The researchers tested their assumption that eating meat made possible the visual changes that gave man his face by feeding experimenters "processed" meat using Paleolithic methods and feeding them plant food
I wrote about this topic Recently And following the article, a debate arose on the issues of eating meat versus vegetarianism and veganism. In order to clarify human history, I present here the main results of a study conducted by Prof. Daniel Lieberman and Dr. Katrin Zink from Harvard University, which was recently published in the journal Nature.
I will start by stating that I have nothing against vegetarianism (I downplay eating meat for various reasons), but, since I am opposed to any religious fanaticism, I am also opposed to the "religion of vegetarianism".
Due to the paucity of fossils, the origin of the genus Homo is obscure. On the other hand, it is known that the brain of the species "the erect man" (H. erectus) grew in parallel with the size of the areas where it foraged for food, a development that required more energy. More energy consumption became possible when a change was created that allowed a person to eat less by consuming food with a higher energy value - meat.
The researchers tested their assumption that eating meat made possible the visual changes that gave a person his face by feeding experimenters with "processed" meat using Paleolithic methods and feeding experimenters with plant food as in the Paleolithic period, two foods that "our ancestors" ate.
The experiments examined meat processing methods in the Early Paleolithic period and the effect of processing on the efficiency of chewing and meat consumption. The experiments showed that unlike the chimpanzees who spend about half of the day chewing, switching to a meat diet allowed Homoeractus to reduce the time of chewing.
It was found that "when the consumption of meat constitutes one third of the total "diet", the number of chews per year decreased by two million (a decrease of 13%) and the investment of energy in chewing decreased by 15%". By cutting the meat and softening it (by beating), the number of chews decreased by another 5% and thus the force required for chewing decreased by another 12%." To this was added the cooking that made eating meat an easy and common act.
Compared to previous species in the genus Homo, upright man had small teeth, weak chewing muscles and a small stomach. The combination in which there is a contradiction between the increasing need for energy versus a decrease in the ability to chew and digest and is explained by the transition to eating meat.
Until today it was accepted that what made this possible was cooking, the researchers claim that since cooking has only been known since about five hundred thousand years ago, it was the processing of meat with the help of stone tools and the storage of meat in the ground - pickling, that made the consumption of meat possible with less effort.
The researchers' conclusion is that with the development of the use of stone tools, which allowed the processing of meat which in turn made it possible to invest less energy in chewing and extract more energy from a food unit - the human face developed accordingly.
"Meat working with stone tools gave the human race the opportunity and the impetus to develop a small chewing system that enabled other changes such as improving the ability to speak and making room for a larger brain. A development that shaped the human face.
28 תגובות
To anonymous
I wrote in Parosh a few thousand years (about milk). I specifically read the knowledge about it on this site.
What I said about milk did not mean that man cannot consume milk (most people have a mutation created in the last thousands of years that allows the breakdown of milk throughout life and not just for babies. This knowledge is also from the website) What I did say is that you can manage without milk as man managed 10000 years ago A year is a short time for evolution. The dairy industry has made people think that only milk has calcium, and that those who do not eat milk are almost certain to suffer from calcium deficiency. And that's a lie.
All those interested in B12 have a substitute. His name is B52. Another possible replacement B70 (Valkyrie)
A. You deserve a medal for laziness, ignorance and poor knowledge. Like "eggs are only available in the spring and milk consumption is short" when in fact man has been consuming it for 10,000 years
Interested in knowing who he is?
The "expert" in matters of nutrition, the history of the human race and in general?
Who is he, what is his education and the sources of his "information".
And from where does he pull all the evils?
If she has health problems then for her to consult a professional and formulate a balanced menu. There is nothing in meat (certainly not in the milk that was added to the diet a few thousand years ago, and certainly not in eggs, which in the past, of course, man ate but only before spring) that cannot be supplemented from plants. Because before man's ancestor started eating meat too he was a vegetarian.
The question is whether she even eats legumes, whole grains, etc.
It is not that an unbalanced diet in meat does not create health problems, simply that these are common problems in society. Any unbalanced diet creates various health problems. An unbalanced diet with meat also has its problems such as excess cholesterol and heart problems, not to mention processed meat which is found to be carcinogenic. A lack of iron and calcium is also found in people who eat a lot of meat but not enough vegetables. The Inuit (Eskimos) who really ate almost exclusively from animals had to solve these problems in creative ways such as eating part of the meat raw (highly not recommended with the meat sold today. The meat industry today is a gym for resistant bacteria. Think about the fact that the Ministry of Education today prohibits the use of egg molds for creation because of bacteria but everyone keeps eggs in the fridge next to food)
It's not that the problems of an unbalanced vegan diet are more serious. It is also not certain that the health problems are related at all. I'm not saying that if you go vegan you'll never get sick and live forever.
