This "myth" is itself a myth, fostered by paleo followers: Wild and Ancient Fruit: Is it Really Small, Bitter, and Low in Sugar?
Why ignore the exception of bananas? Even the wild seedy ones had a good amount of flesh on them. And a lot of current limited availability is due to our huge populations, which wouldn't have been around in paleolithic times.
Northern peoples have lower capabilities of sugar digestion, with the trait peaking in Inuits at 10%. This wouldn't be the case if all climates were equally capable of producing fruit.
In addition, fruit is not the only source of sugar: honey is effectively the same, and honey also comes from flower nectar, which is abundant in sunny places. Not to mention that insects are more active in warm climates, compounding the effect.
The Hadza literally live off of nothing but honey for months at a time. Sugar was abundant in hotter climes; that is a fact. Of course starch is the real engine that powered humanity into the neolithic age and beyond.
You can render better quality sugar from tree sap, and preserve it fairly easily. As was clearly done for many thousands of years in north america. The "tropical fruit" thing is just ridiculous. There is as much accessible sugar and starch in northern climes as in the south, the concentration per acre is just lower.
Maybe the hadza have eaten a lot of honey when they could find it. Generally speaking, they can't count to twenty. Not a lot of evidence there that being in a hot sunny place makes your brain big. You can talk about inuit aging and cancer and lifespan from high fat consumption, fair point, but to this day they are known as skilled engineers. They devised ingenious watercraft, hunting traps, and big game hunting tactics.
Last edited: