Neanderthals study re diseases

[TylerDurden]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3021779/Neanderthals-killed-diseases-modern-humans-gave-resistance-illnesses-finds-study.html

[cherimoya_kid]

Hmm. It sounds like the human migration into Europe had the same effect that the European migration into the Americas did, as far as bringing diseases that decimated the local populace.

[Iguana]

There was a paper around 1995 in the French medical publication “Impact Médecin Hebdo” that the first diseases (7 of them) which leaves identifiable traces on bones appeared about 400,000 years ago. This date correspond rather precisely with the first uses of fire. Therefore, it could well be that it’s grilling food rather than migrations which sparked off the spreading of these diseases.   

... there is some evidence from caves that early humans may have burned their bedding in a bid to rid themselves of infestations of lice or bed bugs.
...
instead, they say many of the diseases we see around us today were common during the pleistocene when Neanderthals dominated much of Europe and Asia between 250,000 and 45,000 years ago, when they disappeared.

[cherimoya_kid]

There was a paper around 1995 in the French medical publication “Impact Médecin Hebdo” that the first diseases (7 of them) which leaves identifiable traces on bones appeared about 400,000 years ago. This date correspond rather precisely with the first uses of fire. Therefore, it could well be that it’s grilling food rather than migrations which sparked off the spreading of these diseases.   

An interesting question, but wild animal populations suffer from disease epidemics, so I don't think it's the only reason. Besides, early humans and Neanderthals that cooked probably did not cook very heavily. In addition, much of their food was probably still eaten raw. Most hunter-gatherer groups today still eat a lot of their food raw.

[JeuneKoq]

Isn't most wild animal epidemics in direct link with human's influence on their environment? (Genuine question)

For example the removal of natural predators made some species more prone to diseases, in an alternative way to reduce or balance their population among a certain ecosystem.

Here's what wikipedia has to say about "Social history of viruses":

"The social history of viruses describes the influence of viruses and viral infections on human history. Epidemics caused by viruses began when human behaviour changed during the Neolithic period, around 12,000 years ago, when humans developed more densely populated agricultural communities. This allowed viruses to spread rapidly and subsequently to become endemic. Viruses of plants and livestock also increased, and as humans became dependent on agriculture and farming, diseases such as potyviruses of potatoes and rinderpest of cattle had devastating consequences.

Over the past 50,000–100,000 years, as modern humans increased in numbers and dispersed throughout the world, new infectious diseases emerged, including those caused by viruses. Earlier, humans lived in small, isolated communities, and most epidemic diseases did not exist."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_history_of_viruses

It is clear that the more individuals there is concentrated in an area, the higher the chances of a disease spreading. In a balanced ecosystem, there is rarely too much of a same specie in the same space, or else the ecosystem might become compromised. Hence the "epidemic solution".

In addition, much of their food was probably still eaten raw. Most hunter-gatherer groups today still eat a lot of their food raw.

I rather had the impression that they ate their food at least as cooked as modern societies. The "Tribes" BBC series exposed various HG groups, and apart from Inuits I didn't see much raw meats or vegetables. A lot of BBQs and cooked roots.

[cherimoya_kid]

Wild animal epidemics have been around as long as wild animals.  That's established science.
Humans may in some ways contribute to them, but overpopulation followed by epidemic disease is a natural cycle.

As far as hunter-gatherer cooking goes, it partially depends on the group in question. Honestly, though, the healthiest traditional tribes weren't necessarily the ones that cooked the least.  It was the ones that had access to seafoods and foods grown in rich soil.  Food quality is at least as important as its rawness.

[TylerDurden]

It isn't only the Inuits  who eat raw animal foods, the Nenets do so a lot as do the Masai as regards raw milk, the australian aborigines used to eat raw , live witchetty grubs  a lot etc. etc. . Plus, many such tribes would go in for aging their raw meats which does to some extent counter the negative effects of eating cooked foods at the same time.

[JeuneKoq]

Wild animal epidemics have been around as long as wild animals.  That's established science.
Humans may in some ways contribute to them, but overpopulation followed by epidemic disease is a natural cycle.

Let's just says humans have helped wild animal epidemics happen more frequently, with livestock-farming and the removal of natural predators.

It isn't only the Inuits  who eat raw animal foods, the Nenets do so a lot as do the Masai as regards raw milk, the australian aborigines used to eat raw , live witchetty grubs  a lot etc. etc. . Plus, many such tribes would go in for aging their raw meats which does to some extent counter the negative effects of eating cooked foods at the same time.

Well all modern societies eat salads and raw vegetables, and have their own raw meat delicacies such as sushis, steak tartar, raw ham, herring, cheese...Most used to eat aged (but cooked) meat too.

Eating cooked-only is impossible, as you may die from a disease (which I forgot the name), so it's quite logical that each cultures and societies keep some variety of raw food to prevent this.

If Paleo man had the chance, he'd deep-fry everything! 

[Iguana]

Let's just says humans have helped wild animal epidemics happen more frequently, with livestock-farming and the removal of natural predators.

At least so! The experiment we are in shows that we are rather immune to epidemics and infections affecting the others around us.

Well all modern societies eat salads and raw vegetables, and have their own raw meat delicacies such as sushis, steak tartar, raw ham, herring, cheese...Most used to eat aged (but cooked) meat too.Eating cooked-only is impossible, as you may die from a disease (which I forgot the name),

Scurvy.
Yes, eating partially raw is universal because it’s impossible to survive with cooked food only, except perhaps if one takes synthetic vitamin C. Thus there’s nothing unusual to eat many foods raw, including raw fish (many Pacific Islanders and Germans do), raw meat (common in France), raw cheese (common in Europe).

Some of us are the first ones to experiment a long-term (almost 50 years for the very first guys) 100% raw diet in modern times, and it’s an amazing experiment. Troubles induced by cooked food appear to be non-proportionally linear to the amount eaten: a few exceptions once in a way can have a very troublesome effect, sometimes immediately, some times not.
In general, up to about 50% or 60% raw doesn’t trigger any particular problems (apparently because the body doesn’t start any detox process), but between 80% and 95% can be a rough ride for people having previously been on a mostly cooked diet.