א
One of my daughters is a vegetarian, and since being a vegetarian she has health problems. So factually - not everyone can be healthy just by eating plants.
I want to see all the vegetarians in the next flu pandemic. Don't get me wrong - I think we should eat much less meat and I think the meat industry is sometimes terrible, but there is a great distance between that and the lies of preachers like Gerry Yurofsky...
If you say that B12 is only created in the intestines of animals (this is absolutely not true) then how does he have it in his blood? The only mutation that can create this? Is it a new stage in evolution?
Does he have remnants in his blood from the age of 15 to the age of thirty? I'm talking about a perfectly normal amount. A gorilla eats almost no animal food and they lack B12.
In any case, you admit that farm animals (yes, those not in the pasture, which is 90% of the meat and 100% of the milk and eggs) receive B12 in the same way as the vegans.
This is what I call the B12 lie. It is presented as if vegans do not live naturally and in fact all of them do not live naturally. And I still tell you that a completely "natural" way of eating (which has problems today because of spraying) was not vitamin deficient. Besides there is no evidence that B12 from a supplement is not absorbed well.
But I want to ask you, do you really think it is impossible to live healthy without meat, milk and eggs? Because that's really the question, not how much the ancient man ate meat.
א
Farm animals receive an unnatural diet, so they need to be provided with supplements. Free grazing does not need any additions.
And don't try to prove anything with a friend. There are always exceptions that survive from every menu
Miracles
You are the one who is wrong, farm animals get the B12 in a supplement.
You can check it out. There are animals that really have the bacteria in their guts it's true but many vegetarian animals don't. I really don't recommend eating contaminated food. By the way, I personally know someone who has been living on a completely vegan diet for 15 years and even makes sure not to eat cooked food at all (in my opinion this is really extreme) he sprouts legumes. He does not take nutritional supplements at all, tries to eat mostly organic and washes the vegetables and cows. He has no deficiencies at all (he undergoes blood tests to verify this) nor B12
I don't think such an extreme diet is necessary. Mainly because the existing supplement is absorbed by the body without a problem.
You have to compare the life expectancy of Indians to a nation with a corresponding standard of living.
It is also clear that it is possible to have an unhealthy vegetarian diet. Yes, when you switch to vegetarianism, you need to build a balanced diet. But the end result is much healthier. (Especially with the meat contaminated today with antibiotics, resistant bacteria and hormones)
א
What you said about B12 is false propaganda from plant eaters. B12 is mainly produced by bacteria. These bacteria are found in the intestines of herbivorous mammals.
So, you ask, how do so many vegetarians live in India? So, first, they don't live for many years. And secondly, they eat a lot of food contaminated with bacteria, which is the source of the vitamin for them. Remember P, they don't live long...
Assaf, what 'religion' are you talking about?
If I think that you have caused suffering to any creature whatsoever, it is something that should be prevented, it is only natural that I will make an effort to convince people to avoid it, and if you are not comfortable, screw you
May
Too bad you really insist on not reading my comments.
I did not say that the ancient man did not hunt.
The second thing is the big B12 lie. You get this vitamin from eating plants straight from the ground (or from eating animals that eat straight from the ground). Today's way of life causes a lack of B12. Even farm animals do not receive B12, so they are injected with it or put as a food additive. So what is more natural to take a supplement or inject the same substance into an animal and then eat it. The ancient man would not have developed a lack of B12 even if he did not eat meat at all. You can also get B12 from plants if you eat a lot of vegetables and don't wash them first. But then you will be able to spray a lot, so it is better to take a supplement that is scientifically proven to be absorbed very well.
About the carrot. You just show you don't know what you're talking about. A carrot has enough calories for a person (it has a lot of amylan), of course it lacks protein and other things. But where did you see that I wrote that he lives only on carrots/roots.
If someone says you can't live healthy without animal food, you don't know what they're talking about.
By the way, even hunters today do not "mainly" eat meat. It is true that meat has a lot of energy, but it also required a lot of energy to get it.
If this article is supposedly against veganism it is ridiculous.
