Having read a lot about paleo / primal / ketogenic eating over the past 6 weeks, I’ve noticed a trend. Very well educated physicians and scientists researching the optimal human diet come to correct conclusions (that eating paleo and/or ketogenically is optimal, depending on one’s tolerance for carbohydrates). But part of the reasoning used to get there is humans evolved over the past 2 million years, adapting to eating paleo / keto, and only started farming and eating grain within the past 10,000 years (or far less for some societies). Then, often in the same chapter of the same book, they refer to studies in rats or other non-apes to bolster the value of restricting dietary sugar and starch. This seems inconsistent.
I think they are correct that subsisting on farmed grains is less healthy for mammals than eating more “natural” diets. I propose this will still be true even if the vast majority of humanity subsists on farmed grains for the next 2 million years – the harmful effects of such a diet usually do not reduce reproductive potential – they don’t fully manifest until after the prime reproductive years. The human population is far too high for natural selection to fix any beneficial adaptations even if they did improve reproductive fitness. So the presumed recent history of humanity is a red herring.