ANTH151 Literature Review – How Diet and Cooking Shaped Human Evolution

Andreas Cooper
Student Number: 44923651
Target Article:
1. Crittenden, A., & Schnorr, S. (2017). Current views on hunter-gatherer nutrition and the
evolution of the human diet. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 162, 84-109.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ajpa.23148
This article examines the evolution of human diet and contemporary hunter-gatherer diet. They
contemplate two main questions concerning food. What types of food did our hominin
ancestors consume, and how did these foods meet nutritional requirements. Humans differ to
the other great apes with a reduced colon volume and therefore it is considerably harder for us
to digest high fibre foods. They argue that early hominins were able to use tools for foraging
purposes and consequently food processing played an important role in selective pressures for
the human digestive system. The paper concludes that with the assistance of cooking, the
improved small intestine, and increased power of gut microbiota, we were able to overcome
the drawbacks of our diminished colon size. The results help us understand the significance
tools and cooking have had on human evolution, and could perhaps be extrapolated when
looking at future changes to the human anatomy.

Related Articles:
2. Amato, K. (2016). Incorporating the gut microbiota into models of human and non-human
primate ecology and evolution. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 159(61), 196-215.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ajpa.22908
In relation to the broader topic of evolution of the human diet, this paper focuses on the
evolution of gut microbiota in primates. The study investigated how current knowledge of
animal gut microbiota can be linked to human and non-human primate evolution and ecology.
They found that primate gut microbes were quite flexible and could adapt to extreme dietary
shifts. In one example, they observed the diet of a black howler monkey, which experienced
dietary shifts of up to 60% fruits versus 80% leaves across many months without any major
changes to daily life. In conclusion, the writer speculates that gut microbes perhaps played an
evolutionary role in primate dietary flexibility. The writer also infers that human gut microbiota
may have been part of developing our large brains but notes that more research is needed. One
should appreciate the fact that the author is not making claims without evidence and
encouraging further research, but it is not so illogical to assume that the vast flexibility of the
human gut microbes is at least partially related to the wide spectrum of the human diet.

3. Milton, K. (1999). A hypothesis to explain the role of meat‐eating in human evolution.

Evolutionary Anthropology: Issues, News, And Reviews, 8(1), 11-21.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/(sici)1520-6505(1999)8:1<11::aid-evan6>3.3.co;2-d

This next article offers an explanation as to how meat in ancestral Hominidae diet affected
human evolution. It compares the constraint of a largely plant orientated diet in mammalian
herbivores causing an increase in body size, to the luxury of meat eating in early humans as a
freedom of this constraint. The article states that humans are believed to have evolved in a
more arid and seasonal environment compared to other apes. Therefore theorising that we
were able to frequently include animal protein in our diet, which led to nutritional advantages –
possibly a larger brain. In the closing statement, the author observes that it is not simply
fortuitous consumption of meat, but the routine involvement of meat in diets which led to
human evolution. I agree that the addition of meat to typically plant-like sources of sustenance
would have anatomical benefits, as the once undercompensated diets were now being
repeatedly overcompensated.

4. Cornélio, A., de Bittencourt-Navarrete, R., de Bittencourt Brum, R., Queiroz, C., & Costa, M.
(2016). Human Brain Expansion during Evolution Is Independent of Fire Control and Cooking.
Frontiers in Neuroscience, 10. http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2016.00167
Contrary to some of the results in the target article, this paper claims that brain expansion in
humans was not due to fire control and cooking. The prevailing hypothesis is that an increase in
brain neurons would limit primate body size due to a low caloric intake. This paper challenges
this hypothesis with an alternative mathematical formula that argues neurons in hominin brains
were more in function of foraging efficiency than body mass. They also interpret archaeological
evidence to show that the increase in brain size can be attributed to linear function rather than
thermal processing of food. This is further supported by an experiment on mice. The
researchers conclude that it was rather the increase in foraging efficiency by having additional
sources of food in their diet that led to an increase in brain volume. Additionally, they agree
that gut microbiota may have been a contributing factor by increasing the number of calories
extracted from food. This paper gives an opposing, yet important view on evolution. Critiquing
the popular theories with scientific evidence is highly important if we are to understand any
one thing, let alone human evolution.

