Letter | Published:

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

Nature volume 531, pages 500503 (24 March 2016) | Download Citation


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 hominins1,2. Yet H. erectus differs from earlier hominins in having relatively smaller teeth, reduced chewing muscles, weaker maximum bite force capabilities, and a relatively smaller gut3,4,5. 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 diet6,7,8, by mechanically processing food using stone tools7,9,10, or by cooking11,12. Cooking, however, was apparently uncommon until 500,000 years ago13,14, 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.

  • Subscribe to Nature for full access:



Additional access options:

Already a subscriber?  Log in  now or  Register  for online access.


  1. 1.

    & Energetics and the evolution of the genus Homo. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 31, 323–338 (2002)

  2. 2.

    Ecological energetics in early Homo. Curr. Anthropol. 53, S346–S358 (2012)

  3. 3.

    , , & Bite force and occlusal stress production in hominin evolution. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 151, 544–557 (2013)

  4. 4.

    Tempo and mode in human evolution. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 91, 6780–6786 (1994)

  5. 5.

    & The expensive-tissue hypothesis: the brain and the digestive-system in human and primate evolution. Curr. Anthropol. 36, 199–221 (1995)

  6. 6.

    in Evolution of the Human Diet: The Known, the Unknown, and the Unknowable (ed. , ) 191–211 (Oxford Univ. Press, 2007)

  7. 7.

    , , & Cutmarked bones from Pliocene archaeological sites at Gona, Afar, Ethiopia: implications for the function of the world’s oldest stone tools. J. Hum. Evol. 48, 109–121 (2005)

  8. 8.

    A hypothesis to explain the role of meat-eating in human evolution. Evol. Anthropol. 8, 11–21 (1999)

  9. 9.

    & Microwear polishes on early stone tools from Koobi-Fora, Kenya. Nature 293, 464–465 (1981)

  10. 10.

    et al. 3.3-million-year-old stone tools from Lomekwi 3, West Turkana, Kenya. Nature 521, 310–315 (2015)

  11. 11.

    Dental Functional Morphology: How Teeth Work (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2004)

  12. 12.

    , , , & The raw and the stolen: cooking and the ecology of human origins. Curr. Anthropol. 40, 567–594 (1999)

  13. 13.

    & Earliest fire in Africa: towards the convergence of archaeological evidence and the cooking hypothesis. Azania Arch. Res. Africa 48, 5–30 (2013)

  14. 14.

    et al. ‘Fire at will’: the emergence of habitual fire use 350,000 years ago. J. Hum. Evol. 77, 196–203 (2014)

  15. 15.

    Animal source foods and human health during evolution. J. Nutr. 133 (suppl. 2), 3893S–3897S (2003)

  16. 16.

    The Evolution of the Human Head (Harvard Press, 2011)

  17. 17.

    , , & Phylogenetic rate shifts in feeding time during the evolution of Homo. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 108, 14555–14559 (2011)

  18. 18.

    & Endurance running and the evolution of Homo. Nature 432, 345–352 (2004)

  19. 19.

    & Cooking as a biological trait. Comp. Biochem. Physiol. A Mol. Integr. Physiol. 136, 35–46 (2003)

  20. 20.

    , & Food material properties and early hominin processing techniques. J. Hum. Evol. 77, 155–166 (2014)

  21. 21.

    Mechanisms of fracture in foods. J. Texture Stud. 32, 397–417 (2001)

  22. 22.

    , , , & Mechanical properties of plant underground storage organs and implications for dietary models of early hominins. Evol. Biol. 35, 159–175 (2008)

  23. 23.

    et al. Cooking and grinding reduces the cost of meat digestion. Comp. Biochem. Physiol. A Mol. Integr. Physiol. 148, 651–656 (2007)

  24. 24.

    , & Energetic consequences of thermal and nonthermal food processing. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 108, 19199–19203 (2011)

  25. 25.

    & The Chimpanzees of the Tai Forest: Behavioural Ecology and Evolution (Oxford Univ. Press, 2000)

  26. 26.

    & The rise of the hominids as an adaptive shift in fallback foods: plant underground storage organs (USOs) and australopith origins. J. Hum. Evol. 49, 482–498 (2005)

  27. 27.

    Posterior tooth size, body size, and diet in South African gracile Australopithecines. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 39, 375–393 (1973)

  28. 28.

    , , & A theory of human life history evolution: diet, intelligence, and longevity. Evol. Anthropol. 9, 156–185 (2000)

  29. 29.

    , , & The significance of cooking for early hominin scavenging. J. Hum. Evol. 84, 62–70 (2015)

  30. 30.

    Living Archaeology (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1980)

  31. 31.

    , , & Effect of freezing on sensory quality, shear force and water loss in beef M. longissimus dorsi. Meat Sci. 80, 457–461 (2008)

  32. 32.

    , , & Effect of frozen storage conditions (temperature and length of storage) on microbiological and sensory quality of rustic crossbred beef at different states of ageing. Meat Sci. 83, 398–404 (2009)

  33. 33.

    A randomisation method for discriminating between signal and noise recordings of rhythmic electromyographic activity. J. Neurosci. Methods 66, 93–98 (1996)

  34. 34.

    & Bootstrap confidence intervals: when, which, what? A practical guide for medical statisticians. Stat. Med. 19, 1141–1164 (2000)

  35. 35.

    R Development Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2014)

  36. 36.

    & Task-dependence of activity/bite-force relations and its impact on estimation of chewing force from EMG. J. Dent. Res. 81, 464–468 (2002)

  37. 37.

    et al. Generalized linear mixed models: a practical guide for ecology and evolution. Trends Ecol. Evol. 24, 127–135 (2009)

Download references


We thank R. Carmody, P. Lucas, J. Shea, T. Smith and R. Wrangham for helpful discussions, and E. Castillo and S. Worthington for statistical guidance. This research was funded by the National Science Foundation (#0925688) and by the American School of Prehistoric Research (Peabody Museum, Harvard University).

Author information


  1. Department of Human Evolutionary Biology, Harvard University, 11 Divinity Avenue, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138, USA

    • Katherine D. Zink
    •  & Daniel E. Lieberman


  1. Search for Katherine D. Zink in:

  2. Search for Daniel E. Lieberman in:


K.D.Z. and D.E.L. designed the experiments; K.D.Z. collected and analysed the data, with help from D.E.L.; D.E.L. and K.D.Z. co-wrote the paper.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Katherine D. Zink or Daniel E. Lieberman.

Extended data

About this article

Publication history






Rights and permissions

To obtain permission to re-use content from this article visit RightsLink.


By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.