| You're right, the evolutionary argument is just one dimension. I don't think it's irrelevant, because logically we should have evolved to process what we eat so it doesn't kill us. But evolution could have settled on a compromise between availability to the food and some "good enough" health and lifespan like you say, live at least 40 years, healthy enough to have and raise offsprings. It just seems a good starting point to start refining from. I've alluded to other dimensions, like how it seems plant and seafood heavy diets correlate to longer healthier lifes and meat heavy ones don't. But I also wanted to point at the uncertainty exactly in those. We don't really have data of people on very good meat quality diets versus your typical large scale meat production. So it can be premeditated to just blame meat. Similarly more modern forms of vegetable based byproducts also have studies showing correlation with inflammation and other issues. And again I think it be premeditated to just blame vegetables. In the end, when I consider multiple dimensions that I've read about, the diet most consistently appearing "healthier" in the average is what I said. A varied source of nutritions from different foods, all of high quality, with no excess in any one of them over the others, with overall eating less of it all, with minimal processed food consumption. For which I was just showing that even the evolutionary dimension corroborates. Another way to look at it, we don't know enough about any single food and their risk, so a diversified portfolio is the best strategy to mitigate the risks, similar to financial investments. |