My response to the challenge that wild root didn't have much starch so my theory is bunk: I do agree that many of the wild versions of plants that we eat today were meager starch sources but that doesn't mean that larger, wild varieties didn't exist. For example the wild ancestor of the Guinea Yam can be seen here with roots just as big as what we see in the grocery store today: www.researchgate.net/figure/Semences-de-D-praehensilis-comestibles-a-et-b-semenceaux-fragments-de-tubercules-c_fig4_318793655 We also have things like starchy tiger nuts which were the main dietary component of some of our ancestors: "An Oxford University study has concluded that our ancient ancestors who lived in East Africa between 2.4 million and 1.4 million years ago survived mainly on a diet of tiger nuts." "The Oxford study calculates a hominin could extract sufficient nutrients from a tiger nut-based diet - i.e. around 10,000 kilojoules or 2,000 calories a day, or 80% of their required daily calorie intake - in two and half to three hours. " www.ox.ac.uk/news/2014-01-09-ancient-human-ancestor-nutcracker-man-lived-tiger-nuts Finally, these large tubers are allegedly the wild Lesser Yam and are massive so it would need to be verified but it at least shows that wild, unfarmed plants can achieve massive starchy root systems: ruclips.net/video/J0vp5PvQpvs/видео.htmlsi=kwIZtEPKSpQ2FJbg&t=1008 A worse fiber to starch ratio also doesn't mean that there weren't enough calories around, just that more fiber would be consumed which is on track with the 100g fiber coprolites we find.
Even then the hadza average 15000 steps a day from the numbers I’ve heard. No one is running 400 miles in the western world One thing eating starch for that amount of energy expenditure and another for modern people who drive and sit most of the day
Imagine what the carnivore crowd has to say about this: "So, it took all that starch to get us to the point where our brains would become smart enough to know that we shouldn't be eating it."
I would not be surprised if tribes had some fit, young runners who would go out and scout for the best foraging areas. He would have to be fast and fit to get back with news quickly, for the others to move in the right direction. Also, he would be finding out where there were other groups of animals, competitors or dangerous ones to stay clear of.
I completely agree with this. I’m convinced hunting was primarily a social behavior rather than a food gathering event. A way to establish pecking order and bond, etc.
Also cooled starches become resistant starches, and ferment in the gut, and have much more positive health effects than freshly heated starches/potatoes etc
Starch is sugar and sugar is a metabolic poison. I understand that the vegan brain doesn't work that well but seriously, you carb addicts are really deluded.
Starch is poison... Body does everything to get rid of it. When human eat starch, hormonal response triggers panic switch from normal fat burning to emergency glucose burning.
Nope. Many do run in ketosis. Body can store only very little sugars: it is poison after all. On other hand, body does store thousands and thousands of calories as fat. In ketosis, body can easily use this fat as fuel, so humans in this state can easily do marathon and more. After appropriate training of course ;)
@@robertbloch1063do you have examples of ultra marathon runners doing it in ketosis? Serious question. I think it's much easier to replenish energy using glucose than fat so I'd like to know how they do that (if it's real)
@@jinxterx It is you that's talking out of something other than your mouth. The fact is that when your fully loaded with carbs you have access to around 2,000 calories of energy. On carnivore when you become fully fat adapted, even the leanest person has access to around 100,000 calories of energy. Many top athletes know this and are now carnivore. The New Zealand All Blacks for example, the world's strongest man, Eddie Hall being another. And then of course there's Alex McDonald who completed five marathons in five days while completely fasted, consuming only water and salt. A feat only possible if you're fat adapted and don't consume contraindicated carbohydrates. This is our natural state throughout our 5 million year evolution. Alex has been adhering to a low carbohydrate high fat (LCHF) / ketogenic diet for more than 13 years and has thus been fat adapted for significant period of time. Advice from both a qualified dietician and a team of medical doctors has ensured an optimised ketogenic diet was followed. Stop following clowns like Mic The Vegan and go back to school and learn how the body really works.
@@RibeyeRob basic biochemistry dude: literally every cell in the body runs on glucose. Ketosis is an emergency state that occurs in starvation. Just because you can eat sh*t doesn't mean you should. Cut carbs, cut life. Carbs beats ketosis every single time and real science proves it over and over again. I think it's you that needs to get an education.
Humans can live off of anything, that's our main evolutionary advantage together with our intelligence. Innuits live off a diet mostly comprised of animal products. Tribes in new guinea live off a diet mostly comprised of sweet potatoes. On the whole, it's likely that cooking and being able to consume starch gave us the biggest advantage not just against nature and other animals but other humans as well: those who had the ability to procure the most starch could build the largest empires. In a lot of tribes it was found that meat consumption is mostly an activity that men carry out on their own: small groups go out for days, hunt and consume most of the animals and only bring back scraps. The bulk of the calories consumed by the tribe comes from nuts, seeds, starches gathered by women and children. So meat is more of a supplemental food than the bulk. It is interesting that even today in modern societies, men consume more meat than women.
Calcified plaques in the arteries of mummified Inuit people from the 1500s have been found, despite a very active lifestyle and diet rich in omega-3 fatty acids. Men have a greater tendency to die earlier than women, all cause mortality.
It is a cultural phenomenon that men pretend to be strong, smart and courageous when they kill an animal. It also reqires that they put aside their capacity for compassion, while women who nurture children more closely tend to show more empathy. It's time for men to get over their resistance to empathy (many have), and move on to more mature behaviors. Men can be strong, smart and courageous in much more valid ways. Vegan men are probably some of the most courageous and strong people, standing up against the macho stupidity of this world.
Additionally, as Mic has discussed, the Inuit who lived mostly on animals were developing atherosclerosis young. Most modern Inuit have jobs and go to the grocery store like the rest of us, and as a result, their lifespans are increased to being like other Canadians.
@@roku3216 Complete nonsense. Look up the BBC interview with the Inuit back in the 1920's, or there abouts. They lived with them and the thing that astonished them the most was the fact that none of them had heart disease at all. That of course has changed now that they consume the same crap the rest of the Western world does. They were fine when they ate their biologically appropriate diet... just like all of us carnivores are.
Speaking of genetic codes, they require Functional Sequence/Specified Complexity, which doesn't occur by happenstance. I'm not exactly what you would call religious, but I have heard that in the beginning we were given fruits and herbs to eat, not animals. Animals putrify in the gut, creating horrible stench, and require fire to kill parasites. Also they run away in fear, plants don't do that. If people were meant to kill animals they probably wouldn't develop empathy for them and have to rely on factory farming to ignore reality.
What a load of nonsense. What do you think is happening to plant matter? Its being decomposed by microorganisms right? The stench you get is when you switch between unaccustomed foods, or eating a lot of plant materia. "Also they run in fear" yes that is their defense machanism. Do you think plants dont have it because they cant move like animals? "Have to rely on animal farming to ignore reality" what? Factory farming is the result of wanting to produce cheaper food at the cost of animal welfare, environment and human health, not some ignoring of reality of what animals go through
I often thought about the empathy thing. Animals that depend on eating others can't evolve empathy, like you said. So humans have a big dilemma, and I think empathy will win in the long run. It's a form of awareness and intelligence that is too useful in important ways. Human carnivores really have to try hard to keep lying to themselves. Except the psychopathic ones, of course. A human world filled with psychopaths doesn't work, they need to be very few or nonexistant.
This is the most compelling evidence I have heard that we were not carnivores. Salivary amylase enzymes from 800,000 years ago. And starch digestive enzymes in canines 40,000 years ago! I hope dogs don't become extinct .
"This is the most compelling evidence I have heard that we were not carnivores."... Nonsense, no such evidence exists, only your delusions to justify your carb addiction. The only evidence that exists that can tell us what human beings are is the 2019 and 2021 follow up study in the hard science of paleo and chemical anthropology. I'm referring to stable isotope analysis of the N15 and N13 carbon and nitrogen contained within the collagen of the long bones of human skeletal remains dating back 100,000 years which clearly shows what we ate during that time period making us absolutely obligate hyper carnivore. This is the only science we have that can inform us on this question.
I hope so too, and as a vegan I don't agree with some other vegans about breaking that bond. We just need more responsible procreation and care for dogs.
We definitely were meat-eaters - from cooking meat but even our hand grasping was to grab rocks to smash the bones to get at the fat marrow in the bones. So meat eating and animal fat eating goes back probably 3 million years in hominins.
