Hacker News Reader

They over-stress the hunter and under-stress the gatherer. Yes, meat is calorie-dense and without preservation doesn't last long, likely leading to gorging when it was available. But hunting takes energy and isn't always successful. Depending on meat as a sole (or dominant) food source wasn't a winning strategy. People had to eat fruit and vegetables when available or we wouldn't be here.

View on HN

Assuming there are no high-fat seeds or nuts in large amount available then hunting has a extemely higher gain-to-expenditure energy ratio than gathering plants, especially if you hunt sheep or larger sized animals.

Some meat is also not very rich in fat, which is extremely important. A diet won't survive long on rabbits alone, for example.

I think due to confirmation bias people seem to gravitate to the extremes—the mostly hunter vs mostly gatherer dietary arguments. People seem to miss that our bodies adapted to being able to basically use two forms of energy…glucose or fats and our bodies will try to adapt to run on whichever fuel is most abundant in our environment. It’s one of the reason why our species managed settle in and survive in both the arctic and the kalahari

Reply on news.ycombinator.com