# Population Genetics > Paleogenetics > Paleolithic & Mesolithic >  The effect of a high protein diet on Neanderthals

## Angela

It seems to make sense if this is what they're finding.

See:
http://archaeology.org/news/4301-160...h-protein-diet

"Scholars from Tel Aviv University say that Neanderthals may have been shorter and stockier than modern humans due to their high-protein diet based upon large animals.* Their wider rib cages could have accommodated a larger liver for metabolizing large quantities of protein, and the wider pelvis may have held an enlarged bladder and kidneys to remove the waste products of protein metabolism.* “During harsh Ice-Age winters, carbohydrates were scarce and fat was in limited supply. But large game, the typical prey of the Neanderthal, thrived. This situation triggered an evolutionary adaptation to a high-protein diet—an enlarged liver, expanded renal system and their corresponding morphological manifestations. All these contributed to the Neanderthal evolutionary process,” Miki Ben-Dor said in a press release. * The team adds that early indigenous Arctic populations that eat a meat-based diet also had enlarged livers and drank a lot of water to process their high-protein diet."*

----------


## Maleth

It is interesting and maybe also possible, but what comes to mind is that I am sure that before the agriculture revolution many homo sapiens also survived on a very high protein diet. I am also under the impression that this was also the case at later stages, when humans were able to digest Milk. My impression is that a high protein diet would contribute to a more masculine and taller physic. Even in a span of a few generations better fed people seem to be taller then their ancestors, probably due to better nutrition (maybe more protein). 

The other thing I can think of is that maybe Neanderthals were more sedentary so while having a very high protein diet they did not exercise much then the evolution of having enlarged livers and expanded renal systems would have been necessary. Im just thinking loud

----------


## LeBrok

I would say that the main reason for their stocky figure is energy factor. The more massive the body, the easier it is to maintain core temperature. For example the most efficient animal in this regard is a whale. By such measure Neanderthals were more energy efficient than humans in colder climate. Surely having a massive liver, which is a storage of many nutrients is a blessing too, when they needed to go through long periods without a meal. When hunts were not successful, or during extensive periods of harsh weather.

----------


## Angela

> It is interesting and maybe also possible, but what comes to mind is that I am sure that before the agriculture revolution many homo sapiens also survived on a very high protein diet. I am also under the impression that this was also the case at later stages, when humans were able to digest Milk. My impression is that a high protein diet would contribute to a more masculine and taller physic. Even in a span of a few generations better fed people seem to be taller then their ancestors, probably due to better nutrition (maybe more protein).


I agree with that; the only quibble I'd have is that the diet of the hunter-gatherers would depend on the climate. I think hunter-gatherers in warmer places like the Near East, North Africa, India, had access to varied wild plant foods for a big part of the year, from wild grains, to fruits, to hazelnuts, to wild vegetables.

----------


## Maleth

> I agree with that; the only quibble I'd have is that the diet of the hunter-gatherers would depend on the climate. I think hunter-gatherers in warmer places like the Near East, North Africa, India, had access to varied wild plant foods for a big part of the year, from wild grains, to fruits, to hazelnuts, to wild vegetables.


Indeed, tribes in the forest and prairies would have more vegetation (friuts) around, Maybe very high protein diet would be more common in places where large animals were raised for their meat and dairy products as a staple food on a bigger scale due to grass lands (steppes and central and lower parts of northern Europe maybe?) which are not found that easily or so continuously say in the Mediterranean climate or dessert areas. It must have been a very varied diet according to the climate conditions. 

In a particular documentary I once watched it says that homosapiens evolved smaller stomachs when it became normal to cook food which is a much older habit then we once thought.

----------


## bicicleur

cooking food is old, older than Neanderthals
cooked food doesn't require strong jaws, leaving more place for a bigger brain case

----------


## LeBrok

> cooking food is old, older than Neanderthals
> cooked food doesn't require strong jaws, leaving more place for a bigger brain case


I'm sure if brain needs to grow, it is going to find other directions instead growing into the jaw area. ;)
The main reason behind cooking food is to get more nutrients from it. Cooking breaks the cell walls spilling nutrients for easy digestion. It also breaks long chains of molecules of some fibers, proteins, fats, sugars into smaller pieces which human can digest. Cooking meat and and many plants will give you twice the calories and nutrients. Cooked mammuth can feed twice as many people as uncooked one.
That's the main reason for cooking.

