I don't think this is new. The idea always was that proto-humans had to live in an environment rich with energy dense food (fruit) prior to growing a brain large enough to figure out how to make barbeque. Otherwise you never get to the barbeque capable brain. The whole point of making fire and therefore consuming cooked meat is that now you can migrate to places that don't have abundant sources of energy dense food.
pfdietz•14m ago
Cooking also increases the energy available from plant matter, particularly starchy tubers.
smellsfruity•7m ago
Why is it assumed that learning to cooking animals is a necessary hurdle?
When we’re capable of eating animals raw. And bugs and worms etc.
Whereas in order to consume a wider variety of plants, cooking and other more complex perpetrations are absolutely necessary.
louiereederson•34m ago
If you’re constantly moving sugar is a necessity for maintaining glycogen. There’s nothing inherently wrong with any food type, it’s all about context.
steve_adams_86•23m ago
Kind of; humans do adapt remarkably well to low-glucose diets, and we can produce glycogen without sugary inputs via gluconeogenesis. They do make it much easier, though.
slicktux•27m ago
There’s many theories but one that I learned was that women and children provides the bulk of the calories for Early Humans. While the men went out and hunted for meat they also relied on the fruit harvested by the women and children. That would give them the energy necessary for trekking and hunting.
pfdietz•16m ago
> fruit harvested
Also tubers.
smellsfruity•11m ago
So we’re expected to believe each man is carry a basket of rapidly deteriorating fruit (and tubers).
Or a knapsack of dried fatty meat with a fairly indefinite shelf life.
dboreham•36m ago
pfdietz•14m ago
smellsfruity•7m ago
When we’re capable of eating animals raw. And bugs and worms etc.
Whereas in order to consume a wider variety of plants, cooking and other more complex perpetrations are absolutely necessary.