It's not the variety of the diet but the quality of the food itself. Bread is good for energy, but if all you're eating is bread, you're not getting complete proteins, omega 3s, and other nutrients. It's fine, however, to eat nothing but meat and many societies did this for hundreds of thousands of years.

Farming is anything but sedentary, especially in the 19th century and prior. People's height was stunted because food was not abundant enough. Agricultural societies tended to grow faster than farming productivity could keep up with. A lot of people were simply malnourished and therefore never reached their natural height capacity.

But as you say, the hunter / gatherers such as the native Americans were taller on average than the first European settlers to arrive in America. This is not due to a particularly diverse diet. Most cultures subsisted on meat from hunting (largest source of nutrition) and a select few vegetables. The difference is that hunter / gatherer societies tended to self regulate their population according to available resources.

Other than those who live in the arctic, which societies did this? You have sources? Thanks!

Then there was a shift towards agricultural societies, where people relied on their plantations and domesticated cattle. I don't think the cattle meat would be enough for most of their meals, probably the most of them would be bread and soup.

This is just a vague recollection from A Brief History of Humanity, but it makes sense to me. Eating just meat sounds terribly "costly", you have to actively ignore all other sources of food around you.

But in general, I think we know a lot less about the lives of people so long ago than many people (including academics) like to think. Research methods are often based on either assuming modern people's lifestyles are "just like" ancient people, or big leaps from extremely limited archeological evidence.

Grass-eating bison, aurochs, horses, goats, sheep, etc were our primary source of nutrition in the ice age, not to mention mammoths (as well as fish).

And this is evidenced by ancient cave paintings tens of thousands of years old depicting hunts as well as the bone remnants in the caves and homes of ancient humans.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2115127-ancient-leftove...

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/human-ancest...

But mostly what the conflicting theories with consensus that changes from generation to generation tells me is that it's very hard to know for sure how people 15K+ years ago lived.

Also the Maasai tribe in Africa: https://www.wired.com/2012/09/milk-meat-and-blood-how-diet-d...

The Sami in Scandinavia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C3%A1mi_people

So really all societies did this until the advent of agriculture ~10K years ago. And even then, the agricultural revolution was not evenly distributed and hunting or fishing as a primary source of nutrition was common even just 150 years ago.

The only thing you're really missing there is dietary fiber, which -- being indigestible -- doesn't have nutritional value. However, it does interact with your intestines as it passes through them in a manner which tends to promote their health.

So no, survival is not even a question that should come up.

Fiber does have a health impact as you say, and having good health is one of the main ways known to delay death. And what is survival but the delay of death?

My point is that by eating a larger variety of nutritious food, you are less likely to suffer from poor health due to a lack of something you need.

It misses iron, so it puts him at risk of anemia. Which is very real thing.

Scurvy and other vitamins deficience diseases are very real thing too.

So yes, if that food was literally all he eate long term, the question of survival makes perfect sense.

You know, you are going to die. They're going to lower you into a hole in the ground. The worms will have you for dinner. That's it.

Right before you die, are you going to say to yourself, "boy, I'm sure glad I made sure to have a balanced diet with good nutrition" ? Will you say, "I'm glad I didn't enjoy cheese and bread with butter every single day" ?

70 years of pure joy, of every moment counting, of getting just what you want, is worth a million years of trying to extend your life and health. Don't live the life you think you're supposed to, and don't live for the future. Whatever you like, do it now.

Living in the moment doesn't mean ignoring the future consequences of your actions.

Or maybe I can just take basic precautions like eating more than three different foods? You make it sound like that is such a burden, but it really isn’t. It’s possible to enjoy your life even while taking care of yourself.

In fact, I have a much easier time being happy when my health is good than when I am sick, so I’d say these precautions are important for a good life.

Exactly, wouldn’t you end up with scurvy from the lack of vitamin C?

Your "not get scurvy" not levels of Vit C are really small. As in months on the sea small (or maybe college freshman small)

Perhaps diet has much less to do with health compared to physical activity than Americans tend to act as if.

Besides ... you've heard of studies that have shown that the calorie expenditure of hunter-gatherers, walking around all day, is about the same as couch potato Americans sitting around all day... here's the link: https://www.npr.org/sections/13.7/2013/06/13/191036200/what-...

Both his food and shape are pretty much the normal shape for people living in villages doing small farming.

Could be genetics I suppose?

Glad he's found happiness though.