Hypothesis - the significance of the plant to animal ratio in nature

In terms of biomass the plant kingdom far far outweighs the animal kingdom.

So what does that have to do with anything? Hypothesis: it has everything to do with the pre-agricultural conditions our biology and instinctual "drives" evolved in, the relative scarcity of energy (food calories) in those pre-agricultural conditions, and our subsequent instinctual proclivity toward finding and consuming higher sources of energy where choices were available.

Hypothesis: our biology and instincts evolved pre-agriculturally where early human population density was a function of the certain conducive conditions, namely relatively warm climates, and the highest density (on earth) of all life forms. Under those conditions the most available calories were (by far) plant based. Therefore the most efficient conversion of calories to energy (least effort spent obtaining) came from plant foods.

The "paleo diet" view that most calories came from animal sources of calories is being contested (and overturned) by archaeological anthropologists who instead of looking at surviving tools measure composition types of biological evidence. In the evolutionary expansion of human habitat from rainforest to colder grassy savanna the plant to animal biomass ratio was still heavily weighted to plants. Humans hunted more, but most calories continued to come from plants.

Even with more advanced tool making capability (clothes to keep warm), human population densities continued to cluster to "conducive conditions". I think of this as a "treeline" metaphor, where we see a transition to tundra above a certain high elevation. Locations on the planet are more or less "conducive" to density and variety of life forms based mostly on temperature, and resultant availability of calories. Our species has evolved primarily toward those more "conducive" conditions that are characterized by plants being the more available and efficient sources of calories.

Consequently we see in studies of pre-industrial cultures that average levels of longevity and health comport closely with the ratio of plants to animal in the diet. More plants equals greater average levels of longevity and health.

Finally, "our subsequent instinctual proclivity toward finding and consuming higher sources of energy where choices were available" (as mentioned earlier), goes a long way to explaining our collective "post-industrial dietary stupidity" in regards to the toxic crap we invent in laboratories and manufacture in factories, and then market and sell as "food". This includes BTW the factory "farming" of animals (hard to call that abhorrent process "farming").

So...we are "driven" by instinct (unconsciously) to consume the most calorically dense substances we can wrap our lips around. And now we have the technology to manufacture exactly those substances. We have an inherent soft spot for science fiction also...the one from the 50's about "meal in a pill" has been particularly collectively self destructive. Current "food science for profit" has leveraged our instinct for high calorie substances to the hilt. And now the shaft is in so deep we don't even know it's there.

Time to wake up.

The nutrient package in food is already perfect

One of the topics Dr. Doug Graham speaks about frequently is the symmetries found in nature versus the asymmetries of questionable logic introduced with technology. Here he addresses the notion that artificial concentration of nutrients is a good idea.

DR. MICHAEL GREGER - HOW NOT TO DIET: The Science Of Healthy Weight Loss

Dr. Michael Greger in conversation with Brian Rose of London Real.  Dr. Greger is an unusual combination of infectious enthusiasm and expert scientific perspective. Here he recounts the story of how he came to be that person, and the very significant work he's been doing since.