@@carinaekstrom1 Wow so you're too afraid to google something in case you might learn something you don't "want" to exist? hahaha. Eating bone marrow played a key role in the evolution of the human hand by University of Kent The strength required to access the high calorie content of bone marrow may have played a key role in the evolution of the human hand and explain why primates hands are not like ours, research at the University of Kent has found. In an article in The Journal of Human Evolution, a team lead by Professor Tracy Kivell of Kent's School of Anthropology and Conservation concludes that although stone tool making has always been considered a key influence on the evolution of the human hand, accessing bone marrow generally has not. It is widely accepted that the unique dexterity of the human hand evolved, at least in part, in response to stone tool use during our evolutionary history. Archaeological evidence suggests that early hominins participated in a variety of tool-related activities, such as nut-cracking, cutting flesh, smashing bone to access marrow, as well as making stone tools. However, it is unlikely that all these behaviours equally influenced modern human hand anatomy. To understand the impact these different actions may have had on the evolution of human hands, researchers measured the force experienced by the hand of 39 individuals during different stone tool behaviours-nut-cracking, marrow acquisition with a hammerstone, flake production with a hammerstone, and handaxe and stone tool (i.e. a flake) - to see which digits were most important for manipulating the tool. They found that the pressures varied across the different behaviours, with nut-cracking generally requiring the lowest pressure while making the flake and accessing marrow required the greatest pressures. Across all of the different behaviours, the thumb, index finger and middle finger were always most important. Professor Kivell says this suggests that nut-cracking force may not be high enough to elicit changes in the formation of the human hand, which may be why other primates are adept nut-crackers without having a human-like hand. In contrast, making stone flakes and accessing marrow may have been key influences on our hand anatomy due to the high stress they cause on our hands. The researchers concluded that eating marrow, given its additional benefit of high calorific value, may have also played a key role in evolution of human dexterity. The manual pressures of stone tool behaviors and their implications for the evolution of the human hand by Erin Marie Williams-Hatala, Kevin G. Hatala, McKenzie Gordon and Margaret Kasper, all Chatham University, Pittsburgh, USA and Alastair Key and Tracy Kivell, University of Kent is published in the Journal of Human Evolution. Mystery of 2 million-year-old stone balls solved News By Laura Geggel published April 17, 2020 Here's how ancient cave dwellers used these stone balls. For nearly 2 million years, ancient humans crafted stones into hand-size balls, but archaeologists were unsure why. Now they know: Ancient people used them as tools to get at the tasty marrow within animal bones, a new study finds. In other words, if a bone were a can of soup, these ancient stone balls were like ancient can openers. The finding is a remarkable one; archaeologists have wondered for decades exactly how ancient humans used these stone balls. "Our study provided evidence, for the first time, regarding the function of these enigmatic-shaped stone balls that were produced by humans for almost 2 million years," study lead researcher Ella Assaf, a postdoctoral researcher in the Department of Archaeology and Ancient Near East Cultures at Tel Aviv University in Israel, told Live Science in an email. Archaeologists have found "these enigmatic, mysterious artifacts" in some of the world's oldest archaeological sites in Africa, Europe and Asia, but no one in modern times had figured out how these ancient round stones were used, Assaf said. That changed when Assaf and her team came across a cache of 30 stone balls in Qesem Cave in Israel, where humans lived from about 400,000 to 200,000 years ago. To solve the mystery of the stone balls, study senior researcher Emanuela Cristiani, an archaeologist at Sapienza University in Rome, and her colleagues examined the stone balls microscopically. They discovered wear marks and organic residues indicating that the stones "were used by the cave inhabitants to break animal bones and extract the nutritional marrow," Assaf said. However, the international team wanted to be sure, so they did two experiments. In the first, they used cobblestones (naturally rounded stones larger than pebbles) to break apart bones. In the second, the team used tools to shape their own stone balls and then tested them on bones. After busting some bones, the team learned that the shaped stone balls were much more efficient than the natural ones at breaking bones and getting to the marrow, a finding that supported the conclusion from the microscopic analyses. "These tools provide comfortable grip, they don't tend to break easily, and you can rotate them and use them repetitively since they have multiple ridges," Assaf said. "These high ridges help to break the bone in a 'clean' way, and you can extract the marrow relatively easily." Moreover, breaking bones left tiny wear marks on the modern replicas that were "very similar to the archaeological traces" on the ancient stone balls, Assaf said. "This confirmed our preliminary assumption that these items were indeed used to extract bone marrow," she said. Ancient Human Ancestors May Have Grown Big Brains Scavenging Bone Marrow By Thomas Garlinghouse In a paper recently published in the journal Current Anthropology, Jessica Thompson, an anthropologist at Yale University, and her colleagues suggest that hominins were primarily after bone marrow - that gloppy, spongy, calorie-rich substance inside bones - rather than skeletal muscle tissue, or “meat.” “Meat-eating is kind of a misleading term,” said Thompson. “Meat-eating can loosely mean so many things, many of which are not actually meat.” In fact, the researchers believe that skeletal-clinging meat was frequently avoided, perhaps because it can rapidly acquire harmful bacteria from exposure or the mouths of animals. Marrow and brains, by contrast, because they are encased inside bones, retain low bacteria counts and persist much longer without spoiling. The researchers use the term “inside bone nutrients” to distinguish these resources from “outside bone nutrients,” namely the muscle tissue, or meat. Although direct evidence is currently lacking, the researchers contend that the hypothesis allows anthropologists to take a fresh look at the fossil record and the behavior of our early ancestors. In mammals, marrow is where blood cells are produced. It is also high in fat, cholesterol and numerous micronutrients. This rich resource, they believe, may have acted as a catalyst in the development of humans’ distinctively large and complex brain. “The brain is a very expensive organ,” Thompson said. Although it takes up only 2 percent of our body weight, it requires approximately 20 percent of the body’s energy even at rest. This percentage is much higher than what other primates allocate, including humans’ closest relatives, chimpanzees. Over the course of some 6 million years, the size of the human brain has increased by over 300 percent. This evolution required a rich reservoir of energy, one that a diet of lean, wild meat would not have been able to sustain, Thompson and her colleagues contend. “We’re used to thinking of meat as a fatty product,” Thompson said. “But wild game is not very fatty at all. If you eat a lot of lean meat it doesn’t actually provide you with the sustenance you need to function well.” Bone marrow, by contrast, is an excellent source of surplus energy, she said. “Bone marrow is actually a nicely accessible package of fat in an otherwise fat-poor landscape.”
Chimps patrol their territory, i'm sure it's not just convergent evolution that we do too. The faster and longer we run, the larger of a territory we could hold. Patrolling not only protects against rival tribes, but the further one can patrol, the earlier the tribe can be warned of pedators and the less easy it is for those predators to get to the tribe.
Look up Professor R. Brian Ferguson's recent interview uploaded on his new 20 year tome book, "Chimpanzees, war, and history" - he debunks the claim that chimps practice warfare.
@voidisyinyangvoidisyinyang885 does he debunk them being territorial and patrolling though? Chimps are much more peaceful than a lot of sources imply, but they do try and defend their territory from intruders be they predators or rivals.
A hypothesis is a cause and effect prediction that must be validated via experimentation. Can you name your IV, DV and detail the experiment you preformed?
@retrospiel Human ancestors started eating lots of starch only very recently when agriculture was established. Before that, their diet were mostly cellulose from leaves or barks, sugars in fruits, in addition to animal products. There might be some starch from occasional wild roots but most roots are poisonous without fire.
@@ejRecording Bart Kay is a walking meme. He's (un)lampoonable. I'm surprised his own camp doesn't ostracize him for adversely impacting what little reputation carnivore has.
Some super smart and educated people in the comments. Don’t usually see that in comments these days. Just found your channel … very interesting and I’m sure more research will follow. I am by no means educated in this area but I’d suppose the easy “catch” was fish. Maybe our ancestors simply ate berries, plants, fish and nuts, seeds, roots.. starch. And once they learned to use tools for hunting , then small land fowl and mammals? We might never know, but it just seems to make sense to me. When you’re hungry you’ll probably eat just about anything I’d suppose
Apparently fishing didn't really start until 70,000-80,000 years ago. Which is also about when our brains started to shrink back down again. ;) Well done for finding this channel. The back catalogue of videos on here is amazing.
Nice concept. It’s an easy workout. The „rangers with a home base“ model can be seen in historical Native American populations. It was the dominant form of habitation and existence for the longest time. These were basically „Stone Age“populations that remained that way until Europeans showed up. Even earlier; the Natufians and their successors in the Middle East have left enough archaeological evidence to say that for them, this too was the dominant form of civilization. As for chasing animals; they were chasing animals wounded by primitive hunting tools. The San bushmen of South Africa still know how to do that. No sane person thinking about their next meal is going to try and chase an antelope or deer. They will go for the easy calories. Humans aren’t runners per say, they are rangers. Farming started because people wanted to have a more predictable and controlled access to these starches. Animal husbandry probably started because those animals were just hanging around, attracted to the crops. (Everybody loves a good idea 👍)
the animals are not just "wounded" since the san Bushmen use a deadly poison on their arrowheads - the poison had no known antidote. So they are tracking down an animal that will die once it is hit with the arrow. Still 80% of the original human culture diet is from tubers and greens and nuts. The DNA science now shows the "pygmies" split from the San Bushmen 225,000 years ago and before that a "ghost archaic" human existed that was the basis of the short stature of the pygmies-san bushmen. That short stature was adapted due the equatorial rainforest hunting - not some running grasslands hunting lifestyle. But certainly after the Mt. Toba supervolcano explosion 70,000 years ago the San Bushmen lived in a part of AFrica least affected and thus best able to survive - using more advanced hunting technology (bows with poison).
@@jinxterx Sorry, I live in Germany and my system is bilingual. I obviously overlooked this one. I had to edit my comment 3 times, to correct that sneaky autocorrect. It changes things as they are being published. (Cheap excuse, but my only one)
Running from forest area to forest area to find a bunch of edible plants and fruits always made more sense to me than wasting energy chasing after animals to complete exhaustion
That persistence hunting always sounded off to me, good to hear that people have actually tried it. No way you could run down an animal that's much faster than you are. You will either loose it, or it can take naps while waiting for you.
Awesome topic. The persistence hunting hypothesis is so asinine I can't believe anyone buys it. Surely no one who really believes that hypothesis has actually tried it.
Yes but starch comes from the forager half of the hunter forager system and that's boring and unsexy because women do that. Rather than manly hunting. I forgot the name of the tribe but Liver King and some other dude bros went to hang out with the men who mainly caught some rabbits and collected massive amounts of honey, while they ignored all the roots and tubers the women were collecting. Viva Longevity! channel has a video on it called "Burn" I think.
It shows how much its about fantasy, because every time people talk about hunting etc. they talk about hunting big game etc. While in reality, we hunted much mainly more smaller animals. But hunting rodents, birds or monkeys just does not sound that cool. Or eating insects.
@@Nobody-Nowhere Yes there's a hilarious bit in that video I mentioned where the men have gathered lots of honeycomb and offer a piece to the carnivore bro. It is full of the grubs so they were getting protein from the honey as well as glucose calories. Carnivore bro took a bite and looked like he was going to puke, haha.
