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

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