Correct me if I'm wrong but haven't most scientific studies of our evolutionary process revealed the opposite of this? For example, actual carnivores that have evolved over time don't require dietary supplements of vitamin c. Or if you look at the structure and prominence of our teeth they are clearly not designed to be solely for eating meat...
The only thing that is true is that we have evolved to handle a diversity of flora and fauna, that is why we are classified as omnivores. And each sub population has further been accustomed to tolerate higher quantities of the foods native to those lands.
1: https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/how-to-eat-l...
It is as if you were comparing tigers with house cats on diet based on hunting behaviour.
1:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hominidae
2: https://www.livescience.com/7929-human-evolution-closest-liv...
"Human beings evolved to eat X" sounds wrong to me from the get go, because people all across the planet eat so many different diets and do that while being healthy.
The only assumption I can make is that we have evolved to eat cooked food (based on our jaw size), but beyond that human beings evolved to eat pretty much anything and live on.
The most significant difference I notice about living in the first world is the absence of hunger.
Going hungry is probably a big part of our common evolutionary adaptations, more than the actual food that fills us back up (not malnutrition, just hunger, get food while hungry and eat well when you have it).
I interviewed Dr. Shawn Baker MD who has done this for a year now. As carb intake decreases the need for vitamin C decreases. He takes no supplements and is in perfect health.
The real problem is carbs and sugar. I don't believe anyone needs to take it the extreme of going all meat - just cut down/out carbs and sugar and you will have lifelong health.