Fermentation makes great late winter accessible calories of things like hard little crabapples, which birds and many mammals enjoy, so it seems very plausible that early hominids would seek out or deliberately allow to ferment fibrous fruits and roots.
There was a really interesting self-published book that I read called Graincollection, yes, all one word, that posits that a close analog for early human behavior might be the Therapithecus gelada, or "gelada baboon." It was a hypothesis originally conceived by anthropologist Clifford Jolly to explain some contradictions in the prevailing models of early human development. This baboon is social with many anatomical developments that mirror unique aspects of human anatomy, and they subsist in large part by stripping ripe seeds from grassland plants and digging up tubers. Unlike chacma baboons, they don't do much hunting, but do carnivory in the more typical way of incidentally eating insects and bird eggs as they find them, forming a very small portion of their diet. The book's argument is that this lifestyle does a pretty elegant job of explaining early tool development. It was a very interesting argument to read, though as far as I'm aware no attention was devoted to it. But it is pretty interesting that the most important agricultural plants are tubers and grain. You've got to imagine they weren't domesticating oats and barley on a whim, they must have been eating it before they started planting it.
There is an old you tube video that actually filmed young San bushmen hunting where one of them was actually successful runny down the animal to panting exhaustion where it was effortlessly killed. The other young San bushmen hunters gave him recognition,saying that only he was able to master this most difficult way of hunting.
I agree, and let's not forget that sometimes hominids or humans had good numbers, and sometimes they almost died out or did die out. At times when there were more individuals the social interactions could have been very positive for intelligence, and even when times were especially difficult a new course of action could have made a major difference for future intelligence. It would all have depended a lot on simple luck and timing.
Mic, you missed something... I love ya man, but most people think uncooked starchy roots are just tougher to digest, but you also have to realize that many starchy roots and tubers (especially out of Africa) like yams and cassava are toxic when raw. Cooking deactivates these toxins rendering an entirely new food source accessible. Sure ground nut and bambara are better cooked, but still edible raw, but the fact that many foods are no longer toxic when cooked is a huge advantage for us starchivores 👍💪💪
He also kind of missed the topic of nixtamalization, and how that process was the unsung hero of helping natives of North America skip the pellagra 'epidemic' entirely, by 'unlocking' nutrients in maize, while others were getting sick and deficient by eating the improper, newly forming Standard American Diet.
Nixtamalization goes back some 2500 years ago at least, and so it existed loooong before people ever got the modern idea of 'enriching' common, lower quality foods. B12 might be a scam too, due to the theory of some crucial B vitamins being available in fermented foods, but that's a topic that's only recently been revealed to me.
Sure it is poisonous, plants do not want to get eaten either. Also wild roots and tubers barely contain any starch, so this whole theory is just silly.
Water bottles could actually have been a thing for quite some time in human history. When I was in Tanzania they showed me a “kibuyu”. Google it, it’s basically a bottle made from a baobab pod. So it’s possible early humans user this and carried water while traveling around.
You don't have to run to eat yams. Just wander to a new piece of land every few weeks. Running is for hunting. And the brain grew because of honey. We started eating a lot of honey after we learned to use smoke. Check out the Hadza tribe. Eating starch and grains in large quantities made possible the phenomenon of big cities, religions and ownership.
I think you're onto something with your hypothesis. It might be a combination of starch and the nutrient dense forest fruit hypothesis put forth by Tony Wright in "Return to the Brain of Eden." That book also hypothesizes that recent brain shrinkage is a result of increased carnivory after we left the rainforests and dispersed to less hospitable climates... probably learning carnivory from our less intelligent cousins that had already left the forests such as neanderthals.
Starch runner quote -I've seen things you people wouldn't believe ,Attacked chips on fire off the shoulder of O' Ryan. I watched sea beans glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser Gate. All those moments will be lost in time, like beers in the rain. Time to vegan diet.
Fantastic! I loved Born to Run though not convinced with the hypothesis of evolution for persistence hunting. It does not seem essential to believe that Homo sapiens sapiens can travel incredibly long distances and run a whole lot perhaps intermittently in order to hunt. We can imagine migrating extraordinarily far in order to look for food. The idea of a home base would suggest farming, in some fashion, and that for me seems contrived, for early humans. There must have been a lot of movement and migration, in challenging conditions and frequent famine. The primitive carnivore, as you suggested, is impractical, unlikely, and ludicrous. And running without starch, well… why hunt if you have starchy vegetables? Just eat! 😂 This was a great video. You should discuss with Scott Jurek for a follow up to this video. I’m sure he would not be keen on preying on antelopes. ❤
This video will attract the carnivore “we evolved to eat meat” arguments. They should be fine eating raw meat, without any refrigeration or preservative methods then. Fact is, technology allows humans to eat meat, not nature.
Hey Mic, some interesting information about the topic- my girlfriend comes from a tribe in the pacific ocean (not png) most people don't know about the island (my gf looks African, different to indigenous australias though, much darker then people from png and not like people from soloman islands). She comes from central part of the island which a forrest environment (not close to the ocean). only a few generations ago they were living in the Stone Age and the things i learn about humans from her are interesting to say the least. this is the interesting and relivent part though.. Their entire population of about 300 thousand people that have just come out of living like primal humans.. guess what they eat? the foundation of their entire diet is starches and the other part is eating lots of greens in the form of soup. I've been questioning her for years and what i find is that basicly what is the norm there is eating a soup with lots of greens (similar to how people in the west eat pasta or rice) whith a big amount of starches. there diet is almost 50% tubers and 50% greens in volume but that would equate to startches still being the majorty of calories. with some nuts, fruit regularly and once in a while animal products (sometimes only every couple months). She says that its well known that the people on small islands off the main island that eat lots of fish age very different to the tuber and green eaters on the mainland. the tuber and green eaters stay much much much younger (possible because the sun exposure aswell). They are one of the people that are living almost exactly how they were living in the stone age and there are tribes there that are pretty much unchanged and of course they eat yams, cassava, sweet potato, taro, cooking banana and heaps of greens, that is almost all of what they eat. I hypothesise eating animal products and cannibalism which many primal huamans around the world did was more of a lowe rconciousness cultural habbit and rarely had anything to do with actual survival. I hope this helps, I absolutly adore your channel (From Australia). ps the only people that eat lots of animal products there are people they get rich and then they get fat as fuck and get heart disease. the village people at the age of 80, 90 etc are significantly more able and healthy then westerners. there is more interesting questions i have come up with pertaining to if there genetics actually are closer linked to original humans there the current day africans if original humans arived there and the island acted as a time capsal, just an idea. Their tribal political system is interesting aswell. My girlfriend can count back beyond 20 generations of her blood line. Super different comrehension to western humans. Anyways if you have any questions i'll be happy to provide information and chat. sorry if the paragrpah isn't organised perfectly, i must go for now, all the best for your phenomenal yt channel. what if you do more 'how your body transforms on a vegan diet' and more broad terms to capture and convert more people into higher order of veganism, click bait and convert to save the world type vibe :)
i think the science is skewed some of the best and longest runners I know and that my friends know are carnivore and I really don’t swing one way or another just merely friends with a lot of runners. I just eat everything so long as it’s not processed.
Yes, many fruits (esp tropical) are loaded with complex and simple sugars, they are easy to "hunt". I guess humans ate those first and slowly accepted tasteless starches (tubers) later
Mic I love the content but its astonishing how you can go this many years and still not realize we are frugivores and frugivorous more than anything. Fruit is our species specific diet by and large. Also the only tasty thing when raw.
@@ostamaza22-yt4sq great, actually. I haven't had a cavity in years, and have been consuming drinks with 1/4 cup of sugar, several times per day for the better part of 6 months now.
@@ostamaza22-yt4sq not sure if my comments are coming through. But I've been consuming at least 1/4 cup of sugar for the better part of 6 months, and have not had cavities in years. This is in part due to using an herbal tooth powder in my personal hygiene routine, but also because sugar has been falsely pinned down as the culprit of cavity-causing foods.
@@ostamaza22-yt4sq look up Sweet Fruitness, and find her videos on sugar. I'll recommend a specific one if my comments actually make it through this time 🤔
Yes, I feel so much better now that I'm not deficient in yellow. I need to do some bloods though because I think my sky blue levels might low. Seriously, people who think that "eating a rainbow" is the key to good health are clearly lacking in something... and it's not colours.
I think we lost some average intelligence when moving into cities. Many people alive today would not, I think, be smart enough to survive as hunter gatherers.
They'd think they would need to hunt animals. Not realiea if you kill a species too often, too frequent there isn't enough to hunt. You'd always have people who know how to farm vegetables because even city dwellers have their own garden patch. I also suspect people would just use backwards yard hens.
Look for Professor Tim Noakes. He is the authority about High Carb and Low Carb diets for athletes. Not this guy on youtube whose daughter died due to vegan diet.
The cause for something like that is normally a random genetic abnormality. Do you have a medical report to prove that it was, instead, "due to vegan diet"?
How anyone can believe that we were apex carnivores is hard to understand. Carnivores have big mouths and big teeth . How else could you bring down an animal and kill it before weapons were invented. You would also need a powerful jaw and large sharp teeth to cut through skin and tendons. Then there's our senses. We have a lousy sense of smell compared to actual carnivores. Our night vision is poor and our eyes are actually really well attuned to seeing different shades of green more than any other colour. Surely this is to learn the difference between safe and toxic plants. Of course we did eat some meat, but these were probably small rodents and especially insects. Even entirely vegetarian species such as gorillas would eat insects which were feeding on their plants.
Nonsense. " How else could you bring down an animal and kill it before weapons were invented." - tools are used by apes, closest to us chimps already do hunt, kill and enjoy meat. Early humans could only do better. We also have best tool already embedded in out body: hands. "Then there's our senses." Eyes. We have awesome eyes that cannot be easily deceived by camouflage. Keep in mind, hunting does not mean always going for a mammoth. More often this was small game: birds, squirrels, mice, fish, clamps, snails, insects... All you need for those are hands.
