# Dietary Suggestions Based on Human Evolutionary History > Claims of the sort that “because humans evolved in such-and-such a way, modern people should eat this and that in such-and-such a way” are consistently fashionable. But these claims are logically weak or lack sufficient evidence. Claims of the sort that "because humans evolved in such-and-such a way, modern people should eat this and that in such-and-such a way" are consistently fashionable. But these claims are logically weak or lack sufficient evidence. ## Examples It goes by various names, such as , , and caveman diet. It has been tremendously successful commercially, selling many books, and there are all kinds of lectures and YouTube channels as well. ## Claims Their claims can be summarized as follows. 1. During the Paleolithic era (about 2.5 million years ago to 12,000 years ago), humans were hunter-gatherers, and because the during this period did not change very much, the human body is well [adapted](https://wiki.g15e.com/pages/Evolutionary%20adaptation.txt) to this dietary pattern. 2. After the (about 12,000 years ago), dietary patterns changed greatly and artificially over roughly the past 12,000 years, through increased grain consumption due to , processed foods in modern industrial society, and so on. 3. 12,000 years is far too short for [evolutionary adaptation](https://wiki.g15e.com/pages/Evolutionary%20adaptation.txt) to the newly changed dietary pattern to occur. 4. For health, it is best to follow the dietary pattern to which the human body is already best adapted. 5. Therefore, for health, it is best to follow the dietary pattern of the Paleolithic era. ## Problems Evolutionary hypotheses under rigorous standards can make positive contributions, such as helping new discoveries or providing consistent explanations for various phenomena. But like all other scientific hypotheses, they require a few important premises. - Not every story that sounds plausible counts as a valid evolutionary hypothesis. A new hypothesis should, as much as possible, accord with theories located at higher levels in the [hierarchy of analysis in evolution](https://wiki.g15e.com/pages/Hierarchy%20of%20evolutionary%20analysis.txt), and should have as much internal coherence as possible with widely accepted existing hypotheses. - The specific predictions derived from the hypothesis must be , and if the predictions do not match experiments or observations, one should give more weight to the experiments and observations rather than insisting on the hypothesis. But the claims of those who support things like the or the sometimes do not seem to observe these premises very well. First, because climate and available foods differed by geography, early humans had highly diverse diets, and accordingly humans were adapted to a greatly diverse range of dietary patterns. Therefore it is difficult to define a "typical Paleolithic diet." In other words, the diet of the Paleolithic era had quite large [variance](https://wiki.g15e.com/pages/Variance%20(statistics.txt)).[^1] Second, the diets of modern humans are considerably influenced by behavioral, social, and physiological learning, and these influences begin in the womb, but this is a genetic adaptation that occurred not in the Paleolithic era but after the Neolithic era. In other words, for their claim to hold, there would have to have been little evolutionary change after the Neolithic era, but in reality that is not the case.[^1][^2] Third, [evolutionary adaptation](https://wiki.g15e.com/pages/Evolutionary%20adaptation.txt) is tuned only to human reproduction and the minimum survival necessary for reproduction, not to long-term human well-being. A Paleolithic diet is optimized to a level that lets humans live more or less until about age 50, assuming they do not die for other reasons. For reference, in today's industrialized societies, human exceeds 80 years. To claim, without additional evidence, that following evolutionary adaptation is good for human well-being is a [naturalistic fallacy](https://wiki.g15e.com/pages/Naturalistic%20fallacy.txt). Fourth, some people cling to the evolutionary hypothesis even when it does not fit observational and experimental results. For example, , author of , argues that because humans did not eat oats before the Neolithic Revolution, oats cannot be good for the body (and he supplements the claim with an explanation based on physiological mechanisms). But even when experimental results contrary to this claim are presented, he does not back down.[^3] ## Is the Paleolithic Diet Harmful to Health? Healthy diets widely accepted in nutrition include , , the DASH diet, and . They are similar to the Paleolithic diet in that they avoid additives and prefer foods that are as little processed as possible, but there are several differences. - **Meat**: Compared with plant-based diets, the Mediterranean diet, the DASH diet, vegetarianism, and so on, the Paleolithic diet tends to encourage meat consumption relatively more. even argues that bacon is a safe food with no need to worry that it causes inflammation.[^4] - **Whole grains and legumes**: According to the Paleolithic diet, whole grains and legumes only began to be widely consumed after the Neolithic Revolution, so they are not foods that are "natural" for humans to eat, and therefore it recommends avoiding them. But whole grains and legumes are good sources of , , , and so on.[^1] Whether the Paleo diet, Proper Human Diet, caveman diet, and so on are harmful or beneficial to health is not the focus of this article. Even if the Paleo diet is beneficial, what I want to say is that the reason is not "because it closely follows the evolutionary adaptations acquired in the Paleolithic era." If one wants to maintain the evolutionary hypothesis, a much more concrete and sophisticated explanation is needed than the level at which it is currently being discussed. To summarize, claims of the sort that "because humans evolved in such-and-such a way, modern people should eat this and that in such-and-such a way" are, at least at the level they are being discussed now, logically weak, lacking in evidence, and often in conflict with experiments and observations on actual humans. ## Related Documents - [The low-carb scam](https://wiki.g15e.com/pages/The%20low-carb%20fraud.txt) ## Footnotes [^1]: [Paleo diet: What is it and why is it so popular? - Mayo Clinic](https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/nutrition-and-healthy-eating/in-depth/paleo-diet/art-20111182) [^2]: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4091895/ [^3]: [Oats & Human Health | Dr. Ken Berry MD](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qB2PpDoUh30) [^4]: