Right. For millions of years, our diets consisted of a huge array of things, lots of fiber, fruits and nuts, as well as bugs and grubs, and meat. Most dietary problems result from focusing too much on just a few.
Most animals “live lean”. That is, the energy they get from food barely covers the energy they expend to get it (and also cover the “rent” of background energy needs). That balance tends to be maintained by evolution: if there’s an excess of energy, that energy gets put to use doing something to improve “fitness” (number of progeny).
So, running lean as we did, when we did find rich food sources, itwas a bonanza, and it made sense to eat all we could possibly hold – and not just once, but for days if possible. Get fat if you can! Because you’ll need that fat during lean times.
Also, many of the diseases attributable to unhealthy diets happen at advanced ages, generally over 40. First, most hunter gatherers probably didn’t live much longer than that. Second, most of those who do are past their reproductive periods. So there’s little evolutionary pressure against diseases of old age.
Finally, many of the problems of high calorie diets are only problems when there’s little excercise. Lack of exercise is a relatively recent phenomenon.
As we all know, free radicals are bad. That’s why we hear all this stuff about antioxidants (which unfortunately don’t actually help). Free radicals are protons that leak from mitochondria (the energy producers in cells) when the mitochondria has all the fuel it needs but there’s little demand for energy. Decrease the fuel or increase the energy and that leakage mostly goes away.
Interestingly, there are animals that don’t have this leakage problem, and that live very long lives (IIRC, some turtles are examples.) For whatever reasons, there were evolutionary pressures to fix the leakage for a few animals, but not for the vast majority where this is an issue, especially among mammals IIRC. For more on this, Power, Sex, and Suicide by Nick Lane. This may not reflect consensus opinion of biologists, but it’s a good read.