Traditional to whom, to hunter gatherers? Early farmers living in tribes? Or people living under strong states that developed over past few thousands years?

Based on my visit to India, travels around middle east, and third world countries. Oils, and fats are the most affordable way to get a high enough amount of calories in a diet for the poor masses. So even if you're poor, and eating rice everyday. It will be typically with something oily and some spices to add flavour.

I read the book, he travelled to multiple continents and generally this is pre- industrial diets, or prior to introduction of vegetable and seed oils, refined sugars, processed carbs, etc. Because he was able to do this research in the 20s, the industrial diet hadn't quite taken over. He also studied mummies in South America. They overwhelmingly had perfect teeth, prior to introduction of modern junk food.

I wonder how they survived berries. Because berries are not good for your teeth due to high (natural) sugar content.

Modern fruits have wayyy more sugar than wild plants, due to years and years of selective breeding.

Even then you still have a lot of fiber and acid to slow down the release and absorption of sugars.

Also berries are fairly seasonal AFAIK

Price observed the traditional cultures he had access to at the time, you can read the details for yourself here: http://www.journeytoforever.org/farm_library/price/pricetoc....

Mostly acquired from animal fat if you're eating animals... Leafy greens (kale etc.) are a great source of plant vitamin K

K1 comes from veggies. K2 is almost exclusively from animal products (except for natto, yum!).

Apparently our bodies can synthesize some K2 from K1 but my understanding is that's quite variable and should not assumed to be adequate.

There's a fair amount of research linking arteriosclerosis to a deficiency of K2, so it's part of my supplement regimentation. It's definitely worth researching if you're interested in optimizing your health in a very lazy manner :-).

I thought there was also a fair amount of research linking red meat consumption to arteriosclerosis, so something doesn't add up.

It turns out the research for that doesn't meet evidence-based medicine standards. Almost all observational studies of human nutrition are junk science with small effect sizes and poor controls.

the evidence for that was mostly based on Ancel Keys' work around the 1950s and it has been pretty clearly shown that he cherry picked the data in his observational study. When analyzed properly, the link between any kind of heart disease and red meat disappears. Look up Gary Taubes work for thorough references

Source? You may actually be thinking of the lipid hypothesis (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lipid_hypothesis) that Ancel Keys developed.

As I gather, we still believe that red meat consumption leads to heart disease, but we're becoming less sure of his hypothesis that the elevated cholesterol resulting from saturated fat (found in red meat) causes heart disease.

There is an assumption here that there is one diet is the best in all respects. But I don't think that's the case. Diets have benefits and drawbacks. Like over the years we have adapted a little bit in this direction and then later a little bit in that direction and that's how we are where we are.

There's nothing wrong with natto..

I think the point was that it's not common across the world. Though I might not be detecting some sarcasm.

It was good natured sarcasm. I've researched making it and if I could get the time and focus to do so, I would.

That said, I have yet to eat it and say "yum!"

What a load of b. We have herbivore teeth, all our closest primate ancestors are herbivore, we have a long, herbivore intestine, an appendix, etc. Feels like you have an agenda to push here.

We have a short omnivore intestine and many of the plants our primate ancestors ate would give you a very bad stomach ache.

We don't look like other predators because our main weapon is our brain and tools rather than claws and strength. We also cook our meat which means we need less powerful jaws and less sharp teeth. Keep in mind that you still have incisors and canines specifically for eating meat. You could even run your tongue along then right now and feel how sharp they are.

Gorillas and hippos also have canines. It's not a good heuristic. Try tearing the flesh off an animal with your canines

Fair point. Though we do cook our meat so don't need to tear raw flesh.

This is correct. The Expensive Tissue Hypothesis of brain/gut development pretty clearly shows that a switch to eating meat and hunting coincided with a shortening of our intestines and enlarging of our brain, making us human.

Incorrect. ETH postulates that there could be a correlation between gut length and brain development, the paper explicitly states that there could be an alternative methodology for how we manage the metabolic requirements for our brains. Back to the point on humans having canines. Herbivores also have canines to tear through fibrous plant material see (gorilla, baboon and hippo).

I think the HN demographic doesn't take well to the tone you used, but there is a lot of evidence that you're right.