3 ms·

Hunting probably helped a lot. The ability for a tribe to eat large animals is something that likely helped humans benefit from the different tradeoff of brain

Hunting probably helped a lot. The ability for a tribe to eat large animals is something that likely helped humans benefit from the different tradeoff of brain size/guts size. I am not convinced that fermented food helped as much as meat.

timeon 3y ago
Maybe you could publish a paper.
sph 3y ago
Keep in mind that Harvard dietary research is notoriously anti-meat, due to having a large number of Seventh-Day Adventist on board. It makes absolutely no chronological sense to assume fermented foods to have been in our diet before meat, and has been theorized already that our brain size was only possible thanks to eating highly caloric fat and protein from animals. Imagine how much time we'd have wasted just feeding on grass and roots just to have enough energy to maintain our massive brain. Though it's hard to say in evolution whether the chicken or the egg came first, it's pretty simple: scavenge meat left from predators, enormous amount of caloric surplus, which concurrently enables expanded brain and a lot of "free time" not spent thinking about food, time that could be spent creating tools to make feeding even easier. The rest is history. This is also the reason human babies are so helpless: our brains are so large and energy-intensive that it takes years after birth for it to finally develop.
- account-5 3y ago
  > Though it's hard to say in evolution whether the chicken or the egg came first... I thought it was obvious the egg came before the chicken because: dinosaurs. ;)
- saalweachter 3y ago
  It's worth noting that most animals, even animals you think of as herbivores, will opportunistically eat meat. A video of a deer catching and eating a bird went around a while back.
- andrewflnr 3y ago
  The question is fermentation vs cooking, not fermentation vs meat. Still a little unusual, but not as ridiculous as you're making it out to be.
- comte7092 3y ago
  > Imagine how much time we'd have wasted just feeding on grass and roots just to have enough energy to maintain our massive brain. Roots in particular are pretty energy dense have a pretty high roi, I think you have this backwards. Hunting often comes up short, and isn’t big game every time a group goes out. The “anti-meat” framing is reflective of more of a personal bias that has already come to conclusions. Realistically a number of things were likely happening concurrently. Fermentation is a spontaneous process, and would have happened to any number of scavenged/foraged foods.
  - sph 3y ago
    Nonsense. Meat has twice the caloric density of root vegetables (potato etc.) and a complete spectrum of amino acids and vitamins. Fats, which were a big part of our diet, have 5 times as much caloric density than meat. Let alone the fact that most roots are toxic or contain anti nutrients, as seeds do.
    - comte7092 3y ago
      Potatoes provide a complete spectrum of amino acids as well. In fact every plant does, the only issue comes when one plant provides the sole source of calories in the diet. >Let alone the fact that most roots are toxic or contain anti nutrients, as seeds do. Nonsense meme not grounded in any actual hard data. Anyone observing hunter gatherer populations notes that significant quantities of root vegetables are consumed, outside of populations living in abnormally harsh conditions (e.g. the arctic)
11235813213455 3y ago
That's a common opinion, but it's rather whatever was there, in cold climates large animals, in hotter climates there was plenty vegetables What really helped humans I think is more their morphology, their incredibly precise hands
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

timeon 3y ago

Maybe you could publish a paper.

sph 3y ago

Keep in mind that Harvard dietary research is notoriously anti-meat, due to having a large number of Seventh-Day Adventist on board. It makes absolutely no chronological sense to assume fermented foods to have been in our diet before meat, and has been theorized already that our brain size was only possible thanks to eating highly caloric fat and protein from animals. Imagine how much time we'd have wasted just feeding on grass and roots just to have enough energy to maintain our massive brain. Though it's hard to say in evolution whether the chicken or the egg came first, it's pretty simple: scavenge meat left from predators, enormous amount of caloric surplus, which concurrently enables expanded brain and a lot of "free time" not spent thinking about food, time that could be spent creating tools to make feeding even easier. The rest is history. This is also the reason human babies are so helpless: our brains are so large and energy-intensive that it takes years after birth for it to finally develop.

account-5 3y ago
> Though it's hard to say in evolution whether the chicken or the egg came first... I thought it was obvious the egg came before the chicken because: dinosaurs. ;)
saalweachter 3y ago
It's worth noting that most animals, even animals you think of as herbivores, will opportunistically eat meat. A video of a deer catching and eating a bird went around a while back.
andrewflnr 3y ago
The question is fermentation vs cooking, not fermentation vs meat. Still a little unusual, but not as ridiculous as you're making it out to be.
comte7092 3y ago
> Imagine how much time we'd have wasted just feeding on grass and roots just to have enough energy to maintain our massive brain. Roots in particular are pretty energy dense have a pretty high roi, I think you have this backwards. Hunting often comes up short, and isn’t big game every time a group goes out. The “anti-meat” framing is reflective of more of a personal bias that has already come to conclusions. Realistically a number of things were likely happening concurrently. Fermentation is a spontaneous process, and would have happened to any number of scavenged/foraged foods.
- sph 3y ago
  Nonsense. Meat has twice the caloric density of root vegetables (potato etc.) and a complete spectrum of amino acids and vitamins. Fats, which were a big part of our diet, have 5 times as much caloric density than meat. Let alone the fact that most roots are toxic or contain anti nutrients, as seeds do.
  - comte7092 3y ago
    Potatoes provide a complete spectrum of amino acids as well. In fact every plant does, the only issue comes when one plant provides the sole source of calories in the diet. >Let alone the fact that most roots are toxic or contain anti nutrients, as seeds do. Nonsense meme not grounded in any actual hard data. Anyone observing hunter gatherer populations notes that significant quantities of root vegetables are consumed, outside of populations living in abnormally harsh conditions (e.g. the arctic)

11235813213455 3y ago

That's a common opinion, but it's rather whatever was there, in cold climates large animals, in hotter climates there was plenty vegetables What really helped humans I think is more their morphology, their incredibly precise hands

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]