@david7780 It is funny that you think apex predators need big mouth or teeth. Humans use intelligence which made us apex. Tribal people without sophisticated tools can successfully hunt deers and boars using spears, sticks, or traps. They can even trick animals to fall into cliffs. Your logic also is against you. If we are herbivores, why are you not grazing? Why do you need spoon, knives or plates to eat. Why do you need to cook rice? The answer is the same. Humans are smart enough to use tools.
I’m cool with vegan ideas but you realize it is a modern construct right? We were starving as a species until agriculture came about which included animal husbandry ie eating animals and their milk and eggs. 😂
Yeah but that's still only in the winter or when food was scarce. Your more likely to keep the cows and chickens for the eggs more so than to butcher them. It's modern thinking they people would just eat meat three times a day thousands of years ago.
@@narrgamedesigner2747 Yes, red meat or even white meat was not on the daily menu. But fish, clams, snails, insects and other worms were eaten all the time.
We were scavengers for millions of years to a significant degree. At first passive, we ate the leftovers.. and then later, we got smarter and started teaming up and running the predators of their kills. Hunting tool evidence was much more recent.. half a million years ago, if i recall.
I agree that we evolved to eat starch. And this video is focused on starch. But there were other food sources very important to our ancestors than just starches or meat. Why are insects, molluscs and other invertebrates mostly always overlooked? I think our hands are very well adapted to catching critters like grasshoppers or fossicking around for clams and I bet they comprised a very large part of the ancestor diet.
Trigger alert. The carnivores are livid because they think Klaus Schwab is gonna force them to eat bugs. Someone might wanna tip'em off and let them know shrimp, lobster, and crabs are oceanic bugs. The Cajuns even call crawfish "Mug Bugs"
@@jonatanolsen37 Yep, our ancestors ate to survive not for longevity, they couldn’t afford that luxury, that’s why I find discussions over ancestor diets amusing and a tad silly. Food availability was the factor that limited the population. We don’t need to justify our present day food choices (yes I am whole plant based) based on if we evolved as starchivores, carnivores, insectivores or omnivores. Evolution selects for species survival not longevity. We now have the data to show that people live longer and healthier on a whole plant based diet, and we have food abundance. The choice is all ours, no justification needed.
Cooking works both ways Mic. Yes, our brain growth really took off around when we starting cooking 1 million years ago, but we can cook the pathogens out of meat too.
@@фанатКуплинова-ь1е Eat a carrot and see if you drop dead from it. Eat a chicken and see if you drop dead from it. Both survived? You are omnivore. Proved.
I think it would help the hypothesis if you could identify whether these starchy edible plants actually exist(ed), and if they grow in large groupings, as opposed to widely scattered about.
How many calories needed to run 50 miles ? 8000 ? So our ancestors just burnt the calorie benefit of larger area. That doesn’t make sense. We were never long distance runners. 99% of people can not run a marathon. We always hunted with weapons from hides, or with other tricks, also we ate fish.
You need glycogen for long distance running but fat adaption gives you more potential energy to work with and the glucose is to keep your levels up And most ancestral carbs were low glycemic. First bread was made from buckwheat. Rice didn’t take over china until late in history and white rice is 200 years old. Potatoes didn’t exist until recently and became popular because they were hard to steal by invading armies Most carbs until recently were low glycemic. Including tubers even if eaten long ago Then there are stories like the mongols who could go days without eating because of fat adaption and Chinese would starve while besieged in cities Not saying keto is how everyone lived but fat adaption was a real thing
You need to work on your writing. Hypothesis - evidence - discussion for example. This was 17 minutes of gibberish. What are you suggesting - humans evolved to be great runners becuaue that gives easier access to calories? Humans in fact always ate carbs. How is that news to anyone? Carbs are important for braingrowth? - Again how is that news to anyone. Carbs are better than any other fuelsource? - Thats just a stupid blanket statement. I suspect you were trying to present different possible causes for adaptations that the persistance hunting idea tries to explain. But if you wanted to do that you shouldve structured it accordingly. This was just bad.
Marathoners trying to chase down an antelope seems quite a disingenuous way to 'test' the persistent hunting claim , because it takes the claim at surface face value, instead of the wider context in which whichever author made those claims is embedded in, that gives you extra info to understand what the claim means, and it seems weird to take what I assume are people from technological civilization and expect them to do anything in the wild, successfully . It would make a ton more sense to 'test' native people, people who only know this lifestyle in practice are to be studied, because it requires knowledge of the land, knowledge of animal behavior, what to do when etc. etc. and not just brute force chase an animal. But other than that, interesting video overall, and a lot of other points that put into doubt the persistent hunting idea.
There is a MUCH BETTER explanation. The "Tripping Trailblazer Hypothesis" suggests that human endurance running evolved not for hunting or gathering starches but to seek psychedelic mushrooms. Early hominids, drawn to these fungi for their mind-expanding effects, developed a craving for transcendental experiences. As potent mushrooms grew scattered across wide areas, natural selection favored those who could travel farther, out-tripping their less mobile peers. This drive for altered states spurred long-distance running abilities, with the famed "runner's high" as a mere bonus-a physiological side effect to the true evolutionary driver: the ultimate trip.
You can lie to yourself all your life, but then you don't have to be surprised if you have to bear all the inconvenience of the misjudgement. I mean the poor health that you have to bear.
Mic you had a LOT to say but you Never Once in this video actually detailed the experiment that validated the hypothesis. You didn't even define the IV and DV - Hey.. what is this .. some kind of scam? Mic, Stop Pretending like you know anything at all about actual science because you pal Do Not.
Mic is a vegan so science is alien to him. He thinks the reams of epidemiological nonsense studies he normally quotes are science. He doesn't understand that science involves doing experiments and that there has never been an experiment done on human beings and never will, with regards to what we eat and any hard health outcomes from that.
Mic - you claim the ancients had no way to carry water? How is this assertion scientific, meaning cause and effect based to actually validate a hypothesis via experimentation? You don't have that. Mic I think you have No Clue what Real science is. I'm 56, Mic is just a young kid with a Lot to learn.
22 часа назад+6
I once watched (video) some dudes in some African desert chase down a Kudu over an entire day, in desert heat until ... the poor Kudu dropped dead from exhaustion after 7 hours. I have no illusions regarding the aerobic insanity of Humans.
they both ran for 7 hours, but the human was the only one who brought a plastic jug of water to drink and pour on himself during the run. im curious how the outcome would have been if the kudu could have proportional water to drink and cool off with as well. edit: or if they just denied the human runner any water at all, just like the kudu. or in addition, having them run in the cold to negate heat exhaustion.
17 часов назад
@@itsyaboinadia I'm even more curious what the outcome would be if ... you had a brain.
My response to the challenge that wild root didn't have much starch so my theory is bunk: I do agree that many of the wild versions of plants that we eat today were meager starch sources but that doesn't mean that larger, wild varieties didn't exist. For example the wild ancestor of the Guinea Yam can be seen here with roots just as big as what we see in the grocery store today: www.researchgate.net/figure/Semences-de-D-praehensilis-comestibles-a-et-b-semenceaux-fragments-de-tubercules-c_fig4_318793655
We also have things like starchy tiger nuts which were the main dietary component of some of our ancestors: "An Oxford University study has concluded that our ancient ancestors who lived in East Africa between 2.4 million and 1.4 million years ago survived mainly on a diet of tiger nuts."
"The Oxford study calculates a hominin could extract sufficient nutrients from a tiger nut-based diet - i.e. around 10,000 kilojoules or 2,000 calories a day, or 80% of their required daily calorie intake - in two and half to three hours. "
www.ox.ac.uk/news/2014-01-09-ancient-human-ancestor-nutcracker-man-lived-tiger-nuts
Finally, these large tubers are allegedly the wild Lesser Yam and are massive so it would need to be verified but it at least shows that wild, unfarmed plants can achieve massive starchy root systems: ruclips.net/video/J0vp5PvQpvs/видео.htmlsi=kwIZtEPKSpQ2FJbg&t=1008
A worse fiber to starch ratio also doesn't mean that there weren't enough calories around, just that more fiber would be consumed which is on track with the 100g fiber coprolites we find.
Very cool indeed. Please sign me up for half a pound of tiger nuts! 👍
Even then the hadza average 15000 steps a day from the numbers I’ve heard. No one is running 400 miles in the western world
One thing eating starch for that amount of energy expenditure and another for modern people who drive and sit most of the day
I was hoping you'd come back to this topic! great vid!
Excellent presentation, clear facts. Love it!
Imagine what the carnivore crowd has to say about this: "So, it took all that starch to get us to the point where our brains would become smart enough to know that we shouldn't be eating it."
If mental gymnastics were in the olympics, the carnivore crowd would be top tier.
@@jonatanolsen37 lol love that. beautifully stated
They just think we always ate meat all the time.
@carinaekstrom1 yes 3 milions years
@@presterjohn1697 Thanks! I had to eat a lot of starch to come up with it.
I would not be surprised if tribes had some fit, young runners who would go out and scout for the best foraging areas. He would have to be fast and fit to get back with news quickly, for the others to move in the right direction. Also, he would be finding out where there were other groups of animals, competitors or dangerous ones to stay clear of.
I love learning things with Mic! A school teacher like him would be so great😊
Ahah, been waiting for this one. Thx Mic. Cheers.
When I chase down fruits and sink my fangs into them sometimes they struggle, but it feels natural and they taste delicious
"and they taste delicious"...
Of course they do because they are full of sugar, which is a metabolic poison. You vegans crack me up.
@@RibeyeRob "metabolic poison" LMAO what do you even mean by that? You're just throwing buzzwords around
I took a kick to the knee from a jicama last week and have been surviving on flightless apples.
One of the only things we can eat raw without any seasoning and it's still delicious
@@edgbarraHumans have been eating raw meat without seasoning for millions of years until now. It was the start of your brain development.