The vegans do not eat meat not because the ancient man did not eat meat. These are because the meat industry today has reached unprecedented levels of causing suffering. There are also those for reasons of health. I have no problem in principle against a Bedouin who raises a number of sheep for food in an adequate way (perhaps I have a problem because grazing causes damage to nature) I would still prefer not to eat meat. Yaniv I am sorry to tell you that I do have a desire to convince people to bring an end to an immoral situation. I do think that it should be established by law that some forms of growth of the industry will not be legal. Yes it will make it less meat. But a) we don't need to eat as much meat as we do today b) in the long run global food prices will drop and the environmental damage will decrease (for every kg of meat you need 20 times more plant food 20 times the area 20 times the damage to the environment).
A.
1. Even today, in the convenient and effortless modern life it is not practical
To live off eating carrots as a main food, because it does not have enough calories and nutrients
others. To come up with this nutritional solution for the primitive man is a joke.
2
. Early man didn't have B12 capsules, which any vegan wants
To maintain his health today he must swallow (except for you, of course...) and therefore
Maybe eating meat is not so new and it is an ancient need preserved
since.
Believe me, I feel the suffering of the animals and recognize the madness of breeding
and the processing of meat today (in terms of the effects on the health of those who eat it)
And I would prefer a world where people are all educated to be vegetarians,
But that is not the subject of the discussion.
The thing with legumes that can't go too far is that you need water to prepare them. Water should be stored in waterproof containers. in vessels but soak legumes in a significant amount. I do not attach importance to tiny amounts that might have been collected.
Therefore, this is a relatively new technology that can only go back a few thousand years.
Similarly with grains such as wheat which is harmful in its beautiful form. Processing technology is required.
א
Your responses are some of the most balanced and balanced I've had the pleasure of reading out of the sea of angry and tension-laden responses in the nutrition discourse.
There is a saying that the wise man does not argue and the debater is not wise
Those who hold the belief that a certain way of life is good and right, will live according to it, where does the urge to fight and prove to others that this is also the right way come from. There is no need to conduct argumentative wars full of pathos and lacking in logos.
"Processing the meat with the help of stone tools and storing meat in the ground - pressing, are what made it possible to consume meat with less effort" It is clear that pressing is also relevant to hard plant food. Any hard vegetable food can be softened with the help of pressing, even legumes (if you bury legumes in the ground after a day or two they will start sprouting and will be completely soft)
I emphasize that I did not say that there is anything wrong with the article, only that what it says about meat is also true and even more so about plant foods.
It's a shame that every response to something starts with "You're wrong"
For a moment I did not say that the ancient man did not eat meat, I did not even say that meat is harmful to man (today I have no doubt that it is harmful because the animals are raised in substandard conditions and the meat is contaminated with antibiotics resistant bacteria and hormones) you can check that I said that there is such a claim that man has not fully adapted to eating meat because he eats Relatively short time for evolution. I can't say if this is true but it sounds pretty logical. What is certain is that man can live without meat, just like all the mentioned omnivorous animals (but omnivores whose diet is mainly plant-based and who were obviously vegetarians in the past and "learned" to diversify their diet) Man is not a pure vegetarian, that is clear to me. Assaf is also clear that the person at every stage ate eggs but not in the amount that approaches today (a family of 4 can buy 4-5 molds a week)
In the wild, most birds lay eggs only once a year) and no animal drinks milk all its life, yet they have calcium.
Apart from the fact that it is lost science, everyone says that the human food pyramid is based on carbohydrates. (The problem today is that most carbohydrates in the West are simple, i.e. white bread and sugar, so there is an epidemic of diabetes, of course excess weight also contributes, so the Paleos say that diabetes is due to carbohydrates) In most societies, a small part of the diet was meat (except for Eskimos near the North Pole, where there really are almost no plants, Maybe even in the ice age they lived like this) even a shepherd can't eat meat every day. Today people think that every day they must eat meat. Besides, there are also companies that have been completely vegetarian for hundreds of years. What I'm saying is that it's absolutely possible and even healthier (of course if you take a spoiled western diet, i.e. junk food and white flour and remove all animal food without balancing, of course you won't be healthy, but in any case it's an unhealthy diet)
May
You can do an experiment: take a carrot and try to eat it whole
After that crush it or even cut it into cubes. If you're not convinced, you can repeat the experiment with an uncooked sweet potato and see if you can eat it if you mash it (tasty is another story and don't forget that the second choice is to chase a rabbit that you're not sure you'll catch either) now we'll see if you say that cutting and beating is not relevant to plant food. Lacts didn't eat only cows like apples (you can try eating only cows for two days and see why) also legumes and seeds including grains can be eaten easily if you crush them even coarsely and soak them in water even without fire. On the contrary, now it seems to me that the difference in vegetable cash is greater than meat. A chimpanzee eats a sweet potato without a problem for a human today it seems almost impossible for a nation of meat that can be eaten raw but of course it is more difficult
I read the summary of the article elsewhere, and there it is about the beginning of cutting and crushing meat about 2-3 million years ago.
