Fat, Not Meat, May Have Led to Bigger Hominin Brains • Hacker News Board

Re: Fat, Not Meat, May Have Led to Bigger Hominin Brains

#121

Post by lawlessone » Mon, Apr 08, 2019, 1:26 PM UTC

oska wrote: post #48

abtinf wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A number of replies to this comment point out that modern animals also eat bone marrow. However, that may have not been the case a couple million years ago. In “Guns, Germs, and Steel”, Diamond points out that animals in Africa are particularly vicious and dangerous due to their coevolution with humans. Animals outside of Africa rapidly went extinct as evolved humans spread to the rest of the world, since they didn’t…

The chances of a highly nutritious, energy dense food being just left to go to waste by nature are practically zero. There are many, many examples of animals becoming highly evolved/specialised to exploit such food sources in habitats that don't feature humans (e.g. the oceans). The GP comment was an egregious example of a "Just-so story".

>The chances of a highly nutritious, energy dense food being just left to go to waste by nature are practically zero.

Well, humans are nature so..

Re: Fat, Not Meat, May Have Led to Bigger Hominin Brains

#122

Post by Mikeb85 » Mon, Apr 08, 2019, 1:31 PM UTC

It was likely both. Protein offers diminishing returns after you have 'enough', fat offers good amounts of energy and nutrients. Also, humans likely have always eaten some plant material, but wild plants are quite poor in calories and macronutrients.

Re: Fat, Not Meat, May Have Led to Bigger Hominin Brains

#123

Post by Mikeb85 » Mon, Apr 08, 2019, 1:34 PM UTC

huffmsa wrote: post #100

This is new news? O thought it was established a while ago that humans have only made the progress we have because of an increase in animal fat consumption. Hell, with a few exceptions, you can cluster mammals in a pretty accurate grouping of intelligence by the percentage of animal fat in their diet.

Initially it was a caloric surplus from meat, but the largest gains came as a result of cooking, which makes food more digestible.

Re: Fat, Not Meat, May Have Led to Bigger Hominin Brains

#124

Post by quadcore » Mon, Apr 08, 2019, 2:17 PM UTC

SRTP wrote: post #51

quadcore wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I use to feed street dogs in Thailand. I gave them BBQ-cooked chicken legs, and gosh, there would be nothing left in 10 seconds.

While I'm sure you did this out of good will, please don't give chicken bones to dogs. They tend to splinter, leaving sharp spikes that may hurt the dog's intestines. Beef and pork bones are better since these don't shatter.

I see, didnt know that. Thanks for letting me know.

Re: Fat, Not Meat, May Have Led to Bigger Hominin Brains

#125

Post by knowThySelfx » Mon, Apr 08, 2019, 2:46 PM UTC

msiyer wrote: post #114

knowThySelfx wrote: post #71

Ghee is considered "Brain food" in Indian culture. It is included in many food items and also in Ayurvedic Meds. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/amp39Gheeamp39-and-its-m...

Poisons in very low quantity are used to treat diseases. Could it be that Ayurveda uses milk to treat the imbalance of the "doshas"? As a food, Ghee was used so very sparingly that it was almost not used at all. We cannot compare the quantities we consume today with those before the Dairy Revolution.

Speaking from experience here. I live in India and have experienced it first hand.

Re: Fat, Not Meat, May Have Led to Bigger Hominin Brains

#126

Post by knowThySelfx » Mon, Apr 08, 2019, 2:50 PM UTC

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #105

knowThySelfx wrote: post #71

Ghee is considered "Brain food" in Indian culture. It is included in many food items and also in Ayurvedic Meds. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/amp39Gheeamp39-and-its-m...

> It is included in...Ayurvedic Meds “Ayurveda medicine is considered pseudoscientific” [1]. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayurveda

I know it will be considered pseudoscientific. I've used it and had positive results. What I am posting here is based on my own experience and observation from living here in India. I didn't come here advocating it. Just stating what I experienced. It may not always have a scientific basis in the modern sense.

