Humans evolved to cook their food

Some time over the past million years our ancestors began cooking our food. And this was so great our evolution has adapted us to eating the food we cook.


Browse By

Over the past few million years, our ancestors have invented some great stuff. Like sharp rocks and cool art. But arguably our greatest invention was fire and the cooking it made possible. When you cook food is easier to break down, helping us get more energy out of it. It’s thought that these extra calories were crucial for fueling our growing brain (although this is debated).

And that’s just the tip of the iceberg. Fire could help us survive in tough environments, scare off predators, and kill off bacteria in our food. It’s clear fire was a key step in our evolution. In the process, surely we got better at dealing with fire and the food we cook? Some researchers think so, and they’ve got the mouse models to prove it.

Feeding mice, studying humans

Many hypothesise that cooking helped our evolution along. But did our evolution also help us deal with cooking? Some researchers hypothesised that it did. That our bodies adapted to better deal with cooked food.

Unfortunately, testing this idea on humans has some ethical drawbacks. Starving people, mucking with their diet, and scooping out bits of liver for analysis is generally frowned up. Even when it’s in the name of science, and not just to find something that pairs well with a nice chianti. Hiss.

So they turned to animal models. Specifically, mice, feeding 24 of them either cooked or raw food for several days. Afterwards, their livers were examined for differences in gene expression.  And sure enough, the researchers found some differences; identifying 112 genes whose expression seems to be changed by a cooked diet. On its own, that isn’t too interesting. It’s a well-known fact that the environment influences the degree to which a gene is expressed.

What is more interesting is that those differently expressed genes are fairly conserved in most primates. However, in humans, they show signs of undergoing positive selection. This suggests that not only does cooking influence gene expression but that it’s actually driven natural selection on these genes in our species. Our bodies have adapted to eat cooked food.

Ancient origin of cooking

Interestingly, these genes haven’t only evolved in us. The researchers in this study also examined our close relatives, the Neanderthals and Denisovans. We have genetic data from both of them, and it shows that they also show similar signs of positive selection in these “cooking genes”.

This suggests that the impact of evolution on these genes took place before our branches separated. This happened sometime between 275,000 years ago and 1 million years ago. Logically, our species must have begun routinely eating cooked food before then. However, this research was unable to pin down the development of cooking with any greater accuracy than that.

Our recent family tree (although the dates are debated, as are some of the species names). These fire adaptations must have evolved in the common ancestor

This is especially frustrating given that the first case of cooking is a big mystery. There’s circumstantial evidence our ancestors were using fire close to 2 million years ago. But it isn’t the most convincing, and they don’t seem to have been using it to cook food as late as 1.2 million years ago. When did someone have the bright idea of dropping some meat in the fire? It’s a question researchers have debated. Unfortunately, it looks like something we will have to continue debating.

Evolving efficiency

So there are all these ancient genes whose evolution seems to have been influenced by cooking. But what do they do? How exactly has cooking influenced our evolution?

You’d be forgiven for thinking that these genetic changes conferred some increased ability to deal with cooked food. In reality, the opposite seems to be the case. In all circumstances examined, eating cooked food was linked with lower levels of gene expression. When the mice were fed cooked meat, genes linked with the immune system. And when they were fed cooked plants, genes linked with digesting carbohydrates were toned down.

Fat cooking

Even chimps have shown a preference for cooked food, perhaps recognising the caloric advantages it offers

In other words, the mice who ate cooked food didn’t have to work as hard to deal with it. They seemed to have encountered fewer pathogens in the meat, so their immune system could take a break. And it was easier for them to digest plants, so they didn’t have to work so hard to deal with that either. As a result, the genes linked with these systems were toned down; undoubtedly saving some energy and effort in the process.

The secret to cooked food seems to be that it’s just more efficient. It’s an answer that’s not too glamorous, but when it comes to evolution, it’s especially important. That conserved energy could be what you need to get through the winter, or raise another child. Evolution works in those small percentages.

Reference

Carmody, R.N., Dannemann, M., Briggs, A.W., Nickel, B., Groopman, E.E., Wrangham, R.W. and Kelso, J., 2016. Genetic evidence of human adaptation to a cooked diet. Genome biology and evolution, 8(4), pp.1091-1103.

Related Articles

8 thoughts on “Humans evolved to cook their food”

  1. Belac says:

    Just found this. Any thoughts on the matter? Seems like a broken record, but I wasn’t that sure.
    https://answersingenesis.org/human-evolution/what-makes-us-human/uniqueness-of-humans/

    1. Adam Benton says:

      Yeah, at this point you can even break down AiG articles into a template.
      1. Report science
      2. Say “nuh uh”
      3. Bible
      And that article follows it to a T

      1. Belac says:

        Thought so, but just wanted to see of there was anything salvageable. Also, I have a question.

        I’ve been studying DIK-1/1 (Selam) and KSD-VP-1/1 (Kadanuumuu) for a while now and I’ve noticed something odd: their scapulae don’t seem to match. Selam’s scapulae have more in common with a gorilla’s, suggesting a more arboreal lifestyle; while Kadanuumuu has a more humanlike scapula, suggesting a more terrestrial lifestyle. So which is it? Could it be the result of aging, with A. Afarensis being arboreal in their first years and terrestrial in their later years, or could they be two separate species?

        1. Adam Benton says:

          Your explanation is a popular one. The Dikika is very young, so many differences are chalked up to ontogeny. However, it should be noted that we don’t have a complete record of how the species matures, so we can’t say for sure this is the case. Other possible explanations include size differences. Kadanuumuu is very tall for an Australopith. But again, without a better understanding of the spectrum of variation within the species, it’s hard to say for sure what’s going on.

          Despite these differences, it should be noted that most aspects of the shoulder anatomy fall within the range of variation seen within a species. So it seems unlikely they’re different. Still, more data is always needed.

  2. Paul Jones says:

    I thought that Neanderthals and Denisovans were sister species that are more closely related to eachother than either was to modern humans.
    http://econintersect.com/b2evolution/blog1.php/2012/09/03/50-000-year-old-humanoid-genome-sequenced

    1. Adam Benton says:

      You’re not wrong. Early reports based on mtDNA indicated that the Denisovans were equally related to both humans and Neanderthals; leading the construction of the family tree included. Later results from the nuclear DNA cleared this up, showing that Neanderthals and Denisovans were actually closer together. And I’ve been running this site so long, I’ve still got old images swimming around. I’ve replaced the old image in this post with a more up to date one, thanks for pointing it out.

  3. clayton says:

    I really like your blog here! Human evolution is pretty much my favorite subject. I would think that the first cooked food (animal or vegetable) that those monkey men ate was probably accidentally cooked, and they found out it tasted better. It might have been the same time they discovered that they could use fire, or more likely started messing around with fire, when they found it. I doubt we can ever find out for sure, at least until time travel is invented.

    1. Adam Benton says:

      That’s what many researchers think, given it can be quite common to come across “accidentally” burnt stuff in the environment (i.e. due to being caught in a wildfire). In fact, many wild animals will often exploit wildfires in this manner. Birds grabbing burnt bugs/bugs trying to escape the widlfire, for exaple.

Leave your filthy monkey comments here.

More in Evolution of our body
Humans evolved to prefer red food

What makes food appealing? One evolutionary hang-over that still influences our decision is colour. We inherited our ancestors preference for...

Close