The researchers' conclusions are wrong according to a simple test: already Homo habilis, 600 thousand years before Arctus, had smaller jaws and smaller teeth than chimpanzees. Its brain size was also 60 percent larger than that of a chimpanzee, which according to research conventions is similar to the ancient ape from which both humans and chimpanzees were born.
The main reason for the changes in the shape of the Bilis and Arctus was the development of voice communication, which led to the growth of the brain and intellectual ability, which led to the processing of meat, and not the other way around as these and other researchers suggest.
Asaf
Paleo is not a religion. It is a diet that is based on false science and false assumptions and inconsistencies.
Veganism is usually an ideology. Do you define any ideology as a religion? If any group of people who want to promote an idea is a religion then yes it is a religion. According to this, even those who fight against global warming are religious. Surely those who demonstrate in front of the conferences of industrialized countries are really religious fanatics.
No.
There is no evidence that the early hominids from which man evolved used fire
Direct (roasting) or cooking to prepare their food (they processed their food by cutting and beating)
Therefore, eating legumes is not related to brain development in Homo erectus,
Because cutting and beating are not applicable regarding the processing of legumes for food, therefore your responses are not related to reality.
Pigs do not have tusks in the upper jaw like carnivores but tusks in the lower jaw like an elephant.
What is not clear?
No
Again and again you repeat the same error, so FYI,
For most freezers, insects and poultry eggs are considered a delicacy,
Chimpanzees hunt to eat meat,
Pigs are omnivores (like humans) and happily eat meat,
Even hippos were seen eating meat,
And of course even today there are human societies that make a living exclusively on meat and animal products,
And finally, it is customary to examine hunter-gatherers nowadays in order to draw conclusions about our past,
Leket-hunters, as their name suggests, hunt and eat meat,
Fangs do not only exist in carnivores, most monkeys have fangs and almost all monkeys rely mainly on plant food. Pigs also have tusks and neither is a carnivore and did not evolve from a carnivore.
The commenters forgot to refer to the article and Rosenthal did not help them..
All in all, he wrote that hominids that evolved before Homo erectus ate meat
(And this is checked and known by the idioms that exist almost exclusively in meat eaters)
However, in contrast to them, Homo Eractus processed the meat that was made with primitive methods
Softer and therefore teeth and jaw muscles became smaller which made room for a big brain
More in Gogol.
Capish?
For the commenters:
I have nothing against vegetarianism.
I have a lot against religious fanaticism,
At the same time and after all the rem
It is good that those who advocate the new "religion" - the paleo-diet
knew that according to a new study
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/03/160314091128.htm
It turns out that the Neanderthal diet included about 20% plant food...
Here was a description of facts. Why does it bother you that half a million years ago crushed raw meat was the preferred food and today in the age of pressure cookers it is possible to use other food sources that are more suitable.
It would be a lie if they try to derive an ideology from the conclusions or if they hide facts because they conflict with them.
Some things I did not understand.
A. Why is everything that is written true about meat, it also sounds true about plant food. It is clear that plant food is not only cows and leafy vegetables. Everything mentioned in the article can also be true about root vegetables and legumes. I did not say for a moment that the ancient man did not eat meat.
B. You bring the article against vegetarianism and I don't understand what in the article is against vegetarianism. If I understood correctly, the research talks about it when man started to process his food (in my opinion, not only meat) then his jaw and teeth got smaller. What does this mean about vegetarianism? Is it healthier to eat minister?
I don't think anyone claims that at any stage the ancient man ate meat. The claim is that originally man was created from a vegetarian animal and the adaptation to eating meat is not perfect because it is new in evolutionary terms (everything is relative). Man (not all men to be precise) adapted to drinking milk after weaning. The lie begins when they say that a person must drink milk.