The Abounding Fallacy
The most common logical fallacy in evolutionary interpretation is the naturalistic fallacy, which states that something is 'natural, therefore good' or 'unnatural, therefore bad'. We know there are natural things that are bad, and unnatural things that are good. Exploring nature is a great first step, but appealing to nature in argument is illogical.
The Mismatch Hypothesis
At the center of the world of ancestral health is the mismatch hypothesis, sometimes called the discordance hypothesis, which states generally that there is a mismatch between our genes (the way we evolved) and our modern lives (the way we live), and that this mismatch can detract from human potential in various ways (but not all ways!).
Some figureheads fear taking this idea too far. They steer away from the argument that our ancestors were healthy due to their diets. While they concede that our ancestors were in fact healthier than the average modern person in nearly every way, they point out that we can't really say why. Chris Kresser and Mat LaLonde, although proponents of paleolithic/ancestral dieting, both argue that diet and health in this case are simply correlates and therefore do not demonstrate a causal relationship. But how accurate is that?
Evolutionary theory is so well-supported that it would be unreasonable to not accept as fact. So it is therefore reasonable to extract what we can from evolutionary theory. If we know that nature selects for traits that provide an evolutionary advantage, and we know that our ancestors were healthy in various ways (relatively disease-free, physically fit, etc.), what else might we reasonably be able to conclude?
Evolution teaches us that animals adapt to their environments. Inevitably, their biological and psychological systems reach a balance between the pressures of the environment and the necessity of survival and reproduction. Our ancestors certainly were not in perfect health due to this balance. They were, though, much healthier than the average Westerner today.
Evolution also teaches us that the health of our ancestors must have been due to their lifestyle, a lifestyle that evolved according to the dictates of the environment. Therefore, interpreting the elements of their lifestyles that promoted health may help us unravel why and how they reached a natural set point in health.
We already know the important lifestyle elements that contribute or detract from health: exercise, sleep, etc. Above all, diet is almost universally regarded as the most important factor in health. So it stands to reason that, in all probability, it was the diet of our ancestors that contributed most to their health from an evolutionary perspective.
Saying that diet and health are mere correlates is unreasonable given what we know about evolution. The health that our ancestors achieved, while not perfect but still superior, must have been due to their lifestyles, and most principally due to what they consumed (namely, foods available in the wild).
This may not seem like firm ground to stand on. Indeed, we are operating within the realm of logic, not science. But logic is a check and balance for science. It complements science and strategy and helps us to make decisions.
I argue that this logical progression leaves us with something big, because it demonstrates the logic behind eating real food. Real food is good for us because of evolution. It's not good because its 'real'. It's not good because it's natural. It's good for us because humans evolved to eat foods available in the wild. This is something that mainstream people like Micheal Pollan don't seem to emphasize in their literature (for obvious political/sales/marketing reasons). However, I will emphasize that, because it is the truth.
