Skip to main content

Ancient Humans and Dental Health

Throughout evolution there was a sort of trade dental health off - or so it's been accepted. As hominids started consuming more soft starches (like grains, especially cooked), we accepted the detrimental effects of cavities over tooth wear/enamel erosion. (for a great read on the evolution of dentition, check out John Hawk's blog)

Before domesticated food and modern technologies, the teeth were subject to a lot more stresses that could wear away the enamel. When you start eating starchy crops, much softer after heat treatment and processing, this issue goes away - but another arises. Starchy crops are easily fermented by bacteria and also stick to teeth - the perfect formula for dental caries (cavities).

It's been generally shown across hominid fossils from the Paleolithic and Mesolithic that dental caries were a rarity - there is one famous Pleistocene skull found in Zambia that was replete with cavities. Even Neanderthal samples don't show much evidence of regular dental caries, though samples  with them exist (1,3).

However, new evidence suggests (2) that a high incidence of dental caries aren't just a product of the Agricultural revolution. The doubt comes from new samples of Pleistocene hunter gatherers in Northern Africa who lived about 14-15k years ago (before the advent of agriculture). These hunter-gatherers were eating wild foods, like acorn and pine nuts.

It's important to realize that the relative incidence of dental caries, and not their occurrence, is what's most groundbreaking about this study. It seems to me that those who follow ancestral diets and claim  cavities are a product of the agricultural revolution don't frequent the anthropology journals, which contain multiple examples of dental caries before Ag (4, 5, 6).

I'm in no way saying that you shouldn't still eschew added sugars and processed starches in your diet- but avoiding grains and thinking you're impervious to cavities is a false sense of assurance. Floss, brush your teeth, and eat a healthy diet, which can include starches. And take a note from your Neanderthal cousins and use toothpicks! (7)

1. http://www.uic.edu/classes/osci/osci590/11_1Epidemiology.htm
2. http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2014/01/03/1318176111
3. Grauer, A Companion to Pale
4. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S004724848571055X
5. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305440301906892
6. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305440399905125
7. http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0076852

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 ...

Much Ado About Funding

Michele Simon, a public health lawyer and advocate , recently published an expose of the ties between the American Society for Nutrition (ASN) and certain industries - you can find the full report here . The report caused quite the stir on twitter, getting play from the MotherJones ,  ScientificAmerican , and the accolades of a number of twitter celebs. Yoni Freedhoff kindly tweeted the report, suggesting that Ms Simon is only 'questioning' the ties between ASN and industry; alas, reading the report shows that much more than just 'questioning' is going on here - the title alone speaks to that': "Nutrition Scientists on the Take from Big Food - Has the American Society for Nutrition lost all credibility?" As Andrew Kniss pointed out on twitter, ASN being "on the take" is quite the accusation. The report won't surprise anyone who has followed Ms Simon in the past. She wrote a similar report about the Academy of Nutrition and Dieteti...