Thanks for your video, keep that kind of research review coming !
now I wanna hop around a beautiful jungle, pull up roots and bring them to my home base
It’s not just about how we evolved. It’s about what we are evolving towards.
I completely agree with this. I’m convinced hunting was primarily a social behavior rather than a food gathering event. A way to establish pecking order and bond, etc.
It seems to be dude violence-bonding time with chimpanzees, since meat is like 1-2% of their diet.
Also cooled starches become resistant starches, and ferment in the gut, and have much more positive health effects than freshly heated starches/potatoes etc
fascinating - I had this debate with a biochemistry major at University - she insisted that probiotics would get destroyed by the stomach enzymes.
Starch is life, starch is love. 💚🍠🥔
Starch is sugar and sugar is a metabolic poison.
I understand that the vegan brain doesn't work that well but seriously, you carb addicts are really deluded.
Starch is poison... Body does everything to get rid of it. When human eat starch, hormonal response triggers panic switch from normal fat burning to emergency glucose burning.
one of my all time favourite RUclips channels
Marathon runners load up on carbs the evening before. Huge portions of pasta , Not meat or fat or eggs or oil.
Nope. Many do run in ketosis. Body can store only very little sugars: it is poison after all. On other hand, body does store thousands and thousands of calories as fat. In ketosis, body can easily use this fat as fuel, so humans in this state can easily do marathon and more. After appropriate training of course ;)
@@robertbloch1063 Complete and utter nonsense.
@@robertbloch1063do you have examples of ultra marathon runners doing it in ketosis? Serious question. I think it's much easier to replenish energy using glucose than fat so I'd like to know how they do that (if it's real)
@@jinxterx It is you that's talking out of something other than your mouth. The fact is that when your fully loaded with carbs you have access to around 2,000 calories of energy. On carnivore when you become fully fat adapted, even the leanest person has access to around 100,000 calories of energy.
Many top athletes know this and are now carnivore. The New Zealand All Blacks for example, the world's strongest man, Eddie Hall being another. And then of course there's Alex McDonald who completed five marathons in five days while completely fasted, consuming only water and salt. A feat only possible if you're fat adapted and don't consume contraindicated carbohydrates. This is our natural state throughout our 5 million year evolution.
Alex has been adhering to a low carbohydrate high fat (LCHF) / ketogenic diet for more than 13 years and has thus been fat adapted for significant period of time. Advice from both a qualified dietician and a team of medical doctors has ensured an optimised ketogenic diet was followed.
Stop following clowns like Mic The Vegan and go back to school and learn how the body really works.
@@RibeyeRob basic biochemistry dude: literally every cell in the body runs on glucose. Ketosis is an emergency state that occurs in starvation. Just because you can eat sh*t doesn't mean you should. Cut carbs, cut life. Carbs beats ketosis every single time and real science proves it over and over again. I think it's you that needs to get an education.
Humans can live off of anything, that's our main evolutionary advantage together with our intelligence. Innuits live off a diet mostly comprised of animal products. Tribes in new guinea live off a diet mostly comprised of sweet potatoes. On the whole, it's likely that cooking and being able to consume starch gave us the biggest advantage not just against nature and other animals but other humans as well: those who had the ability to procure the most starch could build the largest empires. In a lot of tribes it was found that meat consumption is mostly an activity that men carry out on their own: small groups go out for days, hunt and consume most of the animals and only bring back scraps. The bulk of the calories consumed by the tribe comes from nuts, seeds, starches gathered by women and children. So meat is more of a supplemental food than the bulk. It is interesting that even today in modern societies, men consume more meat than women.
Calcified plaques in the arteries of mummified Inuit people from the 1500s have been found, despite a very active lifestyle and diet rich in omega-3 fatty acids.
Men have a greater tendency to die earlier than women, all cause mortality.
It is a cultural phenomenon that men pretend to be strong, smart and courageous when they kill an animal. It also reqires that they put aside their capacity for compassion, while women who nurture children more closely tend to show more empathy. It's time for men to get over their resistance to empathy (many have), and move on to more mature behaviors. Men can be strong, smart and courageous in much more valid ways. Vegan men are probably some of the most courageous and strong people, standing up against the macho stupidity of this world.
Additionally, as Mic has discussed, the Inuit who lived mostly on animals were developing atherosclerosis young. Most modern Inuit have jobs and go to the grocery store like the rest of us, and as a result, their lifespans are increased to being like other Canadians.
@@roku3216 Complete nonsense. Look up the BBC interview with the Inuit back in the 1920's, or there abouts. They lived with them and the thing that astonished them the most was the fact that none of them had heart disease at all.
That of course has changed now that they consume the same crap the rest of the Western world does. They were fine when they ate their biologically appropriate diet... just like all of us carnivores are.
Speaking of genetic codes, they require Functional Sequence/Specified Complexity, which doesn't occur by happenstance. I'm not exactly what you would call religious, but I have heard that in the beginning we were given fruits and herbs to eat, not animals. Animals putrify in the gut, creating horrible stench, and require fire to kill parasites. Also they run away in fear, plants don't do that. If people were meant to kill animals they probably wouldn't develop empathy for them and have to rely on factory farming to ignore reality.
What a load of nonsense. What do you think is happening to plant matter? Its being decomposed by microorganisms right? The stench you get is when you switch between unaccustomed foods, or eating a lot of plant materia.
"Also they run in fear" yes that is their defense machanism. Do you think plants dont have it because they cant move like animals?
"Have to rely on animal farming to ignore reality" what? Factory farming is the result of wanting to produce cheaper food at the cost of animal welfare, environment and human health, not some ignoring of reality of what animals go through
I often thought about the empathy thing. Animals that depend on eating others can't evolve empathy, like you said. So humans have a big dilemma, and I think empathy will win in the long run. It's a form of awareness and intelligence that is too useful in important ways. Human carnivores really have to try hard to keep lying to themselves. Except the psychopathic ones, of course. A human world filled with psychopaths doesn't work, they need to be very few or nonexistant.
straightforward math problem, brain needs more calories and glucose than meat can provide in a convenient way versus starch foods
Much needed - thank you!!
This is the most compelling evidence I have heard that we were not carnivores. Salivary amylase enzymes from 800,000 years ago. And starch digestive enzymes in canines 40,000 years ago! I hope dogs don't become extinct .
"This is the most compelling evidence I have heard that we were not carnivores."...
Nonsense, no such evidence exists, only your delusions to justify your carb addiction.
The only evidence that exists that can tell us what human beings are is the 2019 and 2021 follow up study in the hard science of paleo and chemical anthropology. I'm referring to stable isotope analysis of the N15 and N13 carbon and nitrogen contained within the collagen of the long bones of human skeletal remains dating back 100,000 years which clearly shows what we ate during that time period making us absolutely obligate hyper carnivore. This is the only science we have that can inform us on this question.
I hope so too, and as a vegan I don't agree with some other vegans about breaking that bond. We just need more responsible procreation and care for dogs.
We definitely were meat-eaters - from cooking meat but even our hand grasping was to grab rocks to smash the bones to get at the fat marrow in the bones. So meat eating and animal fat eating goes back probably 3 million years in hominins.
@@voidisyinyangvoidisyinyang885 Did you just make that up? Just because we can smash each other with rocks doesn't mean we're cannibals.
@@carinaekstrom1 Wow so you're too afraid to google something in case you might learn something you don't "want" to exist? hahaha. Eating bone marrow played a key role in the evolution of the human hand
by University of Kent
The strength required to access the high calorie content of bone marrow may have played a key role in the evolution of the human hand and explain why primates hands are not like ours, research at the University of Kent has found.
In an article in The Journal of Human Evolution, a team lead by Professor Tracy Kivell of Kent's School of Anthropology and Conservation concludes that although stone tool making has always been considered a key influence on the evolution of the human hand, accessing bone marrow generally has not.
It is widely accepted that the unique dexterity of the human hand evolved, at least in part, in response to stone tool use during our evolutionary history.
Archaeological evidence suggests that early hominins participated in a variety of tool-related activities, such as nut-cracking, cutting flesh, smashing bone to access marrow, as well as making stone tools. However, it is unlikely that all these behaviours equally influenced modern human hand anatomy.
To understand the impact these different actions may have had on the evolution of human hands, researchers measured the force experienced by the hand of 39 individuals during different stone tool behaviours-nut-cracking, marrow acquisition with a hammerstone, flake production with a hammerstone, and handaxe and stone tool (i.e. a flake) - to see which digits were most important for manipulating the tool.
They found that the pressures varied across the different behaviours, with nut-cracking generally requiring the lowest pressure while making the flake and accessing marrow required the greatest pressures. Across all of the different behaviours, the thumb, index finger and middle finger were always most important.
Professor Kivell says this suggests that nut-cracking force may not be high enough to elicit changes in the formation of the human hand, which may be why other primates are adept nut-crackers without having a human-like hand.
In contrast, making stone flakes and accessing marrow may have been key influences on our hand anatomy due to the high stress they cause on our hands. The researchers concluded that eating marrow, given its additional benefit of high calorific value, may have also played a key role in evolution of human dexterity.
The manual pressures of stone tool behaviors and their implications for the evolution of the human hand by Erin Marie Williams-Hatala, Kevin G. Hatala, McKenzie Gordon and Margaret Kasper, all Chatham University, Pittsburgh, USA and Alastair Key and Tracy Kivell, University of Kent is published in the Journal of Human Evolution.
Mystery of 2 million-year-old stone balls solved
News
By Laura Geggel
published April 17, 2020
Here's how ancient cave dwellers used these stone balls.
For nearly 2 million years, ancient humans crafted stones into hand-size balls, but archaeologists were unsure why.
Now they know: Ancient people used them as tools to get at the tasty marrow within animal bones, a new study finds.
