Again i think when you say things like "the average person today would balk at" you're assuming that average is some american/english person.

Even here in northern europe one of the most common foods for lunch is liver. As in pretty much everyone, from 4 year olds to 90 year olds consume it. It's probably a top 3 common food for lunch. Not to mention China where all kinds of weird parts and organs of the animal are regularly eaten. Africa too.

My point is and was just that when people discuss these sorts of things, they almost only do it from a western, but even more so an American perspective.

What did ancient humans eat? Some ate mostly fish. Some mostly fruits, berries and grains. Some mostly meat. Some a lot of roots and potatoes. Some ate a mix of everything. The inclination to say "oh well red meat is bad" or "well grains are bad" or "no meat is bad" because some group of humans 120,000 ago didnt eat x or y, completely ignores the fact that humans ate what was available, not what was healthy. You can't conclude anything based on ancient diets.

If you lived by the sea you ate fish. if you lived in a rainforest you ate fruits, if you lived on the steppes you ate meat. This has nothing to do with health. I know you weren't claiming that, but i think even discussing what the "average" person ate is completely irrelevant.

My ancestors were inuit, i'm pretty sure they ate a lot of meat and not many fruits.

People can keep going back further nd further until they can say all our ancestors ate grass because some ancient mammal did so. Modern humans did not exist prior to 3.5 million years ago so who cares what some ancient ape ate. I dont really care what species other than homo sapiens eat.