Skip to main content

(Brief) Timeline of Specific Hominid Eating Patterns/Tools

Also included in the aforementioned powerpoint presentation that I did was a generalized overview of the hominid diet across the ages. Instead of parsing through the really long post on that, this will be a good review - and contains a bit more temporal data and tool use:

  • Primates – folivorous, frugivorous, insectivores, exudates
  • Australopithecines – 2-4 mya – Similar to primates – bipedal – more humanlike teeth – no evidence of tools- Robustus/bosei- started to include more roots/nuts/seeds/harder to chew foods
  • Homo Habilis – 2.3 mya -first to include scavenged meats/eggs in diet – leap in brain size from Robustus/bosei – tool use – flakes and chopping tools
  • Homo Erectus – first species to leave Africa- 2 mya – much more advanced tool use – use of fire – evidence of cannibalism – potentially hunted small animals
  • Homo Heidelbergensis – descendent of erectus – first hominid to truly hunt large game – brain size getting close to humans – improved tools and subsistence techniques
  • Homo Neanderthalensis – 200,000 years ago until 30,000 years ago – burial – shelter – hunted bears/mammoths/mastodons – controlled use of fire – clothing – larger brain cc than modern humans – distinct skeletal morphology – very high bmr, originally thought to have all meat diet – new evidence points to cooked plant/starchy foods, as well foods with bitter taste  

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