CNN show on sugar

Apples ancestors The wild ancestors of Malus domestica are Malus sieversii, found growing wild in the mountains of Central Asia in southern Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and Xinjiang, China,[3] and possibly also Malus sylvestris.[4]

One question about this particular fruit, how long on average might this ancestral fruit have lasted in a natural setting without human intervened processes. In these regions while micro climatological conditions might vary, generally speaking, very mountainous, and desert like, is it possible that nature itself could allow for the preservation of any fruit of this species for months on end, not unlike storage and distribution ends found today in our market systems? The reason that I suggest this is that it may be a misnomer to think that sweetners and fruits and found in nature have a very limited context in diet from crop fruition to longevity of the fruit severed from its life giving preserving mechanisms (in truth this actually might persist for a time even after a fruit has dropped from its tree?), and that nature itself in some context might have naturally facilitated something of graduated caloric access to these types of fruits. However, likely these natural conditions could be limited enough and one is to wonder the extent of biological influence here, both in eventual crop cultivation and in its ancestral wild origins. If the model of adaptation and survival were true, the view of human evolution and diet could be one I imagined constructed from feast and famine cycles, bounty at times, and dwindling food supplies at other times. Sugar the exact culprit here, no...I think calories could be part of this equation as well. The aspect of evolution from the standpoint of smaller windows of time are such that: humans may have likely evolved in ways not unlike many other animals, such to be non discriminating in so far as calories provided, the human body however, likely hadn't evolved to discriminate as well and likely culprits of a calorie source beyond the immediacy of biological survival and with respect to biological sexual reproductive fruition. This means if the sugar kept you alive to your sexual reproductive years, it served its purpose, however, genetically you probably wouldn't have weeded out problems like type 2 diabetes that might ensue in later years. Refinement and extraction of fruit sugars it seems could be very problematic to the natural prevalence of calories of this type, and it seems links to early manifestations of health problems in a growing youth segment of population could be something of chronicle to this. In terms of diet, however, I would wonder whether sugars are to be vilified completely. This is to say maybe not all sweets are the same...if given a choice between a candy bar and a piece of fruit, the fruit should win out any day right?! I mean the fruit could likely be packed not only with any number of micro nutrients that a highly processed candy bar might not provide, a source of hydration, that a candy bar even loaded with desiccated pieces of fruit meats wouldn't provide, and generally speaking sparing more fiber aiding in the slower metabolisation of sugars present here. The problem isn't sugar alone, its how sugar is used and consumed in diets generally speaking. Personally I have heard some talk about sugar being all too offensive regardless in diets and refusing to grab a piece a fruit in claims of health, but then turn right around and grab an alcoholic beverage, and/or something laden with sugars, far less healthy in my opinion neither aiding their health condition. Maybe the debate shouldn't be on eliminating sugars completely, but learning to gravitate towards healthier sweet alternatives that aid moderation in consumptive practices?

I say this somewhat cautiously in some manner here, I think distinctly there maybe any number of variations of dietary practices found worldwide, neither providing exacting formulations for better 'diets' here.  If you had significant ancestral lineage in the polar artic regions, you might be better suited to certain high fat, high protein diets, so optimal diet could be varied and diverse depending on your genetic ancestry...This being said, something established by evolution, if you are likely well adapted to consume just about any food you like in the short haul like any other human (allergies and what not permitting), but in the long haul you might adapted in different ways relative to others in so far as the type of food stuff you are putting in your body.

As to diet types, eliminating wheat..hmm..interesting diet, although I would suggest it may be a misnomer to think that grain consumption was altogether non existing in hunting gathering societies...depends on what society and where you are talking about.  In the polar or southern areas, yes, probably likely no access to grain, in mid latitudes, more likely...examining ancient American and Central American  prehistory cultures , throughout Asia, Mediterranean areas, and likely one would find evidence of limited grain use in some subsistence based form.  So to say that grain consumption and use were unnatural to human biology in the endemic fashion that we find today relative evolutionary history, may not be an altogether correct assertion.