I generally find this logic unconvincing. Our ancestors lacked access to modern scientific knowledge and had far shorter average lifespans than us. Here are some examples of things that our ancestors didn't do: (1) perform CPR on cardiac arrest victims, (2) treat cancer with surgery / drugs, (3) engage in studies to determine which foods are healthier than others, (4) sterilize food products to avoid infection.
In my opinion it's a fallacy to assert that because pre-historic humans behaved in a certain way, that that way is superior. Pre-historic humans did the best they could with the tools they had and the environment they faced at that time. Gorging on a huge meal every few days made a lot of sense when the alternative was potential starvation. The priority at that time was surviving the next day/week/month, not living 80+ years. Modern humans can do better with more advanced tools and an environment containing a very different set of challenges to deal with.
It's also a fallacy to assume that natural > artificial in all cases. While there can often be some truth in that, there's no reason to think that we can't optimise what nature provides, or that we shouldn't try to do that.
I think looking at our ancestors diet gives us the best place to start. And it gives us insight as to why our bodies might work a certain way. Then we can optimize from there based on scientific knowledge gained going forward.
I generally find this logic unconvincing. Our ancestors lacked access to modern scientific knowledge and had far shorter average lifespans than us. Here are some examples of things that our ancestors didn't do: (1) perform CPR on cardiac arrest victims, (2) treat cancer with surgery / drugs, (3) engage in studies to determine which foods are healthier than others, (4) sterilize food products to avoid infection.
In my opinion it's a fallacy to assert that because pre-historic humans behaved in a certain way, that that way is superior. Pre-historic humans did the best they could with the tools they had and the environment they faced at that time. Gorging on a huge meal every few days made a lot of sense when the alternative was potential starvation. The priority at that time was surviving the next day/week/month, not living 80+ years. Modern humans can do better with more advanced tools and an environment containing a very different set of challenges to deal with.
It's also a fallacy to assume that natural > artificial in all cases. While there can often be some truth in that, there's no reason to think that we can't optimise what nature provides, or that we shouldn't try to do that.