Starch is Paleo?
Tsimblist brought this presentation Dr. Nathaniel Dominy to my attention recently.
Something commonly raised in favor of a high (animal) fat diet in paleolithic humans is the notion that this was required and/or precipitated the increase in human brain size. He seems to be saying this is not so much the case as is often cited. (Around the 9 minute mark). This is a huge point!! Dominy does not come across as some vegan shill, that's for sure. He pretty much comes out and says that meat eating is a no-brainer -- we're not herbivores -- but favors a higher percentage of plant foods likely comprising our ancestral diet. Worth a watch/listen.
Comments
The Most active recent genetic adaptations are to starch and specific anti nutrients in Underground Storage Organs in populations that consume them (see Hancock AM, Witonsky DB, Ehler E, Alkorta-Aranburu G, Beall C, et al. (2010) Colloquium paper: Human adaptations to diet, subsistence, and ecoregion are due to subtle shifts in allele frequency. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 107: 8924-8930.)
Whenever they could being the key word here. There is no doubt that humans preferred meat as food, I'm sure they were driven to get it just as many or most of us are these days. But just as big game animals had to follow the resources to survive, humans (before animal husbandry) had to follow the big game animals to get significant quantities of meat. As animals tend to know their predators and were constantly on the move, I highly doubt that attaining this meat was simple-likely it was an exhausting and sporadic event. Not to mention population stresses animals experiences when resources didn't pan out, such as with famine or other natural disasters. Having back-up and alternative sources of food, (ie. plants, tubers etc. (equivalent to our mac and cheese and ramen?)), would have been as important to survival as meat. Also, it's hard to argue with the dental record when it comes to selective pressures determined by food availability. It would seem that meat, although a preferred food, just wasn't that available all of the time-not enough for us to evolve a meat eaters mouth anyway.
I liek how you worded this, HG's ate almost anything edible exclusivly whenever they could.
---------------------------------------
I'll try to answer it. Brain size is most definitelly related to cooking food, whether it's starch, vegetable or animal origin. Cooking releases energy easily and cuts down costs of digestion which allows more nutrients and energy to be used elsewhere, namely the brain. Cooking also enforces certain preparations which require lots of cognitive activity and also builds dependence within groups and individuals, hence the tribes and marriage arose after the cooking invention.
Best,
Jessica
If you prefer more private communication, my email is carbsane at gmail dot com. I do try to answer all, but again, life can get busy. I prefer the more public query if only because my responses may answer questions others might have.
:-) Welcome!!
================================================
Thanks , I am not sure what do you mean by "render out some of the fat"?
If you mean that fat just drips away that may be true somewhat and maybe the reason for people inventing and using pans and plates eventually. However the main advantage of cooking was that cooked food was easier to digest and more palatable which made the guts smaller since the digestion is quick and efficient and gave the energy and nutrients to the brain and maybe muscles as well depending on the enviromental pressures.
http://paleovegan.blogspot.com/2011/11/its-curtains-for-expensive-tissue.html
The short story is that there is no inverse correlation between gut size and brain size in any mammal. In fact, there is no such relation between brain size and any expensive tissue, counter to the predictions of the expensive-tissue hypothesis.
On the other hand, there IS a strong inverse correlation between adipose tissue mass and brain size. The leaner the animal, the larger the brain. Fat tissue is not particularly expensive on its own, but it does increase energy needs for locomotion.
Humans walk upright, which is a more efficient method of travel. This frees up additional energy for the brain without requiring a corresponding reduction in fat mass deposits.
@Will: I'm not sure if you're new here or not. If you are, welcome! Interesting, thanks!
Post a Comment
Comment Moderation is ON ... I will NOT be routinely reviewing or publishing comments at this time..