Re: Fat, Not Meat, May Have Led to Bigger Hominin Brains

#127

Post by ulisesrmzroche » Mon, Apr 08, 2019, 3:29 PM UTC

glastra wrote: post #120

sc4les wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well fat to grow but it burns sugar

It can burn glucose (table sugar is sucrose ). It can also burn other stuff [0] and have almost no requirements for glucose, all of which can be provided through gluconeogenesis from amino acids and the glycerol backbone of fat. [0]: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2874681/

It prefers to burn glucose. You have to be starving it to get it to use ketones.

What does that tell you?

Re: Fat, Not Meat, May Have Led to Bigger Hominin Brains

#128

Post by _emacsomancer_ » Mon, Apr 08, 2019, 5:44 PM UTC

msiyer wrote: post #114

knowThySelfx wrote: post #71

Ghee is considered "Brain food" in Indian culture. It is included in many food items and also in Ayurvedic Meds. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/amp39Gheeamp39-and-its-m...

Poisons in very low quantity are used to treat diseases. Could it be that Ayurveda uses milk to treat the imbalance of the "doshas"? As a food, Ghee was used so very sparingly that it was almost not used at all. We cannot compare the quantities we consume today with those before the Dairy Revolution.

The writers of the Rgveda certainly were members of a pastoralist society, so they would have had a decent amount of dairy, if not quite the same quantities as today.

Re: Fat, Not Meat, May Have Led to Bigger Hominin Brains

#129

Post by glastra » Mon, Apr 08, 2019, 6:14 PM UTC

ulisesrmzroche wrote: post #127

glastra wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It can burn glucose (table sugar is sucrose ). It can also burn other stuff [0] and have almost no requirements for glucose, all of which can be provided through gluconeogenesis from amino acids and the glycerol backbone of fat. [0]: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2874681/

It prefers to burn glucose. You have to be starving it to get it to use ketones. What does that tell you?

Your body also prefers to metabolize ethanol (which provides quite a bit of energy, by the way) before anything else in the bloodstream.

What does that tell you?

Absolutely nothing. I could go with the "get rid of poison" narrative, but that is a bit too extreme and is usually taken with a great deal of psychological resistance. I couldn't blame you.

Also, I believe that a well-formulated ketogenic diet is pretty far from starvation, enabling me to do exactly the same, if not more, as when I was running on carbohydrate. Of course, you might believe otherwise, but do take the time to think critically about where this belief stems from.

Re: Fat, Not Meat, May Have Led to Bigger Hominin Brains

#130

Post by strainer » Mon, Apr 08, 2019, 7:09 PM UTC

huffmsa wrote: post #101

strainer wrote: post #20

I don't subscribe to New Scientist's trick title or the theories of nutrient limited mammalian brain evolution. Compare brain size of carnivore species with herbivores - there is no overt division in average or max brain size. Generally, herbivorous mammals seem to evolve brains just as large as carnivorous ones. Elephants, orangutans, gorillas grow big brains on a vegetarian diet. If predator diets contain a special…

But brain to body size is determined by meat and fat consumption. Gorillas are big primates for their brain size. Chimps eat quite a bit of meat, and are not only generally ranked "smarter", but have a bigger brain for their relative body size.

Gracile Chimps (bonobos) eat "fruits, nuts, shoots, stems, pith, leaves, roots, flowers and tubers. Mushrooms are occasionally eaten, and invertebrates such as termites, worms and grubs make up a small proportion of their diet."

- their brains are JUST AS BIG as their carnivorous cousin species. So we have a direct comparison between two very closely related great apes that strongly indicates no evolutionary brain growth advantage of carnivorous diet.

This theory seems to have a single example of an exceptionally large brained predator to claim that predation enables exceptionally large brains - humans. Humans are omnivores - traders, cookers, testers, diversifiers - some human cultures don't eat any meat - and they don't all have little heads as a result.

Ive always liked butter and fatty cuts btw, (from well treated hence healthy livestock) but I'm not buying into this pop-sci that eating extra will feed my brain, or that this is what separates our kind from the dumb herbivores - meat fat feeds almost exclusively my paunch ! :]