On Sat, 8 Jan 2005 22:38 Ingrid Bauer/Jean-Claude Catry wrote:

>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 length wise removing membranes in
>the process rather than the butcher's way across the grain leaving many membranes
>to chew thru.

Actually, I like chewing gristle and 'tough meats'  There is a layer of gristle cleaving to many lamb
and beef bones and there are sinews in kangaroo -  I actually seek them out.

>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

Anthopologists often deduce from the most worn teeth that they became  worn by chewing meat
rather than plants.  Can't see it myself.  If you were eating root/tuberous plants they would more
likely have in them silica, quartz and other grit from the soil etc.  It is the grit that would wear the
teeth far more than the plants or meats themselves.

Keith