doesn't really matter. More importantly, 10,000 years is enough time to see some evolution, but when we are talking about the "diet we evolved for" the time-scale to look for is probably 100,000 years at least. 10,000 years is enough time to have evolved resistance, but not much more: Europeans get less obesity and diabetes on the "Western diet" than other peoples who have had agriculture for shorter periods of time. But that doesn't make the Western diet great for them. Agriculture was the biggest human health disaster ever recorded (read Jared Diamond's essay on this). Grains were not a substantial part of the human diet until agriculture. Tubers and vegetables were to some degree. Fruits like anything you'd find in a modern supermarket were simply not available in most climates. 95% of calories from meat is too high for anybody except the Inuit. I think estimates are closer to 60% or so. But the Cambridge world history of food volume one is a good resource. Basically, it's a matter of looking at those hunter-gatherers who are left over and seeing what they eat. Of course, the hunter-gatherers who are left are naturally in the most inhospitable areas of the globe (otherwise the agriculturalists would have killed them all by now). So it's not an exact science by any means.

hachiya 17y ago
I was not claiming benefits of the "Western diet", but instead asking for evidence that humans in history ate mostly meat instead of plants. I came up with the 95% number as an estimate based on what you wrote, as the food sources you listed did not allow for anything besides meat and greens. I still don't see a reference that humans ate mostly meat and then only later mostly plants.
- thras 17y ago
  I did not say you claimed any benefits for the Western diet. I did not say that I did not know where you came up with your number. I know you didn't see a reference. For that, you'd have to read my post. 4th paragraph, 2nd sentence. You apparently read and responded to a completely different post.

by thras 17y ago

hachiya 17y ago

I was not claiming benefits of the "Western diet", but instead asking for evidence that humans in history ate mostly meat instead of plants. I came up with the 95% number as an estimate based on what you wrote, as the food sources you listed did not allow for anything besides meat and greens. I still don't see a reference that humans ate mostly meat and then only later mostly plants.

thras 17y ago
I did not say you claimed any benefits for the Western diet. I did not say that I did not know where you came up with your number. I know you didn't see a reference. For that, you'd have to read my post. 4th paragraph, 2nd sentence. You apparently read and responded to a completely different post.