brain size

[MaximilianKohler]

They say our brains have shrunk 10% since adopting an agriculture based diet thousands of years ago. Well does anyone know about Inuit/Eskimo brain size since they have been still eating mainly raw carnivore for much longer then anyone else?

[PaleoPhil]

Yes, I reported that the traditional Greenland Inuit had the largest skull sizes (and therefore brain sizes, but that's a less politically correct way of putting it ) measured among living humans in a thread with the exact same "brain size" title: http://www.rawpaleoforum.com/general-discussion/brain-size/msg23790/#msg23790

Not only did the traditional Inuit have rather (facultatively) carnivorous diets, but the Greenland Inuit were the most carnivorous among the Inuit and the most carnivorous people ever observed and analyzed. In light of this, I can't imagine how an objective person would dismiss a possible important connection between flesh eating and brain size and instead focus on cooking, as Wrangham seems to do.

[kurite]

Yes, I reported that the traditional Greenland Inuit had the largest skull sizes (and therefore brain sizes, but that's a less politically correct way of putting it ) measured among living humans in a thread with the exact same "brain size" title: http://www.rawpaleoforum.com/general-discussion/brain-size/msg23790/#msg23790

Not only did the traditional Inuit have rather (facultatively) carnivorous diets, but the Greenland Inuit were the most carnivorous among the Inuit and the most carnivorous people ever observed and analyzed. In light of this, I can't imagine how an objective person would dismiss a possible important connection between flesh eating and brain size and instead focus on cooking, as Wrangham seems to do.

Were the Greenland Inuit also raw?

[PaleoPhil]

Partially raw. If they were like other Inuit, then they probably boiled quite a bit of the animal flesh they ate. We don't have a lot of info on how much cooking the Inuit did thousands of years ago and it's probably difficult to tell how much cooking was done that far back. Interestingly, boiling produces lower levels of cooking toxins than high-heat frying and grilling.

[kurite]

To bad we have never done any tests on the intelligence of the inuit.

[TylerDurden]

To bad we have never done any tests on the intelligence of the inuit.

I only recall one vague claim by someone that the Inuit scored higher on average on intelligence-tests than Southern Europeans. Not sure what that means, as IQ tests are so dodgy - I mean, it's been said that people have scored higher in IQ tests in the last few decades, so that one could safely state that familiarity with IQ  tests makes one better able to score highly on IQ tests, rather than it being a sign of higher intelligence - plus, larger brains do not, per se, signify greater intelligence - I am sure, for example, that someone with more developed frontal lobes but with a smaller brain by volume, might be more intelligent than someone with a larger brain by volume  but with  less well-developed frontal lobes.

[PaleoPhil]

The sources for most of such excuses I have seen tend to be bleeding heart liberals hampered by political correctness with little supporting evidence. Granted, brain size isn't all, but it seems like they'll say anything to avoid admitting that larger brain size might possibly be even slightly correlated with higher intelligence.

[wodgina]

The sources for most of such excuses I have seen tend to be bleeding heart liberals hampered by political correctness with little supporting evidence.

Are you saying some races are smarter than others?

[PaleoPhil]

See what I mean? 

[wodgina]

Totally.

[kurite]

The sources for most of such excuses I have seen tend to be bleeding heart liberals hampered by political correctness with little supporting evidence. Granted, brain size isn't all, but it seems like they'll say anything to avoid admitting that larger brain size might possibly be even slightly correlated with higher intelligence.

But do you believe the increased cranium is from genetics or from diet? Because it seems like it would make sense that a high pufa diet would increase brain size. Because the reverse of the situation, a vegetarian diet actually decreases brain size.

http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/study_vegetarian_diet_shrinks_brain/

[TylerDurden]

The sources for most of such excuses I have seen tend to be bleeding heart liberals hampered by political correctness with little supporting evidence. Granted, brain size isn't all, but it seems like they'll say anything to avoid admitting that larger brain size might possibly be even slightly correlated with higher intelligence.

  Not really. It is a fact that people have been doing better on IQ tests in recent decades. What the liberals are actually often stating is that the rise in IQ test-scores shows people are actually becoming more intelligent, which is, of course, utterly ridiculous given the short time involved etc.. A far more likely explanation is that now that IQ tests are available all over the place, people are far more familiar with the  type of questions asked so that they inevitably score higher than previous generations did.

