And why bother distinguishing between food nutrients at all if not for their different digestion and metabolism?Īnimals are unable to obtain energy directly from fibers. While calling fibers carbohydrates is correct from a chemical nomenclature point of view, it would be incorrect from a nutritional point of view because fibers are just not metabolized in the same manner as other carbohydrates such as starch and glucose. They write: “…so we include soluble fibers in the category of carbohydrates digestible by chimpanzees”. Sadly, one flaw in the authors’ analysis turns their interpretations upside down. In other words if “Westernized humans” only reverted (6 million years) to the chimpanzees’ typical diet of plenty of fruits we would all be well and dandy. They end their human nutrition advice with the following statement: “This coincides with what we believe to be the healthiest human diet, one that contains high amounts of complex carbohydrates and only small amounts of fat” As a point of reference, human fat intake probably does not need to be more than 5%…”Īlso: “Modern, Westernized humans consume fat far in access of need or recommendations ….” “Peak lipid was only about 8.5% of dry matters and the average intake was only about 2.5%. We will come back to the actual numbers in a moment, but if you were not interested in the small details of the Australopithecus’ diet, you would end up with the following interpretations and recommendations regarding human nutrition as quoted below: The authors, all of them primatologists I believe, provide a detailed analysis of the chimpanzee’s diet based on years of observations. The Chimpanzee’s diet is a side issue here but the author take advantage of the opportunity to express their opinion about the current “Westernized humans'” diet. If there ever was an example of the importance of distinguishing between facts and interpretations in a scientific paper this is the one. Australopithecines stand between us and the chimps on the evolutionary timeline. The paper presents a hypothesis that the evolution of the hominin diet is characterized by a reduction in fiber content and therefore Underground Storage Organs (sweet potatoes and the like) was likely major component of the Australopithecines diet. The name Wrangham should be familiar to students of evolutionary nutrition as the developer of the much publicized “Cooking Hypothesis” to which, in due course, I will devote a post. If that’s the case (and even if it isn’t) the Chimpanzee’s diet may be a profitable line to follow for an aspiring evolution-nutrition researcher.Ĭonklin-Brittain NL, Wrangham R, and Smith CC (1) attempt to do just that in a paper published in 2002. I heard that statement not long ago in a lecture given by a famous physical anthropologist that has discovered an Australopithecus or two during his long career. There is no need to look for a common ancestor”. “Our lineage goes back directly to the Chimpanzee.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |