↓ Skip to main content

Impact of meat and Lower Palaeolithic food processing techniques on chewing in humans

Overview of attention for article published in Nature, March 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
162 news outlets
blogs
19 blogs
twitter
443 tweeters
facebook
31 Facebook pages
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page
googleplus
28 Google+ users
reddit
2 Redditors
video
13 video uploaders

Citations

dimensions_citation
73 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
246 Mendeley
Title
Impact of meat and Lower Palaeolithic food processing techniques on chewing in humans
Published in
Nature, March 2016
DOI 10.1038/nature16990
Pubmed ID
Authors

Katherine D. Zink, Daniel E. Lieberman

Abstract

The origins of the genus Homo are murky, but by H. erectus, bigger brains and bodies had evolved that, along with larger foraging ranges, would have increased the daily energetic requirements of hominins. Yet H. erectus differs from earlier hominins in having relatively smaller teeth, reduced chewing muscles, weaker maximum bite force capabilities, and a relatively smaller gut. This paradoxical combination of increased energy demands along with decreased masticatory and digestive capacities is hypothesized to have been made possible by adding meat to the diet, by mechanically processing food using stone tools, or by cooking. Cooking, however, was apparently uncommon until 500,000 years ago, and the effects of carnivory and Palaeolithic processing techniques on mastication are unknown. Here we report experiments that tested how Lower Palaeolithic processing technologies affect chewing force production and efficacy in humans consuming meat and underground storage organs (USOs). We find that if meat comprised one-third of the diet, the number of chewing cycles per year would have declined by nearly 2 million (a 13% reduction) and total masticatory force required would have declined by 15%. Furthermore, by simply slicing meat and pounding USOs, hominins would have improved their ability to chew meat into smaller particles by 41%, reduced the number of chews per year by another 5%, and decreased masticatory force requirements by an additional 12%. Although cooking has important benefits, it appears that selection for smaller masticatory features in Homo would have been initially made possible by the combination of using stone tools and eating meat.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 443 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 246 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 7 3%
Germany 2 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Portugal 1 <1%
Ireland 1 <1%
Estonia 1 <1%
Belgium 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 230 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 46 19%
Researcher 46 19%
Student > Bachelor 44 18%
Student > Master 29 12%
Other 17 7%
Other 64 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 70 28%
Arts and Humanities 31 13%
Unspecified 25 10%
Social Sciences 24 10%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 21 9%
Other 75 30%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1813. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 08 November 2019.
All research outputs
#1,067
of 13,771,633 outputs
Outputs from Nature
#187
of 70,623 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#38
of 266,873 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Nature
#7
of 1,022 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,771,633 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 70,623 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 77.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 266,873 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1,022 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.