The human race has been around for about 2 million years, and for most of that time, humans survived on a diet that was mostly obtained from hunting game or foraging for roots, with the occasional fruits and raw nuts. When man discovered fire, he probably added some recipes to his raw diet, but his diet still consisted of mostly natural foods found in his immediate environment. With the advent of the Industrial Revolution, all that changed. Instead of working on the farm to grow our own produce, or tend our chickens or mild our cows, we now worked at jobs outside our homes, and were paid in wages that would be exchanged for food. Our food, then, had to be either supplied by others, or prepared ahead of time, and packaged for convenience. As time went on, preservatives were added to the packaged food for longer shelf life. The convenience was a given, permitting us to continue to work outside the home. Moreover, as we became increasingly prosperous, it became a badge for us to have the "best" food, which was typically white and dainty. That meant refined sugar and flour. No more black, coarse bread on our tables.
It is contended that we should return to our ancestors' diet in order to reap maximum health benefits. I concur insofar as a return to a natural diet would remove toxins such as pesticides from our diet, and would force us to consume unprocessed foods, rather than the dainty white food we have come to love and crave.
But the issue goes deeper. While it may be true that our cavemen ancestors were probably healthier from the point of view of nutrition in general, it is rather difficult to contend that they lived longer, for example, or suffered fewer degenerative diseases than we do. Why? First, we don't have that many samples of mummified humans to study and extrapolate the effect of a natural diet. Second, our ancestors died at a much younger age, so "degenerative" diseases didn't have time to become established. Third, in the process of hunting and gathering, our ancestors also did a great deal of exercise, and generally did not lead a sedentary life. And fourth, the process of hunting and gathering was no doubt arduous, and therefore, our ancestors consumed far fewer calories than we do now. It was, after call, a pretty big deal to climb a tree to secure a coconut, then scour the beach for a good rock, crack it open and share it with our clan. Tree nuts presented a similar problem: One had to climb a tree (or shake it), collect the raw nuts, then peel them to get to a tiny morsel of food. Fruits were more immediate. And let's not even think about a hog that might stray into the camp.
So, is the paleo diet healthier? I would say yes, if combined with a great deal of exercise, a caloric reduction to match our forefathers, and a willingness to kick the bucket at about 30.