Also,  there are far more important characteristics that determine intelligence such as the size of the frontal lobes or the corpus callosum, the connection between the 2 hemispheres. Also, there is the brain-size/body-size ratio aspect etc. And I vaguely recall of one instance where someone was able to live normally with full cognitive abilities despite having half his brain eaten away, implying that brain-size isn't all that important - trouble is I can't remember where I got it from - perhaps I'll find it in a day or two.

[PaleoPhil]

But do you believe the increased cranium is from genetics or from diet? Because it seems like it would make sense that a high pufa diet would increase brain size. Because the reverse of the situation, a vegetarian diet actually decreases brain size.

http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/study_vegetarian_diet_shrinks_brain/

I think you answered the question well with that link and I also tried to answer it here:

I can't imagine how an objective person would dismiss a possible important connection between flesh eating and brain size and instead focus on cooking, as Wrangham seems to do.

I see the question as not so much between food vs. genetics as between cooked tubers (Wrangham) vs. animal flesh--particularly brains and marrow (most other scientists).

 Not really. It is a fact that people have been doing better on IQ tests in recent decades. What the liberals are actually often stating is that the rise in IQ test-scores shows people are actually becoming more intelligent, which is, of course, utterly ridiculous given the short time involved etc.. A far more likely explanation is that now that IQ tests are available all over the place, people are far more familiar with the  type of questions asked so that they inevitably score higher than previous generations did.

If Kurite's right about Inuits scoring high, you're not going to argue that it was because they were more familiar with the test, are you?

Also,  there are far more important characteristics that determine intelligence such as the size of the frontal lobes or the corpus callosum, the connection between the 2 hemispheres. Also, there is the brain-size/body-size ratio aspect etc. And I vaguely recall of one instance where someone was able to live normally with full cognitive abilities despite having half his brain eaten away, implying that brain-size isn't all that important - trouble is I can't remember where I got it from - perhaps I'll find it in a day or two.

Sure there are other factors, but brain size seems to have some importance too, else why do more intelligent animals tend to have larger brain/body ratios and why do the  same liberal scientists who dismiss brain size differences between humans today acknowledge them as significant in other animals and in the evolution of the human species?

[Brother]

The university of Copenhagen did a test last year. 2 groups of young adult men with similar health status. one was fed normal diet, the other was fed a lions diet of 3g protein pr kg bodyweight. The high protein group's cognitive performance bettered signifigantly. SO did their reaction times. Heres the boot...it was stressed that it was animal protein that gave these results exclusively but that the driver was still unknown. Was it the protein, the b12 or some of all the other nutrients found in meat or the combination of them. The difference was so significent that larger studies will be set up. My first thought was "...bought and paid for by the meat producers association". AND IT IS!. As soon as I find it published in english I will post it.

The high protein participants was fed a lot of milk and red meat.

http://nyheder.ku.dk/alle_nyheder/2011/2011.1/proteiner_goer_dig_klogere/
http://politiken.dk/tjek/sundhedogmotion/livsstil/ECE1179528/speed-din-hjerne-op-ved-at-spise-koed/

Articles in Danish for those that can live with auto google auto translation.

[TylerDurden]

The trouble with the brain-size/body-size ratio is that there are a number of big exceptions to this notion among wild species.Elephants come to mind, for example.

As for the Inuit aspect, if brain-size were directly related to intelligence we would by now expect the Inuit to outperform all other groups in professions requiring high intelligence such as the academic world etc. Such is not the case.

[MaximilianKohler]

There are so many different kinds of IQ tests... most of them are more like knowledge testers rather then intelligence testers.

[kurite]

The trouble with the brain-size/body-size ratio is that there are a number of big exceptions to this notion among wild species.Elephants come to mind, for example.

As for the Inuit aspect, if brain-size were directly related to intelligence we would by now expect the Inuit to outperform all other groups in professions requiring high intelligence such as the academic world etc. Such is not the case.

I think paleophil is trying to say is that a higher ratio of brain size to animal body is what really matters, at least in part.

[sabertooth]

Without getting too off topic I would like to know what could we do to maximize our cranial potential.

