Skip to main content

Neanderthal Diets Debate

I've mentioned before that, if one is trying to emulate a past hominid's diet in an attempt to have a more 'ancestrally-aligned' pattern of eating, it is rather difficult to accurately do this because it is rather difficult to discern what our ancestors actually ate (among a host of other reasons: plant domestication, methods of processing, which hominid, etc etc).

Researchers in this field are able to chemically analyze calcified plaques from fossilized neanderthal teeth. There are a couple issues with this - most notably - the last meal effect: just because you find these remnants doesn't necessarily mean that individuals were eating these foods regularly. It would require a large cohort of fossilized teeth from diverse regions to make a more robust statement that Neanderthals regularly consumed these food products.

Past assumptions were that Neanderthals were overwhelmingly carnivorous and rarely consumed plants foods; recently, analyses of tooth plaque have shown evidence of a more diverse array of plant consumption - I've covered this a bit in the past. The recent debate (1) now focuses on whether Neanderthals were actually consuming some of these strange plant foods, like chamomile and yarrow. The original interpretation for this research was that Neanderthals saw some therapeutic or medicinal component to these foods, despite their bitter taste and lack of caloric density. However, these foods would presumably be found eaten by grazing animals, and thus, be found partially digested in their stomachs and intestines. If Neanderthals were hunting these animals and eating their stomach contents, as seen in Inuits, an alternative explanation for the presence of these food items in dental plaques presents itself.

I hope to see more in depth chemical research on these plaques to determine whether there is evidence of gastric/intestinal protease degradation that would point towards these food items coming from animal stomachs, or if the plaques appear more mechanically digested (this is simply a conjecture regarding future research - this is not my field of expertise). As of now, we can't really say which is true - though, this alternative hypothesis would fall back in line with past isotopic analyses (2) that suggested more predominant carnivorous eating behaviour. 

As an aside, the researchers mention that maybe this is where individuals were getting their vitamin C - I am doubtful, seeing as they were more probably consuming the adrenal glands, a source of ascorbic acid (3). I can't find vitamin C content data on chamomile but I'd reckon to say that it's irrelevant as a source of ascorbic acid, unless consumed in large quantities, which is unlikely seeing as preliminary data suggests Neanderthals have similar bitter taste receptors as modern homo sapiens (4).

It continues to be quite difficult to truly reconstruct the overall diet of our ancestors, and consequently, hard to base your modern diet off of this data. Eating minimally/unprocessed continues to appear to be good for your health in the current food environment, but don't go eating chamomile instead of getting vaccinated because you think that's what Neanderthals used for medicine.

1. http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/oct/20/neanderthals-diet-plants-herbs-stomachs
2. http://www.pnas.org/content/106/38/16034.full
3. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15666839
4. http://rsbl.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/early/2009/08/07/rsbl.2009.0532.full

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