In other words, if a bone were a can of soup, these ancient stone balls were like ancient can openers.
The finding is a remarkable one; archaeologists have wondered for decades exactly how ancient humans used these stone balls. "Our study provided evidence, for the first time, regarding the function of these enigmatic-shaped stone balls that were produced by humans for almost 2 million years," study lead researcher Ella Assaf, a postdoctoral researcher in the Department of Archaeology and Ancient Near East Cultures at Tel Aviv University in Israel, told Live Science in an email.
Archaeologists have found "these enigmatic, mysterious artifacts" in some of the world's oldest archaeological sites in Africa, Europe and Asia, but no one in modern times had figured out how these ancient round stones were used, Assaf said.
That changed when Assaf and her team came across a cache of 30 stone balls in Qesem Cave in Israel, where humans lived from about 400,000 to 200,000 years ago.
To solve the mystery of the stone balls, study senior researcher Emanuela Cristiani, an archaeologist at Sapienza University in Rome, and her colleagues examined the stone balls microscopically. They discovered wear marks and organic residues indicating that the stones "were used by the cave inhabitants to break animal bones and extract the nutritional marrow," Assaf said.
However, the international team wanted to be sure, so they did two experiments. In the first, they used cobblestones (naturally rounded stones larger than pebbles) to break apart bones. In the second, the team used tools to shape their own stone balls and then tested them on bones.
After busting some bones, the team learned that the shaped stone balls were much more efficient than the natural ones at breaking bones and getting to the marrow, a finding that supported the conclusion from the microscopic analyses.
"These tools provide comfortable grip, they don't tend to break easily, and you can rotate them and use them repetitively since they have multiple ridges," Assaf said. "These high ridges help to break the bone in a 'clean' way, and you can extract the marrow relatively easily."
Moreover, breaking bones left tiny wear marks on the modern replicas that were "very similar to the archaeological traces" on the ancient stone balls, Assaf said. "This confirmed our preliminary assumption that these items were indeed used to extract bone marrow," she said.
Ancient Human Ancestors May Have Grown Big Brains Scavenging Bone Marrow By Thomas Garlinghouse
In a paper recently published in the journal Current Anthropology, Jessica Thompson, an anthropologist at Yale University, and her colleagues suggest that hominins were primarily after bone marrow - that gloppy, spongy, calorie-rich substance inside bones - rather than skeletal muscle tissue, or “meat.” “Meat-eating is kind of a misleading term,” said Thompson. “Meat-eating can loosely mean so many things, many of which are not actually meat.”
In fact, the researchers believe that skeletal-clinging meat was frequently avoided, perhaps because it can rapidly acquire harmful bacteria from exposure or the mouths of animals. Marrow and brains, by contrast, because they are encased inside bones, retain low bacteria counts and persist much longer without spoiling. The researchers use the term “inside bone nutrients” to distinguish these resources from “outside bone nutrients,” namely the muscle tissue, or meat. Although direct evidence is currently lacking, the researchers contend that the hypothesis allows anthropologists to take a fresh look at the fossil record and the behavior of our early ancestors.
In mammals, marrow is where blood cells are produced. It is also high in fat, cholesterol and numerous micronutrients. This rich resource, they believe, may have acted as a catalyst in the development of humans’ distinctively large and complex brain.
“The brain is a very expensive organ,” Thompson said. Although it takes up only 2 percent of our body weight, it requires approximately 20 percent of the body’s energy even at rest. This percentage is much higher than what other primates allocate, including humans’ closest relatives, chimpanzees.
Over the course of some 6 million years, the size of the human brain has increased by over 300 percent. This evolution required a rich reservoir of energy, one that a diet of lean, wild meat would not have been able to sustain, Thompson and her colleagues contend.
“We’re used to thinking of meat as a fatty product,” Thompson said. “But wild game is not very fatty at all. If you eat a lot of lean meat it doesn’t actually provide you with the sustenance you need to function well.”
Bone marrow, by contrast, is an excellent source of surplus energy, she said. “Bone marrow is actually a nicely accessible package of fat in an otherwise fat-poor landscape.”
Chimps patrol their territory, i'm sure it's not just convergent evolution that we do too. The faster and longer we run, the larger of a territory we could hold.
Patrolling not only protects against rival tribes, but the further one can patrol, the earlier the tribe can be warned of pedators and the less easy it is for those predators to get to the tribe.
Look up Professor R. Brian Ferguson's recent interview uploaded on his new 20 year tome book, "Chimpanzees, war, and history" - he debunks the claim that chimps practice warfare.
@voidisyinyangvoidisyinyang885 does he debunk them being territorial and patrolling though? Chimps are much more peaceful than a lot of sources imply, but they do try and defend their territory from intruders be they predators or rivals.
Thank you Mic!
Great video! Thanks for all your work 💚🐾🌱
When studying McDougall's work I came to a similar hypothesis myself. We are starchivores.
spot on
A hypothesis is a cause and effect prediction that must be validated via experimentation. Can you name your IV, DV and detail the experiment you preformed?
@@DivergentDroidLooks like we got a Bart kay troll
@retrospiel Human ancestors started eating lots of starch only very recently when agriculture was established. Before that, their diet were mostly cellulose from leaves or barks, sugars in fruits, in addition to animal products. There might be some starch from occasional wild roots but most roots are poisonous without fire.
@@ejRecording Bart Kay is a walking meme. He's (un)lampoonable. I'm surprised his own camp doesn't ostracize him for adversely impacting what little reputation carnivore has.
Great video! 👏👏👏
Some super smart and educated people in the comments. Don’t usually see that in comments these days. Just found your channel … very interesting and I’m sure more research will follow. I am by no means educated in this area but I’d suppose the easy “catch” was fish. Maybe our ancestors simply ate berries, plants, fish and nuts, seeds, roots.. starch. And once they learned to use tools for hunting , then small land fowl and mammals? We might never know, but it just seems to make sense to me. When you’re hungry you’ll probably eat just about anything I’d suppose
Apparently fishing didn't really start until 70,000-80,000 years ago. Which is also about when our brains started to shrink back down again. ;)
Well done for finding this channel. The back catalogue of videos on here is amazing.
Nice concept. It’s an easy workout. The „rangers with a home base“ model can be seen in historical Native American populations. It was the dominant form of habitation and existence for the longest time. These were basically „Stone Age“populations that remained that way until Europeans showed up. Even earlier; the Natufians and their successors in the Middle East have left enough archaeological evidence to say that for them, this too was the dominant form of civilization. As for chasing animals; they were chasing animals wounded by primitive hunting tools. The San bushmen of South Africa still know how to do that. No sane person thinking about their next meal is going to try and chase an antelope or deer. They will go for the easy calories. Humans aren’t runners per say, they are rangers. Farming started because people wanted to have a more predictable and controlled access to these starches. Animal husbandry probably started because those animals were just hanging around, attracted to the crops. (Everybody loves a good idea 👍)
the animals are not just "wounded" since the san Bushmen use a deadly poison on their arrowheads - the poison had no known antidote. So they are tracking down an animal that will die once it is hit with the arrow. Still 80% of the original human culture diet is from tubers and greens and nuts. The DNA science now shows the "pygmies" split from the San Bushmen 225,000 years ago and before that a "ghost archaic" human existed that was the basis of the short stature of the pygmies-san bushmen. That short stature was adapted due the equatorial rainforest hunting - not some running grasslands hunting lifestyle. But certainly after the Mt. Toba supervolcano explosion 70,000 years ago the San Bushmen lived in a part of AFrica least affected and thus best able to survive - using more advanced hunting technology (bows with poison).
It's per se not "per say".
@@jinxterx Sorry, I live in Germany and my system is bilingual. I obviously overlooked this one. I had to edit my comment 3 times, to correct that sneaky autocorrect. It changes things as they are being published. (Cheap excuse, but my only one)
@@WalksAlone hehe, yeah I know what you mean about the auto suggest/correct, it frequently gets things completely wrong!
Running from forest area to forest area to find a bunch of edible plants and fruits always made more sense to me than wasting energy chasing after animals to complete exhaustion
That persistence hunting always sounded off to me, good to hear that people have actually tried it. No way you could run down an animal that's much faster than you are. You will either loose it, or it can take naps while waiting for you.
Awesome topic. The persistence hunting hypothesis is so asinine I can't believe anyone buys it. Surely no one who really believes that hypothesis has actually tried it.
Big up those starchybois! Long live les vegans
Loving your new look. Your hair short like this is nice and your beard is full & well trimmed 👌🏼
Yes but starch comes from the forager half of the hunter forager system and that's boring and unsexy because women do that. Rather than manly hunting. I forgot the name of the tribe but Liver King and some other dude bros went to hang out with the men who mainly caught some rabbits and collected massive amounts of honey, while they ignored all the roots and tubers the women were collecting. Viva Longevity! channel has a video on it called "Burn" I think.
It shows how much its about fantasy, because every time people talk about hunting etc. they talk about hunting big game etc. While in reality, we hunted much mainly more smaller animals. But hunting rodents, birds or monkeys just does not sound that cool. Or eating insects.
@@Nobody-Nowhere Yes there's a hilarious bit in that video I mentioned where the men have gathered lots of honeycomb and offer a piece to the carnivore bro. It is full of the grubs so they were getting protein from the honey as well as glucose calories. Carnivore bro took a bite and looked like he was going to puke, haha.
.
Very likely: there is a book called Burn that also maintains the main point this video is trying to make.
@@k.h.6991 Yes, that was the book featured on Plant Chompers/Viv Longevity.
Fermentation makes great late winter accessible calories of things like hard little crabapples, which birds and many mammals enjoy, so it seems very plausible that early hominids would seek out or deliberately allow to ferment fibrous fruits and roots.
