“Eat like a caveman and you’ll be healthier.” It sounds simple, powerful, and even a bit romantic. But what if the real diets of our ancient ancestors looked nothing like the glossy "paleo" and "carnivore" trends flooding social media today?
Influencers who promote so-called "paleo", "carnivore", or "ancestral" diets often claim that copying the way early humans supposedly ate will make us leaner, happier, and more productive. These modern versions of "ancestral" eating usually centre heavily on meat and animal products, with plenty of fresh, whole foods but sharp restrictions on grains and dairy.
The logic behind these rules goes like this: Paleolithic people (early humans) did not farm, did not process grains, and did not use dairy, so we shouldn’t either. In many wellness circles, these diets are even marketed as near-miracle fixes for a wide range of illnesses and chronic conditions — often with very limited scientific evidence to back up those bold claims. And this is the part most people miss...
A new study led by archaeologist Anna Florin from the Australian National University and Monica Ramsey from the University of Toronto Mississauga directly challenges the core myth behind these trends: that early humans ate in a way that resembles today’s social-media-driven "paleo" lifestyle.
Florin is blunt about it. "A lot of this is very pop culture," she told SBS News, emphasizing that the version of the "paleo diet" we see online is more about marketing and identity than about archaeological reality.
According to her, the real diets of Paleolithic humans were not a single, uniform way of eating, and they certainly were not focused primarily on meat. That alone may shock people who have been told that eating mostly steak and bacon is "going back to our roots". But here’s where it gets controversial: the best archaeological evidence we have suggests that early humans were flexible, inventive omnivores who ate a wide range of plant and animal foods.
Florin and Ramsey examined some of the oldest and most important ancient human sites across the globe, specifically to test and challenge the story we tell about how our species used to eat.
As Ramsey puts it, "Our species evolved as plant-loving, tool-using foodies who could turn almost anything into dinner." That image is a lot more diverse and creative than the stereotype of a muscular hunter endlessly chasing mammoths.
The 65,000-year-old rock shelter that changes the story
In their paper, published in the Journal of Archaeological Research, the researchers looked at multiple Paleolithic sites worldwide. One of the most striking is a rock shelter near Kakadu National Park in northern Australia, which contains the oldest known evidence of human occupation on the continent — at least 65,000 years old.
This site, called Madjedbebe, lies on the traditional lands of the Mirarr people. The Gundjeihmi Aboriginal Corporation are the custodians of the cultural knowledge associated with this place, and their role highlights an important point: understanding ancient diets is not just about lab work and dig sites, but also about respecting and learning from Indigenous knowledge systems.
Inside the Madjedbebe shelter, archaeologists have found compelling evidence of plant processing, not just hunting. For example, there are signs of cooking and peeling tubers (starchy underground plant parts, similar to yams or potatoes), along with evidence of people eating the hearts of palms.
Florin describes one traditional-style method: "What they do is char the outside of [the palm] and leave it roasting overnight, remove the outside and then pound up the starchy part." The result? A soft, carbohydrate-rich food that could provide steady energy.
"Then you have a lovely carbohydrate-heavy food, and that's what's being eaten," she explains. This is a far cry from the idea that early humans were constantly chewing on raw meat and little else.
Madjedbebe is not unique. Other major archaeological sites — such as Niah Caves in Borneo and Shanidar Cave in Iraqi Kurdistan — also show clear evidence that ancient humans were omnivores, consuming both plant and animal foods in diverse ways.
"It's this research happening all around the world that's really pushing back against that stereotype of a Paleolithic meat eater," Florin said. And this is the part many high-profile diet gurus conveniently leave out.
"We are not carnivores" — and never were
To understand why the modern "paleo" branding is misleading, it helps to zoom out. The Paleolithic period spans an enormous chunk of time. It began around three million years ago and ended roughly 12,000 years ago, when the Neolithic era began — the time often described as the dawn of farming or the "agricultural revolution".
As Florin points out, even the name is basic: "Paleo just means old, and lithic is stone." So "Paleolithic" essentially means "old stone age".
But here’s the crucial point: this period covers many different human species and populations living in vastly different environments — from ice-age Europe to tropical forests and arid deserts. Over millions of years, people faced changing climates, landscapes, and available foods.
"It's a really massive time frame," Florin explains, "people have lived in different parts of the world, different environments, different climates, you know, diets were very varied across that." Expecting there to be one single, correct Paleolithic diet is like assuming everyone alive today eats the same way, regardless of where they live or what they grow up with.
So why did the myth of the meat-obsessed caveman become so stubborn and widespread?
Part of the answer is practical: it is simply easier to find evidence of animal consumption in the archaeological record. Bones, teeth, and stone hunting tools preserve well over thousands or millions of years. In contrast, many plant remains are delicate and decay quickly.
Florin notes that a lot of the early archaeological discoveries came from a time dominated by a particular kind of "Western thinking" that romanticised the image of the strong, male hunter as the ideal human. This mindset elevated hunting and meat-eating as the core of human identity, while underestimating the importance of gathering, cooking, and processing plants — tasks that, in many societies, were heavily associated with women.
Today, however, more advanced scientific methods are transforming what we can see in the archaeological record. Techniques now allow researchers to analyse tiny traces of charred plant material, microscopic food residues, and even fruit pips that have survived ancient cooking fires.
"There's actually a lot of direct archaeological evidence for early humans using and processing a range of plants," Florin explains, including surprisingly sophisticated methods such as grinding and cooking grass seeds. These activities were once thought to have appeared only much later, closer to the beginnings of formal agriculture. The new evidence shows that our ancestors were experimenting with plant-based foods far earlier than we assumed.
This has big implications for how we think about "natural" human diets today.
Florin cautions against using the past as a rigid rulebook: "We shouldn't be so puritanical in saying 'this was their diet and this is what we should eat now.'" In other words, just because a certain food was or wasn’t common thousands of years ago doesn’t automatically mean it is good or bad for modern humans.
Her conclusion is crystal clear and potentially controversial for fans of meat-only trends: "We are not carnivores, and at no point in evolution have we been." Human biology — from our teeth and jaws to our digestive systems — reflects an omnivorous species adapted to a wide variety of foods, not just animal flesh.
This doesn’t mean that everyone must eat the same, or that individual choices about meat, grains, or dairy are wrong. But it does raise a challenging question for modern "paleo" and "carnivore" advocates: if the real archaeological record shows varied, plant-rich diets, how "ancestral" are these popular diets really?
So what do you think?
- Do you feel misled by how "paleo" or "ancestral" diets are marketed online?
- Should influencers be more honest about how complex and diverse ancient diets actually were?
- Or do you believe that, even if the history is simplified, these diets can still be useful in the modern world?
Share your thoughts — do you agree that humans were always flexible omnivores, or do you side with the meat-heavy "caveman" narrative? Which interpretation makes more sense to you, and why?