----------


## Greying Wanderer

Very interesting.

Seems to me surviving in such a harsh environment would need either powerful physical adaptations or powerful cultural/technological adaptations so they'd either be smarter than we think or extremely physically sculpted to suit the extreme environment - so this makes sense to me.

----------


## bicicleur

> I'm sure if brain needs to grow, it is going to find other directions instead growing into the jew area. ;)
> The main reason behind cooking food is to get more nutrients from it. Cooking breaks the cell walls spilling nutrients for easy digestion. It also breaks long chains of molecules of some fibers, proteins, fats, sugars into smaller pieces which human can digest. Cooking meat and and many plants will give you twice the calories and nutrients. Cooked mammuth can feed twice as many people as uncooked one.
> That's the main reason for cooking.


I said the brain case, that is where the brains grow, not the jaws
both have to find a place in the head
strong jaws need strong muscles and adapted skull structure

----------


## LeBrok

> I said the brain case, that is where the brains grow, not the jaws
> both have to find a place in the head
> strong jaws need strong muscles and adapted skull structure


 And I said that braincase can easily grow upward and sideways, as it did for last 4 million years. Size of a jaw was never an issue for brain size. Neanderthals had bigger brains than humans did, in spite of more robust jaws and muscles.

----------


## bicicleur

> And I said that braincase can easily grow upward and sideways, as it did for last 4 million years. Size of a jaw was never an issue for brain size. Neanderthals had bigger brains than humans did, in spite of more robust jaws and muscles.


did you ever study the mouth of an ape or a dog or a horse?
then you'll understand
the human jaw has no leverage, hence it cannot apply the same presure like animals with strong jaws
neanderthals cooked their food just like homo sapiens

----------


## MOESAN

all that seems a bit simplistic to me. And we cannot base our observation on today occidental populations where the encreasing in stature is linked to a lot of factors, not only "better" feeding. I don't know if the Mesolithic people of Western Europe ate lesser meat than the first Neolithic farmers: they were a bit shorter, nevertheless; it's true that theyr were maybe a bit more robust than farmers.
I'm not sure that an enlarged liver would by force correspond to a broadened pelvis: the skeletons proportions are the result of a complicated net of constraints; by the way have the lions and tigers a so broadened pelvis compared to grazing species? I don't know.

----------


## bicicleur

> all that seems a bit simplistic to me. And we cannot base our observation on today occidental populations where the encreasing in stature is linked to a lot of factors, not only "better" feeding. I don't know if the Mesolithic people of Western Europe ate lesser meat than the first Neolithic farmers: they were a bit shorter, nevertheless; it's true that theyr were maybe a bit more robust than farmers.
> I'm not sure that an enlarged liver would by force correspond to a broadened pelvis: the skeletons proportions are the result of a complicated net of constraints; by the way have the lions and tigers a so broadened pelvis compared to grazing species? I don't know.


indeed, it's the reverse
prey animals, meat eaters are leaner than grazing animals
meat has short fibers and is much easier to digest than grass which has long fibers
that is why grass eaters need much bigger intestins and have a much bigger belly than meat eaters
compare a cow to a leopard

----------


## MOESAN

> indeed, it's the reverse
> prey animals, meat eaters are leaner than grazing animals
> meat has short fibers and is much easier to digest than grass which has long fibers
> that is why grass eaters need much bigger intestins and have a much bigger belly than meat eaters
> compare a cow to a leopard


_Correct. But not the answer concerning skeletons (bovins have very narrow pelvis spite they have a huge guts system; but I think all the way the connection between pelvis bones and smooth inside organs is not so direct as believed by someones. I'm not a specialist, I only suppose. But our liver is not too well sheltered by our ylvis, if our bladder is. So I doubt about these straight away explanations (not the first time).
and the apes and human pelvis obey to other laws than the other animals ones, linked to motricity. Just my amateur point.
Cheers! a little drink to honour the coming week-end, but let's be careful: our liver can grow up and not to find enough space in our pelvis!_

----------

