“….in contrast to common belief, hunting probably played a less dominant role from a nutritional point of view compared with gathering, and on average, it makes up 35% of the subsistence base for present-day worldwide hunter–gatherers, independent of latitude or environment (27,37). For example, hunting by some surviving hunter–gatherers is still not very successful: the probability for a kill in !Kung bushmen is only 23% (37), and the subsistence of Hadzabe, as described by Woodburn (39), consists of 80% plant foods. In the Paleolithic, however, hunting might have been more productive, due to both higher animal biomass and hunter–gatherers not being displaced to marginal environments, unattractive for crop cultivation or cattle.”
I have the impression that the Kitavans have better health and longevity, on average, than Inuit. For example, Kitavans have no recorded osteoporosis, which appears to have occurred among isolated Inuit (see here and here). Could this suggest that, compared to the Inuit diet, the Kitavan diet more closely resembles the ancestral African diet?
Also, Japanese, particularly Okinawans, and residents of Hong Kong, have better health and longevity, on average, than any other modern nation, due largely to lower rates of obesity, cardiovascular disease, cancer, and dementia. Further, looking at international comparisons of average IQ, the top five nations are:
1) Hong Kong
2) South Korea
Could this suggest that, compared to the Austrian, German, Italian, or Swedish diets, in terms of brain nutrition, these Asian diets more closely resemble the ancestral African diet? Would that make sense? That would certainly shake things up, eh?
Or, perhaps during the main part of human evolution, our ancestors on average ate something in between the extremes of the Inuit and the Kitavan diets, thus producing an animal primarily adapted to a mixed paleofoods diet, that also can adapt, with variable success, to both extremes. Would that make sense? Let's see.