Active Low-Carber Forums
Atkins diet and low carb discussion provided free for information only, not as medical advice.
Home Plans Tips Recipes Tools Stories Studies Products
Active Low-Carber Forums
A sugar-free zone


Welcome to the Active Low-Carber Forums.
Support for Atkins diet, Protein Power, Neanderthin (Paleo Diet), CAD/CALP, Dr. Bernstein Diabetes Solution and any other healthy low-carb diet or plan, all are welcome in our lowcarb community. Forget starvation and fad diets -- join the healthy eating crowd! You may register by clicking here, it's free!

Go Back   Active Low-Carber Forums > Main Low-Carb Diets Forums & Support > Daily Low-Carb Support > Paleolithic & Neanderthin
User Name
Password
Register FAQ Members Calendar Mark Forums Read Search Gallery My P.L.A.N. Survey


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   ^
Old Fri, Aug-11-17, 05:08
teaser's Avatar
teaser teaser is online now
Senior Member
Posts: 10,856
 
Plan: ketosis/IF
Stats: 190/158/154 Male 67inches
BF:
Progress: 89%
Location: Ontario
Default Mammoths were yummy.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releas...70804082912.htm

Quote:
On the early human's menu: Mammoth and plenty of raw vegetables
Early modern humans consumed more plants than Neanderthals but ate very little fish

Senckenberg scientists have studied the diet of anatomically modern humans. With their recent study, published in the journal Scientific Reports, they were able to refute the theory that the diet of early representatives of Homo sapiens was more flexible than that of Neanderthals. Just like the Neanderthals, our ancestors had mainly mammoth and plants on their plates -- the researchers were unable to document fish as part of their diet. Therefore, the international team assumes that the displacement of the Neanderthals was the result of direct competition.

The first representatives of Homo sapiens colonized Europe around 43,000 years ago, replacing the Neanderthals there approximately 3,000 years later. "Many studies examine the question of what led to this displacement -- one hypothesis postulates that the diet of the anatomically modern humans was more diverse and flexible and often included fish," explains Prof. Dr. Hervé Bocherens of the Senckenberg Center for Human Evolution and Palaeoenvironment (HEP) at the University of Tübingen

Together with his colleague, Dr. Dorothée Drucker, the biogeologist from Tübingen now set out to get to the bottom of this hypothesis. In conjunction with an international team, he studied the dietary habits of early modern man on the basis of the oldest know fossils from the Buran Kaya caves on the Crimean Peninsula in the Ukraine. "In the course of this study, we examined the finds of early humans in the context of the local fauna," explains Drucker, and she continues, "Until now, all analyses of the diet of early modern humans were based on isolated discoveries; therefore, they are very difficult to interpret."

In order to reconstruct our ancestor's menu -- despite the lack of a fossil dietary record -- the team around the scientists from Tübingen measured the percentage of stable carbon and nitrogen isotopes in the bones of the early humans and the locally present potential prey animals such as Saiga, horses, and deer. In addition, they also analyzed the nitrogen-15 content of individual amino acids, making it possible to not only determine the origin, but also the proportion of the nitrogen. "Our results reveal a very high proportion of the nitrogen isotope 15N in early modern humans," adds Bocherens, and he continues, "However, contrary to our previous assumptions, these do not originate from the consumption of fish products, but primarily from mammoths."

And yet another result came as a surprise for the scientists: The proportion of plants in the diet of the anatomically modern humans was significantly higher than in comparable Neanderthal finds -- mammoths, on the other hand, appear to have been one of the primary sources of meat in both species.

"According to our results, Neanderthals and the early modern humans were in direct competition in regard to their diet, as well -- and it appears that the Neanderthals drew the short straw in this contest," adds Drucker in conclusion.


First, I consider Neanderthals to be "early modern humans." A lot of us are walking around with some of their genes, I can't speak to the accuracy of this, but I heard a figure the other day of the average Neanderthal gene-carrier having about 1 percent Neanderthal genes, and preservation, if scattered, of about 25 percent of the genome. As long as mating occurred between the two groups, all the one group had to do is be considerably larger than the other group. Two parents, four grandparents, eight great-grandparents, go back far enough and some people will hold more than one position, it doesn't take many generations before our ancestors are only distant cousins.

Also the idea that fish would make the diet more flexible, but plants would not is silly.
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #2   ^
Old Sat, Aug-12-17, 15:25
deirdra's Avatar
deirdra deirdra is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 3,661
 
Plan: HF/vLC/GF,CF,SF
Stats: 197/136/150 Female 66 inches
BF:
Progress: 130%
Location: Alberta
Default

My DNA test shows me to be 2.9% Neanderthal. I think the average for those of European descent (Neander Valley is in Germany) is ~2.7%. Maybe that is why I like meat more and do better on it than the average person.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:38.


Copyright © 2000-2017 Active Low-Carber Forums @ forum.lowcarber.org
Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.