I hail from a large headed breed. My brain was so large it wouldn't fit through the birth canal. I think in paleo times that the birth canal diameter may have been the determining factor in maximum brain size. The smartest man I ever met had a melon that was huge, I think he had some Swedish heritage. He grew his large brain while eating food grown on an organic dairy farm. I am currently interested in ways to grow egg headed children myself. There has to be ways to nourish the young that would ensure maximum cranial capacity.

This may seem frankenstienian, but I am convinced what I am doing is right or else I wouldn't recommend it. This is some of the basics of the way I have been attempting to protect my children from the disease of civilization while living within the belly of the beast, by providing the most sane diet I can fashion from limited resources.

 I am currently in the early phase of my own attempts of raising children with fairly large heads. My three older children are 1, 2, and 4 years old and they already have heads about the size of their mother. I have been feeding them fish oil since about two months of age. The first was exclusively breastfed for the first 18 months while my two younger ones had to be weaned off the breast at 6 months due to the next pregnancy drying up the milk supply. I supplemented with a homemade formula at that point.

I use this particular formula that is free of fungus oil (DHA) as the base, then add about 2 parts goats milk to 3 parts formula, then egg based DHA supplement (optional). Also add at least one egg in every now and then (raw). I also add about half teaspoon of extra virgin cold processed coconut oil per bottle. I tried tallow but its just too thick and greasy for a bottle; ends up clogging the nipple and preventing the baby from getting to the milk. My kids tolerate coconut about as well as I do, but I can't vouch that for everyone. Coconut oil is an ingredient of most commercial formulas, but its in very small amounts and usually accompanies soy oil and safflower oil. I think extra coconut oil add helps improve the fatty acid ratios.

3 parts baby's only formula
2 parts goats milk
half teaspoon of extra virgin coconut oil
Occasional egg yolk.
When first starting out I never used more than 6 ounce servings, smaller more frequent feedings are recommended for weaning babies from the breast.

I have been feeding my youngest daughter this since she was weaned at six months and I may be explaining things from a proud fathers perspective, but I swear she is the brightest child I have ever known. She is only 13 months but I am just astounded by her development. She was premature (by 7 weeks) and had to spend the first few weeks of life in an incubator, because she couldn't even take a breath by herself yet. My wife drove back and forth to the hospital with bottles of breast milk, and she grew very fast exclusively on high fat breast milk. Its bread fed and composed of recycled cows milk, and other processed food my wife eats, despite that my kids do real well on her milk. The first foods were not introduced until about 8 months, when I started her out on marrow and bits of red meat. I also made lunches of blue berries with lamb fat that my wife could feed to her while I work. I have had to fight tooth and nail to keep wheat out of my kids diets for at least the first 18 months with moderate success. She will also get some eggs and bacon fried in lamb fat, when I cook breakfast for my oldest and my middle child. She will drink eggs strait or eat them cooked. I often saturate everything I make with butter or lamb fat for all three of them. The fat is a key ingredient. Grass fed fat as a large percentage of calories is great nutrition and gives the growing brain ample energy that doesn't overload it like excess carbs do.

My  basic diet for weaning is:

My patented formula or something of the same nutritional grade (one must find what works best). The goats milk should be well tolerated by most and the animal fat in goats milk is needed to increase the over all fat content of the formula.
Finger foods can be a variety of different paleo favorites.
My kids love raw oysters for instance (full of brain building fatty acids)
Fat trimmings, if you don't spoil them on sweet food first then they will like just plain fat
Raw bone marrow (also a good staple for kids of all ages)
Berries are a good treat and can be combined with either raw cream or minced bits of fat trimmings for a good treat.

I will stop there for tonight , but you can catch the drift of what I am trying to do. I will hopefully have a book written by the end of it. My wife is now in the hospital with my 4th child (6 weeks premature), so I will be attempting a nearly impossible feat by raising my children like royalty while living as a pauper, but its a worthwhile effort in my opinion. I only hope I can keep it up.

[MaximilianKohler]

you're giving your kids fried bacon and eggs, and other processed & SAD food, along with processed baby formula... wow man

this is a raw paleo forum... what you're giving your kids does not sound healthy AT ALL.