Dang son the beard is lookin extra sexy today
Facts 🎉
There was a really interesting self-published book that I read called Graincollection, yes, all one word, that posits that a close analog for early human behavior might be the Therapithecus gelada, or "gelada baboon." It was a hypothesis originally conceived by anthropologist Clifford Jolly to explain some contradictions in the prevailing models of early human development. This baboon is social with many anatomical developments that mirror unique aspects of human anatomy, and they subsist in large part by stripping ripe seeds from grassland plants and digging up tubers. Unlike chacma baboons, they don't do much hunting, but do carnivory in the more typical way of incidentally eating insects and bird eggs as they find them, forming a very small portion of their diet.
The book's argument is that this lifestyle does a pretty elegant job of explaining early tool development. It was a very interesting argument to read, though as far as I'm aware no attention was devoted to it. But it is pretty interesting that the most important agricultural plants are tubers and grain. You've got to imagine they weren't domesticating oats and barley on a whim, they must have been eating it before they started planting it.
I would love to hear more in a video contrasting our physiology with carnivorous and omnivorous physiology.
That was wonderful video. Thank you.
+1000 likes for this theory. Fantastic!
There is an old you tube video that actually filmed young San bushmen hunting where one of them was actually successful runny down the animal to panting exhaustion where it was effortlessly killed. The other young San bushmen hunters gave him recognition,saying that only he was able to master this most difficult way of hunting.
Starch runner sounds like a great title for a mobile game
I agree, and let's not forget that sometimes hominids or humans had good numbers, and sometimes they almost died out or did die out. At times when there were more individuals the social interactions could have been very positive for intelligence, and even when times were especially difficult a new course of action could have made a major difference for future intelligence. It would all have depended a lot on simple luck and timing.
Mic, you missed something...
I love ya man, but most people think uncooked starchy roots are just tougher to digest, but you also have to realize that many starchy roots and tubers (especially out of Africa) like yams and cassava are toxic when raw. Cooking deactivates these toxins rendering an entirely new food source accessible. Sure ground nut and bambara are better cooked, but still edible raw, but the fact that many foods are no longer toxic when cooked is a huge advantage for us starchivores 👍💪💪
It is possible those people had tolerance to the toxins in the roots and as we adapted to cooking, we slowly lost that ability?
Ya Less competition for these starchy roots as other animals are unable to deactivate the toxins by cooking.
He also kind of missed the topic of nixtamalization, and how that process was the unsung hero of helping natives of North America skip the pellagra 'epidemic' entirely, by 'unlocking' nutrients in maize, while others were getting sick and deficient by eating the improper, newly forming Standard American Diet.
Nixtamalization goes back some 2500 years ago at least, and so it existed loooong before people ever got the modern idea of 'enriching' common, lower quality foods. B12 might be a scam too, due to the theory of some crucial B vitamins being available in fermented foods, but that's a topic that's only recently been revealed to me.
Sure it is poisonous, plants do not want to get eaten either. Also wild roots and tubers barely contain any starch, so this whole theory is just silly.
This checks out. Would not run for/on BBQ 🤢 Did run a marathon for/on bananas 🤣 (and the Tiffany necklace medal at the end ☺️🤣)
Cool video. ❤
Water bottles could actually have been a thing for quite some time in human history. When I was in Tanzania they showed me a “kibuyu”. Google it, it’s basically a bottle made from a baobab pod. So it’s possible early humans user this and carried water while traveling around.
Sounds interesting, I'll check it out. I imagine they can carry a lot of water tho. Persistence hunting would take days 😅
You don't have to run to eat yams. Just wander to a new piece of land every few weeks. Running is for hunting. And the brain grew because of honey. We started eating a lot of honey after we learned to use smoke. Check out the Hadza tribe. Eating starch and grains in large quantities made possible the phenomenon of big cities, religions and ownership.
I think you're onto something with your hypothesis. It might be a combination of starch and the nutrient dense forest fruit hypothesis put forth by Tony Wright in "Return to the Brain of Eden." That book also hypothesizes that recent brain shrinkage is a result of increased carnivory after we left the rainforests and dispersed to less hospitable climates... probably learning carnivory from our less intelligent cousins that had already left the forests such as neanderthals.
Starch runner quote -I've seen things you people wouldn't believe ,Attacked chips on fire off the shoulder of O' Ryan. I watched sea beans glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser Gate. All those moments will be lost in time, like beers in the rain. Time to vegan diet.
Fantastic! I loved Born to Run though not convinced with the hypothesis of evolution for persistence hunting. It does not seem essential to believe that Homo sapiens sapiens can travel incredibly long distances and run a whole lot perhaps intermittently in order to hunt. We can imagine migrating extraordinarily far in order to look for food. The idea of a home base would suggest farming, in some fashion, and that for me seems contrived, for early humans. There must have been a lot of movement and migration, in challenging conditions and frequent famine. The primitive carnivore, as you suggested, is impractical, unlikely, and ludicrous. And running without starch, well… why hunt if you have starchy vegetables? Just eat! 😂 This was a great video. You should discuss with Scott Jurek for a follow up to this video. I’m sure he would not be keen on preying on antelopes. ❤
This video will attract the carnivore “we evolved to eat meat” arguments. They should be fine eating raw meat, without any refrigeration or preservative methods then. Fact is, technology allows humans to eat meat, not nature.
3:50 Yo, that air time would make Tony Hawk jealous*.
jealous.
Hey Mic, some interesting information about the topic- my girlfriend comes from a tribe in the pacific ocean (not png) most people don't know about the island (my gf looks African, different to indigenous australias though, much darker then people from png and not like people from soloman islands). She comes from central part of the island which a forrest environment (not close to the ocean). only a few generations ago they were living in the Stone Age and the things i learn about humans from her are interesting to say the least. this is the interesting and relivent part though.. Their entire population of about 300 thousand people that have just come out of living like primal humans.. guess what they eat? the foundation of their entire diet is starches and the other part is eating lots of greens in the form of soup. I've been questioning her for years and what i find is that basicly what is the norm there is eating a soup with lots of greens (similar to how people in the west eat pasta or rice) whith a big amount of starches. there diet is almost 50% tubers and 50% greens in volume but that would equate to startches still being the majorty of calories. with some nuts, fruit regularly and once in a while animal products (sometimes only every couple months). She says that its well known that the people on small islands off the main island that eat lots of fish age very different to the tuber and green eaters on the mainland. the tuber and green eaters stay much much much younger (possible because the sun exposure aswell). They are one of the people that are living almost exactly how they were living in the stone age and there are tribes there that are pretty much unchanged and of course they eat yams, cassava, sweet potato, taro, cooking banana and heaps of greens, that is almost all of what they eat. I hypothesise eating animal products and cannibalism which many primal huamans around the world did was more of a lowe rconciousness cultural habbit and rarely had anything to do with actual survival. I hope this helps, I absolutly adore your channel (From Australia). ps the only people that eat lots of animal products there are people they get rich and then they get fat as fuck and get heart disease. the village people at the age of 80, 90 etc are significantly more able and healthy then westerners. there is more interesting questions i have come up with pertaining to if there genetics actually are closer linked to original humans there the current day africans if original humans arived there and the island acted as a time capsal, just an idea. Their tribal political system is interesting aswell. My girlfriend can count back beyond 20 generations of her blood line. Super different comrehension to western humans. Anyways if you have any questions i'll be happy to provide information and chat. sorry if the paragrpah isn't organised perfectly, i must go for now, all the best for your phenomenal yt channel. what if you do more 'how your body transforms on a vegan diet' and more broad terms to capture and convert more people into higher order of veganism, click bait and convert to save the world type vibe :)
Me I'm a starch boy
"Our brains run on glucose". Well, that's why we have sweet tooths and not blood tooths.
Interesting
mmm fermented foods... I especially love the fermented grapes... ;-)
Waiit is that wine Or ?
Did those runner wear shoes to hunt?
For how long do we have shoes?
i think the science is skewed some of the best and longest runners I know and that my friends know are carnivore and I really don’t swing one way or another just merely friends with a lot of runners. I just eat everything so long as it’s not processed.
Could we eat any starches before fire and cooking? Or cultivating Cavendish bananas?
Yes, many fruits (esp tropical) are loaded with complex and simple sugars, they are easy to "hunt". I guess humans ate those first and slowly accepted tasteless starches (tubers) later
@@anandvaidya67 for example???
Optimal beard length perhaps?
Mic I love the content but its astonishing how you can go this many years and still not realize we are frugivores and frugivorous more than anything. Fruit is our species specific diet by and large. Also the only tasty thing when raw.
I think you have eaten to much fruit and all that sugar has fried your brain
Raramuri is the people Tarahumara is the mountains. You're welcome
Oooohhh let's see if Mic speaks positively about sugar in this one. If not, I've got some videos and studies you need to check out.
How are teeth holding out on that sugar?
@@ostamaza22-yt4sq great, actually. I haven't had a cavity in years, and have been consuming drinks with 1/4 cup of sugar, several times per day for the better part of 6 months now.
@@ostamaza22-yt4sq if you're curious, I can recommend a video with some studies that debunks the current flawed ideas surrounding sugar.
@@ostamaza22-yt4sq not sure if my comments are coming through. But I've been consuming at least 1/4 cup of sugar for the better part of 6 months, and have not had cavities in years. This is in part due to using an herbal tooth powder in my personal hygiene routine, but also because sugar has been falsely pinned down as the culprit of cavity-causing foods.
@@ostamaza22-yt4sq look up Sweet Fruitness, and find her videos on sugar. I'll recommend a specific one if my comments actually make it through this time 🤔
Yes, I feel so much better now that I'm not deficient in yellow. I need to do some bloods though because I think my sky blue levels might low.
Seriously, people who think that "eating a rainbow" is the key to good health are clearly lacking in something... and it's not colours.
I think we lost some average intelligence when moving into cities. Many people alive today would not, I think, be smart enough to survive as hunter gatherers.
