I think there is some inherent bias in using modern forager-horticulturalists as a reference point for comparing agriculture to hunter-gathering. Any culture that both forages and farms presumably does so because in their particular situation (perhaps due to climate, geography, soil quality, etc) there isn't an obvious advantage to one strategy over another. Wherever one strategy was clearly inferior, it would presumably be abandoned rapidly. Most societies historically were not forager-horticulturalists, suggesting that the conditions of the few societies that are should be considered outliers.

How sure are we that hunting gather societies were more common than forager-horticulture? Is it possible most societies had some component of horticulture and the hunter-gather societies only exist because of favorable environmental conditions? It seems that many human developments have been attributed to occurring earlier and earlier, such as language, tool use, and art. Is there a reason to think horticultural wouldn't be the same? It seems like it would leave little trace for anthropology or archeology to discover, so may have been happening longer than we expected. It's sort of like how we call it the "stone age" even though wooden tools were likely much more common because stone tools are more survivable, and therefore more likely to be found. Our current conception of how early humanity lived their lives is dominant by what we don't know instead of what we do know. That is, unless I am mistaken and there is evidence that early humans didn't use some form of horticulture.

Horticulture is usually defined by domestication, so we're pretty darn confident that early human subsistence strategies didn't rely on it based on their presumed lack of time machines and the fact that there's so much time between the evolution of AMHs and observable domestication. You can double or triple the known dates and still have 90%+ of human history left over.

In a broader sense, pretty much everyone in the field would say that there's a huge amount of overlap in those terms and trying to pigeonhole a particular society into one or the other over a long period of time is more frustrating than fruitful. Human subsistence strategies were hugely diverse and we only have a small glimpse into that diversity with ethnographic analogy and the material record.

Disclaimer: I know one of the authors, but wasn't involved with the research at all

There are definite tradeoffs. Hunter gatherers tend to be better nourished while in their prime but with no noticeable calorie surplus, while agrarian societies are the reverse.

Any mix of the two I suspect bolsters bulk calories with foraged protein and nutritious plants.

I'm not sure I follow... So:

> Humans get energy from high intensity tasks / work

> Humans have innovated out of high intensity work which offered more opportunities for cultural and social connection

> Humans are losing energy because we don't do high intensity tasks / work anymore

Is that right?

Does anyone have a link to a pre-print of this article?