Isn't that the opposite of what you believe? Paleolithic people were not genetically adapted to high-starch diets like we are. Ergo, a low-carb diet like keto was more natural for them.
The "we" in the sentence is homo sapiens. Neanderthals and Denisovans were not the same species as us.
> "Unlike Neanderthals and Denisovans, who had only two diploid copies, [homo sapiens] carry up to 20 copies of the AMY1 gene, which produces salivary amylase. "
Doesn't that mean we've evolved to eat a lot of starch so the more natural thing for humans to eat is therefore starch, if you follow this line of reasoning? And therefore, we've "evolved beyond" the keto diet?
OP is not making a claim here, he is pointing out counter evidence to someone else's claim, which is that keto diets are optimal for homo sapiens because that is what our genetic ancestors evolved to eat. The presence of significantly more genes for amylase provides strong (although far from conclusive) evidence that homo sapiens have evolved to eat a much more varied diet than paleo proponents assert.
Paleo diet mainly prohibits wheat and refined carbs but allows for specific starches such as sweet potatoes. It's different than keto. At any rate, the existence of enzymes does not indicate that starches should make up a large portion of one's diet either, as we must admit the past century of relative plenty in the Western world has led to all sorts of dietary diseases.
I meant that I find a low fat ketogenic diet works well for me due to specific health issues of mine.
I see no reason why it might be good (or not!) for the population at large, so I laughed at people who thought it might be so based on fanciful evolutionary theories. Theories which appear to be confounded by the discoveries in the paper.
Apologies if I was too terse in my original comment.
I think the keto / paleo things continued with “...and that’s why we modern humans should emulate a paleo diet.” So, parent poster doesn’t agree with this theory and it’s adherents.
