That's certainly some food for thought, however the fact is that lobster was very plentiful at one point and now it's considered an expensive food. If early colonists were indeed subsisting off lobsters for a time as the article suggests, then that would certainly give credence to it being such a readily available food that people would get sick of it, and eventually only the people who couldn't afford an alternative might eat it, however even that doesn't make much sense, because if they could get lobster then they would also have access to crab, tons of shellfish as well as regular fish which even now are quite easy to gather or catch year round.

On a side note I have always been a bit perplexed at how many people died in the early colonies from starvation. It's the middle of January right now and I can easily go the coast and gather mussels, fish for Pollock and even grabs still are plentiful (which would have been even more plentiful back then). I suppose they just didn't have the knowledge of readily available food back then.