that the quality of the diet seriously
improved to the point where you can get these bigger bodies with smaller
teeth that indicate that
the food is essentially digested before it comes into the body.

this the assumption from wrangham that cooked meats is more tender than raw
meats .
The truth is the opposite when you butcher lengh wise removing membranes in
the process rather the butcher's way across the grain leaving many membranes
to chew thru. also aging meats in the warmth  makes it  very tender .
Cooking actually makes the meat  tougher , only membranes get softened by it
or even dissolved if cooked in water
( probably not available back then )
 the  aged meats could have increase as a ressource ( by hunting from
scavenging ) and it will be a satifying explanation for both smaller teeth
( meats don't require chewing like plants foods do ) and smaller male size
( hunting with little technology require more cooperation than scavenging ,
a smaller less agressive male able to cooperate with other male is an asset.
tribal life becomes necessary to deal with whole carcasses before they rot
while scavenging left over from carnivorous animals was less demanding in
that regard

.

Jamie Jones: About 2 million years ago we see this continuity in the fossil
record where up until
that point all hominoids had been fairly small bodied, and from our best
estimations they were
extremely sexually dimorphic, meaning that males were substantially larger
than females. About 2
million years ago, with the advent of what we call Homo erectus, we see that
females get
considerably bigger but males stay more or less the same, they get a little
bigger too and as a
result sexual dimorphism is reduced substantially.

this makes sense only if you assume there is a continuity between
australipethecus fossils found and homo erectus.they might be totally
unrelated species .

the cooking advantage hypothesis makes sense only when it concern a better
use of plants resssources not meats .
jean-claude