I would try Aajonus's baby formula. I think it's mostly raw milk & raw eggs blended up with raw liver.

[PaleoPhil]

The trouble with the brain-size/body-size ratio is that there are a number of big exceptions ...

Yes, I know that brain/body ratio is not everything and didn't say it was--that doesn't mean it's not at all a factor. I'm just saying it's a factor that shouldn't be forbidden to investigate just because it might be viewed as politically incorrect. The bleeding heart scientists talk about brain size and intelligence increasing in H. erectus and Cro magnon but then they're afraid to acknowledge the same factor in modern humans; perhaps because they are afraid of being called racists or because they're engaging in some cognitive dissonance or something. If brain/body ratio is a valid factor (though certainly not the only one) to consider in H. erectus and Cro Magnon, then why wouldn't it be in H. sapiens sapiens? Especially since brain and body size declined after Cro Magnon and only recently started growing again in affluent nations. Plus, the shrinkage of cooked-food vegetarian brains is another important finding. Seems like if we want to avoid widespread brain degeneration then scientists should look into this stuff and figure out if meat or animal foods is really the key factor, which specific animal foods, etc., yes?

We've been over the Inuit before and we'll have to agree to disagree on that.

Once the general public realizes that animal foods are correlated with brain size increases you can bet that at least some parents will be feeding their kids plenty of AF to give their kids the edge.

I think paleophil is trying to say is that a higher ratio of brain size to animal body is what really matters, at least in part.

I'm saying that it's one factor.

Sabertooth, if you're protocol includes goats milk then are you really weaning the child or would it be more accurate to say you're replacing human milk with goats milk (due to the mother's milk drying up)?

I tried tallow but its just too thick and greasy for a bottle; ends up clogging the nipple and preventing the baby from getting to the milk.

Ray Audette started feeding his son GrayHawk pemmican at the age of 6 months. Since pemmican is not regarded highly here, that raises an interesting question. What fat sources did our ancestors feed their infants when they were old enough to eat substantial amounts of foods other than mother's milk? I'm guessing marrow and brain and eventually pre-chewed suet? Is it possible to grind up suet to make it more edible at some point to an infant with some teeth without having to heat it or is tallow and pemmican the only form that older infants can manage?

along with processed baby formula...

FYI: it's his own home-made formula.

[TylerDurden]

HGs routinely breastfeed their babies until they are 2 to 4 years old as breastfeeding is highly contraceptive in nature. Palaeos would have done the same, most likely, as the population in palaeo times stayed static for countless millenia. So they would never have needed tallow or pemmican.

I agree that meat-eating may well lead to bigger brain-/skull-size, but there are many  other aspects to intelligence such as sulsification(I think this is used to show why women are not, on average,  stupider than men despite having smaller brain-volumes by comparison), plus the corpus callosum  and other parts of the brain such as the frontal lobes undoubtedly play a part. Another factor is that the brain is able to compensate sometimes even when it is reduced in volume, by enhancing processing abilities etc. A classic example is when people are blinded who then develop more connections in the brain-areas related to hearing etc.

I suppose a way to debunk the Inuit claims is to find another HG population in the world with a very high animal-food-intake which also had a smaller average skull-size on average than other human groups.

[sabertooth]

you're giving your kids fried bacon and eggs, and other processed & SAD food, along with processed baby formula... wow man

this is a raw paleo forum... what you're giving your kids does not sound healthy AT ALL.

I would try Aajonus's baby formula. I think it's mostly raw milk & raw eggs blended up with raw liver.

My 90 year old ancestors ate everything cooked in lard and kept their minds fluid and nimble into the elderly years, Don't be so quick to judge. I also give them plenty of raw foods as well and some things like baked sweet potatoes covered in lamb fat are far Superior than the recommendations of rice cereal.  My children are so much better off than you could imagine, and they can handle some cooked foods just fine.

That being said I do use raw fats, and my younger two will swarm me if they see me with a marrow bone, and they will even eat bites of lamb fat and red meat along with some coconut butter. They will eat oysters and raw eggs as well.

