[KeepUSfree]

My main problem with these arguments is that - just because we survived and were healthy under these conditions - it does not mean that it was "ideal".

For example, I raise ALOT of cacti. And, most come from deserts with minimal nutrients and h2o - this is their natural environment and they do well. However, given more nutrients and more h3o - they do even better (up to a point). The trouble with "more water and nutrients" is that, under those conditions, the cacti thrive - but other plants thrive even more, overtaking the cactus and dominating the biome

The logic of the article precludes interspecies competition".

NOW, I'm doing to eat my fruit loops!

[Pharmboy]

Yes indeed...what exactly IS "ideal"? For a free-living population, in the Darwinian sense, ideal means supporting maximum reproduction: this does not necessarily mean extended life. So, we can alter environments to make individuals hardier (and your cacti are a good example), but will they live longer?

Certainly for hundreds of thousands of years as hunter-gatherers we ate SIGNIFICANTLY less carbs (both simple AND complex) than we do now, and it makes sense to get closer to the diet that our genes and proteins were set for. Our ancestors did not die of cardiovascular disease like we do. That is diet and lack of exercise.

And you certainly can eat your Froot Loops, just moderate.