When anyone tells you that the life expectancy of Paleo man was 25, they are not being entirely accurate. That number is low because half the people died before the age of 5.

There is NO WAY IN HELL human beings could have flourished if people routinely only lived to be 25. That is absurd. Same goes for the middles ages. The life expectancy then was also 25, for the same reason as earlier: half the people died in early childhood. Also, lots of women died in childbirth.

If you made it to 20 in both eras, you could reasonably EXPECT to make it to middle age. Finally, the life expectancy from these times had almost nothing to do with nutrition or diet.

Not one nutritionist who cites this fact backs it up with any sort of decent argument. They never say, "These people had a life expectancy of 25 because they ate (horrors!) red meat and no healthy whole grains." Nope. They never say that. It is just a scare tactic.

Oh, and BTW, life expectancy in Ancient Rome and the Middle Ages was similiar to that of the Stone Age, when the Romans and Medieval Europeans ate a diet heavy in grain. If you throw that little factoid into the mix, then you can completely negate these imbeciles' pseudo-argument.

The whole life expectancy thing is simply a bad argument when it comes to what to eat. There are way too many variables to consider. Think of a poor African country with a life expectancy of 40. Could anyone really, honestly argue that their life expectancy is so low because they eat too much meat and not enough grain? Get real.