My two younger ones are still able to handle dairy and I will give them formula with, goats milk, I call it weening because it is a process of limiting the formula while increasing other foods. My two year old now only drinks about two cups of milk a day, whereas my 4 year old boy who was nursed for 18 months don't hardly drink any milk. Eventually I will restrict dairy to smaller amounts in my youngest daughter, she is still young and I believe the homemade formula is giving her great benefits.






I stand by my actions. You could never tell these children were fed supplemental formula.

I share responsibility of nurturing my babies with a woman who is tolerant of my raw diet , but does not share in the dogmatic view that cooking is inherently bad. I have been able to do wonderfully well considering all the obstacles before me. I think she may of been quick to ween so that she would become pregnant again and I was forced to make due with what I have available. We have no rawsome co op and I am not wealthy by any means.

I agree that brain size is only one of many factors contributing to overall intelligence. The complexity of connections within the mental matrix are the other primary factor. And I am also working on ways to develop them from an education standpoint as well.

I play games with my children that require new ways of thinking, as well as dexterity exercises.
We will have BB fights and round ups. I have invented a kitchen polo game where we hit a ball back and forth with large spoons across the floor. My one year old even gets in on the action and can throw the ball back and forth while our dog tries to help as well. Close guidance within connected activities are the foundation of what it takes to build a powerful and fully equipped mind. I will do chores with my youngest on my back an let her see all the things I do. Its the little things that make all the difference in the world.

This is a completely holistic endever and Diet is only part of it.

[PaleoPhil]

HGs routinely breastfeed their babies until they are 2 to 4 years old as breastfeeding is highly contraceptive in nature. Palaeos would have done the same, most likely, as the population in palaeo times stayed static for countless millenia. So they would never have needed tallow or pemmican.

What I meant is, at some point they transitioned to some solid foods. What do you think Stone Agers fed children as their first solid fats? I just remembered a source of fat that is reportedly fed to HG children--larvae, like witchety grubs and bee grubs. Not very practical nowadays, unfortunately.
 

I agree that meat-eating may well lead to bigger brain-/skull-size, but there are many  other aspects to intelligence such as sulsification(I think this is used to show why women are not, on average,  stupider than men despite having smaller brain-volumes by comparison), plus the corpus callosum  and other parts of the brain such as the frontal lobes undoubtedly play a part. Another factor is that the brain is able to compensate sometimes even when it is reduced in volume, by enhancing processing abilities etc. A classic example is when people are blinded who then develop more connections in the brain-areas related to hearing etc.

Yes, but that's all irrelevant to what I was discussing as those aren't varying environmental factors that people have control over. Parents aren't likely to want to blind their children to develop superior hearing, but they may be interested in feeding them more meat and fat to increase their children's brain size.
 

I suppose a way to debunk the Inuit claims is to find another HG population in the world with a very high animal-food-intake which also had a smaller average skull-size on average than other human groups.

So you "agree that meat-eating may well lead to bigger brain-/skull-size", but you are not yet fully convinced?
 
It would be interesting to know why the Inuits had large skulls whereas the Bushmen and pigmies have comparatively smaller skulls. This suggests that the Bushmen and pigmies were always eating more plant foods than the Inuits, but I wonder what if any other factors might also be in play. The Bushmen probably ate more animal foods in the past when game was more available. It would be interesting to know whether their skull size has shrunk and if so, by how much.

Sabertooth, your children are clearly untamed, meat-gorging barbarians. Good work!

[TylerDurden]

I suppose that palaeo children would have been given raw muscle-meat fat.

As for the other point, no, my point was directly relevant, actually. I only gave that blind/hearing as an example - obviously, in the case of eating less meats, the brain might become smaller but compensate by adding more neurons in the frontal lobes etc.


As for the point re another HG tribe eating large amounts of raw animal foods but having a smaller skull-size, the Australian Aborigines have been cited as having much smaller skull-sizes/brain-volume, and some have stated that their diet consisted mostly of animal foods. Anyway, what I think makes  more sense than the meat-diet explanation is that the Inuit have the largest brain-size/skull-size among humans because they are the only humans who lived regularly in very  harsh, very cold climates. In other words, I am thinking of the cold-climate/intelligence theory. Likely as not, though, there are probably several explanations which are all equally correct.

[sabertooth]

Sabertooth, your children are clearly untamed, meat-gorging barbarians. Good work!

   Why thank you.