They'd think they would need to hunt animals. Not realiea if you kill a species too often, too frequent there isn't enough to hunt. You'd always have people who know how to farm vegetables because even city dwellers have their own garden patch.
I also suspect people would just use backwards yard hens.
starch gives me depression.
Look for Professor Tim Noakes. He is the authority about High Carb and Low Carb diets for athletes. Not this guy on youtube whose daughter died due to vegan diet.
The cause for something like that is normally a random genetic abnormality. Do you have a medical report to prove that it was, instead, "due to vegan diet"?
Gatherer hunters, not hunter gatherers.
Indeed 👍🏽
How anyone can believe that we were apex carnivores is hard to understand. Carnivores have big mouths and big teeth . How else could you bring down an animal and kill it before weapons were invented. You would also need a powerful jaw and large sharp teeth to cut through skin and tendons.
Then there's our senses. We have a lousy sense of smell compared to actual carnivores. Our night vision is poor and our eyes are actually really well attuned to seeing different shades of green more than any other colour. Surely this is to learn the difference between safe and toxic plants.
Of course we did eat some meat, but these were probably small rodents and especially insects. Even entirely vegetarian species such as gorillas would eat insects which were feeding on their plants.
Nonsense.
" How else could you bring down an animal and kill it before weapons were invented." - tools are used by apes, closest to us chimps already do hunt, kill and enjoy meat. Early humans could only do better. We also have best tool already embedded in out body: hands.
"Then there's our senses." Eyes. We have awesome eyes that cannot be easily deceived by camouflage.
Keep in mind, hunting does not mean always going for a mammoth. More often this was small game: birds, squirrels, mice, fish, clamps, snails, insects... All you need for those are hands.
@david7780 It is funny that you think apex predators need big mouth or teeth. Humans use intelligence which made us apex. Tribal people without sophisticated tools can successfully hunt deers and boars using spears, sticks, or traps. They can even trick animals to fall into cliffs. Your logic also is against you. If we are herbivores, why are you not grazing? Why do you need spoon, knives or plates to eat. Why do you need to cook rice? The answer is the same. Humans are smart enough to use tools.
🙌🙌🙌🙌🙌🙌🙌🙌🙌
I’m cool with vegan ideas but you realize it is a modern construct right? We were starving as a species until agriculture came about which included animal husbandry ie eating animals and their milk and eggs. 😂
Food grew in the forests, fields. Where do you think we got seeds from? They didn't appear out of thin air.
Hunter gatherers rarely go around hungry. Nature provides plenty for omnivores. We developed agriculture for one reason: booze.
Yeah but that's still only in the winter or when food was scarce. Your more likely to keep the cows and chickens for the eggs more so than to butcher them. It's modern thinking they people would just eat meat three times a day thousands of years ago.
@@narrgamedesigner2747 Yes, red meat or even white meat was not on the daily menu. But fish, clams, snails, insects and other worms were eaten all the time.
We were scavengers for millions of years to a significant degree. At first passive, we ate the leftovers.. and then later, we got smarter and started teaming up and running the predators of their kills. Hunting tool evidence was much more recent.. half a million years ago, if i recall.
I agree that we evolved to eat starch. And this video is focused on starch. But there were other food sources very important to our ancestors than just starches or meat. Why are insects, molluscs and other invertebrates mostly always overlooked? I think our hands are very well adapted to catching critters like grasshoppers or fossicking around for clams and I bet they comprised a very large part of the ancestor diet.
We probably ate whatever we could get our hands on, but being starchivore means that most of your calories come from starch.
Trigger alert. The carnivores are livid because they think Klaus Schwab is gonna force them to eat bugs. Someone might wanna tip'em off and let them know shrimp, lobster, and crabs are oceanic bugs. The Cajuns even call crawfish "Mug Bugs"
@@jonatanolsen37 Yep, our ancestors ate to survive not for longevity, they couldn’t afford that luxury, that’s why I find discussions over ancestor diets amusing and a tad silly. Food availability was the factor that limited the population. We don’t need to justify our present day food choices (yes I am whole plant based) based on if we evolved as starchivores, carnivores, insectivores or omnivores. Evolution selects for species survival not longevity. We now have the data to show that people live longer and healthier on a whole plant based diet, and we have food abundance. The choice is all ours, no justification needed.
Cooking works both ways Mic. Yes, our brain growth really took off around when we starting cooking 1 million years ago, but we can cook the pathogens out of meat too.
How about the omnivore reality Mike?
We are carnivores.
@@RibeyeRob Observation would prove otherwise.
@@destroya3303 There's no observation to be made that would prove we're omnivores. Give examples of such if you have them
@@фанатКуплинова-ь1е Being omnivores.
@@фанатКуплинова-ь1е Eat a carrot and see if you drop dead from it. Eat a chicken and see if you drop dead from it. Both survived? You are omnivore. Proved.
Yeah Homo Sapiens used to eat starch in Sybieria and Alaska during ice age. Love that
first logical comment
PO
TA
TO
I think it would help the hypothesis if you could identify whether these starchy edible plants actually exist(ed), and if they grow in large groupings, as opposed to widely scattered about.
How many calories needed to run 50 miles ? 8000 ? So our ancestors just burnt the calorie benefit of larger area. That doesn’t make sense. We were never long distance runners. 99% of people can not run a marathon. We always hunted with weapons from hides, or with other tricks, also we ate fish.
You need glycogen for long distance running but fat adaption gives you more potential energy to work with and the glucose is to keep your levels up
And most ancestral carbs were low glycemic. First bread was made from buckwheat. Rice didn’t take over china until late in history and white rice is 200 years old. Potatoes didn’t exist until recently and became popular because they were hard to steal by invading armies
Most carbs until recently were low glycemic. Including tubers even if eaten long ago
Then there are stories like the mongols who could go days without eating because of fat adaption and Chinese would starve while besieged in cities
Not saying keto is how everyone lived but fat adaption was a real thing
Are we not over estimating how hard it would have been to take down a large ruminant?
You need to work on your writing. Hypothesis - evidence - discussion for example. This was 17 minutes of gibberish.
What are you suggesting - humans evolved to be great runners becuaue that gives easier access to calories?
Humans in fact always ate carbs. How is that news to anyone?
Carbs are important for braingrowth? - Again how is that news to anyone.
Carbs are better than any other fuelsource? - Thats just a stupid blanket statement.
I suspect you were trying to present different possible causes for adaptations that the persistance hunting idea tries to explain. But if you wanted to do that you shouldve structured it accordingly. This was just bad.
Yes. We had to catch all the starch vegetables. Makes sense! Mic the Liar has a theory and dyed hair.
Ya More likely Starch scavenger. 🥔🥕🍇🍓🍆🌰🥜🥒🌽
What were they running after? Beans or Bison
Vegan here but, .. your theory is we ran thousands of miles to hunt down... potatoes?
Marathoners trying to chase down an antelope seems quite a disingenuous way to 'test' the persistent hunting claim , because it takes the claim at surface face value, instead of the wider context in which whichever author made those claims is embedded in, that gives you extra info to understand what the claim means, and it seems weird to take what I assume are people from technological civilization and expect them to do anything in the wild, successfully . It would make a ton more sense to 'test' native people, people who only know this lifestyle in practice are to be studied, because it requires knowledge of the land, knowledge of animal behavior, what to do when etc. etc. and not just brute force chase an animal.
But other than that, interesting video overall, and a lot of other points that put into doubt the persistent hunting idea.
1st
To map the elevations of that topography people run over, gonna need to start somewhere 🤭
Love to hear this new theory.. did you know they very young? Short term gains does not means longevity. Check your facts
Starch is even less appealing and edible than meat unless it's processed and cooked.
There is a MUCH BETTER explanation. The "Tripping Trailblazer Hypothesis" suggests that human endurance running evolved not for hunting or gathering starches but to seek psychedelic mushrooms. Early hominids, drawn to these fungi for their mind-expanding effects, developed a craving for transcendental experiences. As potent mushrooms grew scattered across wide areas, natural selection favored those who could travel farther, out-tripping their less mobile peers. This drive for altered states spurred long-distance running abilities, with the famed "runner's high" as a mere bonus-a physiological side effect to the true evolutionary driver: the ultimate trip.
Humans are not fast enough to out run any large predators. We clearly are born to hunt. We would forage wild plants while chasing down pray.
What you call rotting meat. Is actually fermented meat. Which is Highly nutritional.
You can lie to yourself all your life, but then you don't have to be surprised if you have to bear all the inconvenience of the misjudgement. I mean the poor health that you have to bear.
What health outcome study are you referring to?
Mic you had a LOT to say but you Never Once in this video actually detailed the experiment that validated the hypothesis. You didn't even define the IV and DV - Hey.. what is this .. some kind of scam? Mic, Stop Pretending like you know anything at all about actual science because you pal Do Not.
Mic is a vegan so science is alien to him. He thinks the reams of epidemiological nonsense studies he normally quotes are science. He doesn't understand that science involves doing experiments and that there has never been an experiment done on human beings and never will, with regards to what we eat and any hard health outcomes from that.
Mic - you claim the ancients had no way to carry water? How is this assertion scientific, meaning cause and effect based to actually validate a hypothesis via experimentation? You don't have that. Mic I think you have No Clue what Real science is. I'm 56, Mic is just a young kid with a Lot to learn.
I once watched (video) some dudes in some African desert chase down a Kudu over an entire day, in desert heat until ... the poor Kudu dropped dead from exhaustion after 7 hours. I have no illusions regarding the aerobic insanity of Humans.
they both ran for 7 hours, but the human was the only one who brought a plastic jug of water to drink and pour on himself during the run. im curious how the outcome would have been if the kudu could have proportional water to drink and cool off with as well. edit: or if they just denied the human runner any water at all, just like the kudu. or in addition, having them run in the cold to negate heat exhaustion.
@@itsyaboinadia I'm even more curious what the outcome would be if ... you had a brain.
grow up