Does Eating Brains Make You Brainier?

C

common_sense_seeker

Bicho Voador & Bicho Sugador
Valued Senior Member
"You are what you eat" is a famous saying. Could this apply to the early humans who first became bipedal after coming down from the trees? Neanderthals are famous for their large brains as well as us humans (but they didn't have the physiology to throw a stone or a spear). The early use of wooden clubs to smash open the skulls of carcasses would reveal the nutritious brains that even hyenas couldn't get to. Is this the secret of the hominids' success?

The scavenging hominid

Taken together, the data indicate that scavenged marrow from ruminant long bones would have represented the concentrated energy source required for hominid brain evolution and that the brains of scavenged skulls would have represented the predominant source of 22:6n-3.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
I seem to recall hearing about various cultures eating various parts of another organism's body with the belief that it transmitted some sort of anecdotal characteristic to the consumer.

Example - the Chinese believe monkey brains treat impotence according to the wiki
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey_brain_(cuisine)

My first assumption was that brains would be fatty, so I decided to see if I could find the nutritional content from a brain dish. I haven't found anything interesting yet.
What sort of specific nutritional element(s) would promote or increase mental capacity?
 
Last edited:
Hm, well, brains are loaded with cholesterol (and are delicious). Eating the tiny ones like bird brains would give us enough cholesterol and B12 to have better mental function. Both are necessary nutrients.
 
That's an interesting article, even for a layperson like me.

So if I'm reading this right, it's saying that brain and marrow from long bones is the only way to consume enough of the specific nutrients required to develop our brain?

That's one hell of a theory, if that's what it's saying.
 
The evidence would indicate that the wooden club was indeed the success of the hominids. The rather gruesome truth to our past does seem to make complete sense. Even the Haitian voodoo zombie drug (derived from a poisonous fish) which has the effect of making the recipient 'want to eat brains' has some scientific foundation!

Thus, when the option was available, scavenged marrow and the brain that was concurrently present in the skull of the defleshed skeleton would almost always have been chosen over active capture of either fish or aquatic invertebrates.
Click to expand...

If it wasn't for modern human beings, then I guess chimpanzees and bonobos would also take this evolutionary path since they have the rudimentary use of tools which is a prerequisite for successful bipedalism in the African plains. One club in each hand would be a lot more effective and an advantage over the true quadrapeds, such as lion, hyena and baboon. These creatures have to fall back on to all fours at some point. In theory, a chimpanzee could hold a wooden club or branch in each hand at the same time as walking on it's knuckles. This would be a quick reaction posture with a frenzied double blow from the two clubs, one held in each hand. An effective defensive and fighting force.
 
Last edited:
common_sense_seeker said:
If it wasn't for modern human beings, then I guess chimpanzees and bonobos would also take this evolutionary path since they have the rudimentary use of tools which is a prerequisite for successful bipedalism in the African plains.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily. I don't see the article as claiming that eating brains is the difference between a chimp and a man. I think it is saying that it was the difference between man and, say, Homo erectus.
 
Neanderthals were supposed to have bigger brains than H. sapiens though, so big brains were a factor right from the beginning, I think.
 
Lol, I'm going to be very unscientific for a second, but this discussion sounds like a highlander movie. =p
 
common_sense_seeker said:
Neanderthals are famous for their large brains as well as us humans (but they didn't have the physiology to throw a stone or a spear).
Click to expand...

BARP! Where does this statement come from? Neanderthals carried spears, so you cannot rule out that they sometimes threw them. They probably never had bows, those emerging as Neanderthals were becoming extinct, but that is a different argument.


The early use of wooden clubs to smash open the skulls of carcasses would reveal the nutritious brains that even hyenas couldn't get to. Is this the secret of the hominids' success?
Click to expand...

Er, Neanderthals were hominids?

The scavenging hominid
Click to expand...

So early humans ancestors ate brains. So what? When bears get full, after gorging themselves on Salmon, they just eat the head, then just the eyes, to fill up on nutritional goodness. It's no surprise our ancestors could sniff out good nutrition, just because we find it unpalatable now.
 
common_sense_seeker said:
Neanderthals were supposed to have bigger brains than H. sapiens though, so big brains were a factor right from the beginning, I think.
Click to expand...

True, but Neanderthal brains didn't have the covolutions of H. Sapiens brains, nor (one assumes) did they gave all the neural connections of their more advanced successors.
 
phlogistician said:
BARP! Where does this statement come from? Neanderthals carried spears, so you cannot rule out that they sometimes threw them. They probably never had bows, those emerging as Neanderthals were becoming extinct, but that is a different argument.

Er, Neanderthals were hominids?

So early humans ancestors ate brains. So what? When bears get full, after gorging themselves on Salmon, they just eat the head, then just the eyes, to fill up on nutritional goodness. It's no surprise our ancestors could sniff out good nutrition, just because we find it unpalatable now.
Click to expand...
You just don't seem to get it. Hominid success due to clubs smashing open carcass skulls = big brains. Human success due to physiology of throwing action, which evolved due to unique river estuary environment. I'll find the source of the 'Neanderthal unable to throw' statement when I look through my notes at home.

Xylene said:
True, but Neanderthal brains didn't have the covolutions of H. Sapiens brains, nor (one assumes) did they gave all the neural connections of their more advanced successors.
Click to expand...
What evidence is there of this statement? You're assuming that even though Neanderthals are proven to have bigger brains than us, they must have been less effective in mental activity? Big assumption.
 
interesting thought. for the first time you MIGHT be partually correct. the only freely avialable source of the essential fatty acids that i know of is shellfish. however as it makes up the majorty of brains (im assuming its other species brains are the same as ours) it would make sense that brains would be a good soure to
 
Asguard said:
interesting thought. for the first time you MIGHT be partually correct. the only freely avialable source of the essential fatty acids that i know of is shellfish. however as it makes up the majorty of brains (im assuming its other species brains are the same as ours) it would make sense that brains would be a good soure to
Click to expand...
Thanks. I appreciate the consideration of this simple idea.
 
common_sense_seeker said:
You just don't seem to get it. Hominid success due to clubs smashing open carcass skulls = big brains. Human success due to physiology of throwing action, which evolved due to unique river estuary environment.
Click to expand...

If your 'river ape' hypothesis is correct, wouldn't they have been eating fish brains? So no need to club skulls open!
 
Studies indicate that the average brain size of Neanderthals was actually smaller than ours. And no, Neanderthals could not making throwing spears, which is likely one of the biggest reasons they lost out on resources to us.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top