Evolutionary arguments here don't make much sense - the vast majority of human history we had average lifespans on the order of 25 or 30 years. If the negative effects of something (like heart disease) typically fail to manifest within that window there is no selection mechanism by which this kind of eating has an effect on long-term evolution of the species.

You are off by a factor of 2. If you exclude deaths in early childhood people regularly made it to their 60s

But if everyone is done having kids by their mid 30's, the increase in heart disease risk in their 50's still wouldn't show up as an evolutionary pressure. Especially when you consider humans are tribal animals and parental survival is not critical to offspring survival as long as the tribe keeps going.

One interesting hypothesis I've heard is that there is actually a huge selection pressure for long human lifespans, to preserve cultural knowledge and skills necessary for survival, as well as to help with child care. The parenting age adults can't exactly hunt and gather if they have to watch babies all day long- yet human children are pretty helpless and need almost constant care for years.

As a dad, even in modern times I couldn't work at all without someone to help with parenting... however if I can work, I could bring in enough resources to support an entire family.

I would imagine having pepaw & memaw around to watch the kiddos while mom and dad were out gathering food would be a huge boon as far as keeping your progeny alive to reproduce again.

>The parenting age adults can't exactly hunt and gather if they have to watch babies all day long- yet human children are pretty helpless and need almost constant care for years.

Gathering food or light manual work? You just stick 'em in a papoose (we used a shoulder sling). Heavier work, hang the papoose in a tree. Once they can walk they can gather food and do light work.

I'm not saying grandparents wouldn't make it easier, but babies/toddlers are quite adaptable.

I think for hunting (with weapons) you'd want them to be at least 5.

Hmm, good call. Your comment about longer lifespans having an indirect impact on the spread of personal genetic material is also insightful. Glad to be corrected!

I thought that was only true if you included infant deaths. I haven’t researched it but that’s what I as a layman thought.

As others have mentioned, this is true, but is a great illustration of how averages are extremely misleading when representing non-normally distributed data, and are used excessively in popular culture and media. Modal (most common single digit) lifespan of hunter gatherers is usually in the 70s, despite low averages (mean) due to high infant mortality [1]. Modern health care massively reduced infant mortality, but doesn't change mortality much in middle years, when most people don't actually need any healthcare.

[1] https://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007/978-3-3...

That's also incomplete knowledge. If you made it to adult hood your chances of living to 50 or 60 are way underestimated by "pop culture ancient humans" knowledge. Kids are kind of weak compared to adults immune system wise (in most cases!).

Also, when our bodies store calories (de novo lipogenesis), other forms of calories are converted to saturated fats. It doesn't make sense that our bodies main calorie store would be basically 'poison.' Is starch poisonous to a potato?