5. Aiello, L., & Wheeler, P. (1995). The Expensive-Tissue Hypothesis: The Brain and the
Digestive System in Human and Primate Evolution. Current Anthropology, 36(2), 199-221.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/204350
This article examines the expensive-tissue hypothesis by suggesting that the energy
requirements of the brain are balanced out with a decrease of gut size. Many of the other
articles mention the relationship between diet and relative bran size, however, this article
proposes that we should rather consider the relationship between relative brain size and
relative gut size. The study was conducted by exploring the various metabolic requirements of
organs in the body. They do not make any claims about what led to larger brains in primates,
but state that involving greater amounts of animal products was essential as a prerequisite. The
results showed that there was a link between diet and relative sizes of the gastrointestinal tract
and the brain. There was also a link between a higher quality diet with the decrease of gut size
and in turn, the metabolic cost of the gut. Like the previous article (4), this one considers a
different way of looking at evolution. It is also a more mathematical comparison comparing
colon size rather than ‘human diet’, but it is consistent with an earlier article (3) mentioning
routine involvement in meat.

6. Hardy, K., Brand-Miller, J., Brown, K., Thomas, M., & Copeland, L. (2015). The Importance
of Dietary Carbohydrate in Human Evolution. The Quarterly Review of Biology, 90(3), 251-
268. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/682587
This article confronts the prevalent view that meat inclusion was the most important factor in
hominin brain development. They argue that the involvement of easily-digestible carbohydrates
were also needed in order to meet the metabolic requirements of the brain. These
carbohydrates needed to be cooked in order to improve digestibility and palatability. The study
examined cooked starch which had increased energy availability to tissue with high glucose
demands like the brain and red blood cells. It found that the rapid development of brain size
was related to having larger amounts of preformed glucose. Further stressed is that without
cooking, starch-rich plant foods were likely to have lacked the required amounts of preformed
glucose that modern humans require. The results of this article provide yet another aspect of
human diet that may have contributed to evolution. It also provides incentive to investigate the
true significance of cooking.

7. Boback, S., Cox, C., Ott, B., Carmody, R., Wrangham, R., & Secor, S. (2007). Cooking and
grinding reduces the cost of meat digestion. Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology Part A:
Molecular & Integrative Physiology, 148(3), 651-656.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cbpa.2007.08.014
To further support the argument that cooking was a pivotal factor in human evolution, this
article more closely examines the specific metabolic responses to cooked and ground meat.
Researchers conducted experiments on Burmese pythons by feeding them intact raw beef,
intact cooked beef, ground raw beef, and ground cooked beef. They endeavoured to find which
of the different forms of meat would be easiest to digest. The results were that intact raw meat
took the most energy to digest and that grinding and cooked meat required less energy to
digest, with a combination of the cooked, ground meat being the easiest. They found that the
main benefits applicable to humans were less energy spent digesting and chewing. When
comparing this article to the article claiming evolution was independent of cooking we must
take away that cooking meats does not increase the amount of energy received, but it reduces
the amount of energy required to consume and process said food.
8. Carmody, R., & Wrangham, R. (2009). The energetic significance of cooking. Journal of
Human Evolution, 57(4), 379-391. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2009.02.011
This article explores the science behind the assumed concept that cooked food will increase the
overall energy content. They hypothesise that the regular consumption of cooked food
increases net energy value. To test their hypothesis, they compared a predominantly
vegetarian, raw diet, to that of a cooked one. The results reflected that those who consumed
predominantly raw diets had compromised reproductive ability and body mass. The evidence
suggests that the process of thermal cooking (while not entirely understood) allows humans to
more efficiently absorb energy, and was therefore essential to human evolution. The results
were in favour of the hypothesis, but were largely unexplained. I think that this study stimulates
further research, which is required to back up the not so concrete claims. They summarise meat
cooking as not resulting in an increase in energy due to high-value fat loss, but argue that
texture manipulation; such as pounding may improve the energy value of meat. Although seen
in an earlier article (7), ground meat saw the same result as cooked meat – easier digestion.

Summary
The importance of diet and cooking in the field of human evolution has been a major topic for
many years, and as time has passed by, studies have brought answers which resulted in the
need for more specific questions. The research shows that, over time, diet has had a profound
effect on anatomic evolution in humans. The most frequently studied organ is the brain, and
research has shown that a high-quality diet, including the rich energy content of animal
products led to a more efficient gut, and possibly a larger brain (5). One article challenged this
by arguing that it was the involvement of many types of food that caused a bigger brain in
humans (4). Many people consider meat as being the most important reason for human
evolution, and an older study argued that routine involvement of meat was essential to human
evolution (3). With the popular belief of meat being the decisive factor in human diet and
evolution, more specific questions arose. Experiments showed that ground, cooked meat did
not have any energetic benefit, but reduced the amount of energy required to digest the food
(7). While meat was important, other cooked essentials such as carbohydrates and plants were
necessary in order to meet metabolic requirements (6, 8). The first article noted the increased
power of human gut microbiota (1), which are examined in more detail to be extremely
versatile, allowing humans to consume a large range of food sources (2). In conclusion, there
was no single food or food group that brought about human evolution, but the combination of
various food items, cooking, and gradual anatomic changes that made humans what they are
today.