Skip to main content

A Biological Anthropologist's Analysis of Nutrition

A year or so ago I did a powerpoint presentation for a nutrition lab on how past diets are generally reconstructed. I am by no means an expert on the topic (I focused much more on evolutionary genetics and biochemistry in my coursework than bio-archaeology) but here's a brief overview:

Primatology -
  • Insectivores – frugivores – folivores – exudates – omnivores – seasonality of food – group dynamics
  • 96% shared base pair sequences between humans/chimps
  • Human brain 3x larger than chimpanzees – consumes about 25% of our calories -  
  • Terrestrial – bipedal – energy expenditure
  • Kleiber's Law – Expensive Tissue Hypothesis
  • Hindgut/Foregut Fermentation – larger colons, smaller intestines
  • comparative anatomy

Archaeology -
  • Weapon usage – different for different species – points toward hunting habits
  • Cooking tools – conjectured usage from structure – granules of food particles left -
  • Coprolites – fossilized feces – place in trisodium phosphate for 72 hrs – turns dark brown/black if it's human – point to extreme dietary diversity, high fiber diets – H. Erectus oldest found: shows charcoal, mollusk shell fragments, and sand grains.  
  • Paleontologists rectify climate, ecology and chemical techniques to reconstruct the potential diet of the individual species  
Isotopes -
  • C3/C4 Plants – Plant evolution, rubisco, efficient in drier climates  – C3 wild plants in temperate regions, C4 domesticated grains, sugar – carbon isotopes 12/13 reflected in bone collagen/apatites – bones show average, enamel shows at time of formation
  • Nitrogen 15 – amount in bones reflects animal protein in diet – can skew past diets if individuals found were in differing societal hierarchies
  • Sr:Ca ratio – high Sr = veg, low Sr =carn
  • Otzi's Hair - last meal showed deer meat consumption and potentially cereal grains (fun fact: he had tattoos)

Bones -
  • Electron microscope images of mammalian long bones – cuts made by stone tools incised above carnivorous teeth marks – evidence for scavaging - believed that food parts like scavenged marrow constituted large part of initial animal food consumption
  • Markings/Scrapings/Burnings
  • Diseases – Osteoarthritis, Osteoperosis, cribra orbitalia and porotic hyperostosis
  • Harris Lines – growth stunts, mineralization continues 
Dental Morphology -
  • Humans have two incisors, one canine, two premolars, 3 molars
  • Generalized use – good for shearing, grinding, shewing – ability to chew leaves , seeds, meats, etc
  • Less dimorphism
  • Humans have thick enamel – tricky – thin enamel wears to make gradient for shearing with dentin 
  • Past dental wear/caries -food trapped within
  • high crowns and high cusp relief with shearing crests are thereby well-suited for eating tough foods like leaves and stems
  • Pet Peeve Alert: Though I don't believe vegetarianism is the 'ideal' human diet, pointing at canines and asking why we have them just makes you look dumb. Lots of largely vegetarian animals have canines - horses, hippos. Chimpanzees are have huge canines but are largely non-meat eaters besides the occasional colobus monkey. Canines are largely dimorphic and have more of a role in sexual competition.
Physical and Chemical Techniques used to Analyze Diet
  • Light-microscope wear patterns
  • Macrobotanical remains – large fragments of preserved vegetal material
  • Microbotanical remains – phytol
  • Phytoliths – silica bodies that form in the cellular system of plants that remain in dental caries, cooking pots – last meal effect, indicative of last meal eaten, not necessarily normal diet
  • Pollen grains     
  • Protein, fatty acid, DNA residues
  • Plant impression on fired clay, pot sherds, floor, etc
  • Pyrolysis gas-chromatography-mass spectrometry of plant microfossils
  • Electron Spin Resonance – tests highest temperature a material have been cooked at and duration of heating  


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Beware the Meta-Analysis: Fat, Guidelines, and Biases

Headlines were abuzz this week, reporting that a new review of randomized controlled trials at the time of the low-fat guidelines didn't support their institution. Time , Business Insider , and The Verge all covered the topic with sensationalist headlines (e.g. 'We should never have told people to stop eating fat' #weneverdid). I won't spend every part of this blog picking apart the entire meta-analysis; you can read it over at the open access journal, BMJ Open Heart (1) -- (note, for myself, i'm adding an extra level of skepticism for anything that gets published in this journal). I'm also not going to defend low-fat diets either, but rather, use this meta-analysis to point out some critical shortcomings in nutritional sciences research, and note that we should be wary of meta-analyses when it comes to diet trials. First off, let's discuss randomized controlled trials (RCTs). They are considered the gold standard in biomedical research; in the hierarc

On PURE

The PURE macronutrients studies were published in the Lancet journals today and the headlines / commentaries are reminding us that everything we thought we think we were told we knew about nutrition is wrong/misguided, etc. Below is my non-epidemiologist's run down of what happened in PURE. A couple papers came out related to PURE, but the one causing the most buzz is the relationship of the macronutrients to mortality. With a median follow up of 7.4 years, 5796 people died and 4784 had a major cardiovascular event (stroke, MCI). The paper modeled the impacts of self reported dietary carbohydrate, total fat, protein, monounsaturated (MUFA), saturated (SFA), and polyunsaturated (PUFA) fatty acid intakes on cardiovascular (CVD), non-CVD and total mortality; all macros were represented as a percentage of total self reported energy intakes and reported/analyzed in quintiles (energy intakes between 500-5000kcals/day were considered plausible..). All dietary data was determined by a

Nutrition Recommendations Constantly Change...Don't They?

I was on Facebook the other day, and someone in a group I'm in made a statement about not being sure whether to eat dairy, because "one week its bad, and the next its good". This is something I hear all too often from people: nutrition is complex, confusing, and constantly changing. One week 'X' is bad, the next 'X' is good. From an outsider's perspective, nutrition seems like a battlefield - low fat vs low carb vs Mediterranean vs Paleo vs Veg*n. Google any of these diets and you'll find plenty of websites saying that the government advice is wrong and they've got the perfect diet, the solution to all of your chronic woes, guarantee'ing weight loss, muscle growth, longevity, etc. Basically, if you've got an ailment, 'X' diet is the cure. I can certainly see this as being overwhelming from a non-scientist/dietitian perspective. Nutrition is confusing...right? Screenshot, DGA: 1980, health.gov From an insider's pe