The elephant size question is a good one, and brings to mind the eating patterns of herbivores everywhere, as opposed to carnivores. Most herbivores I’m aware of (elephants, water buffalo, etc.) eat all the time. This is their life, the go from one food source to another. In this way they partially make up for the low nutrient density of their food sources. Carnivores on the other hand seem to eat more infrequently, they may make a kill every few days.
The rest of the time their lounging, sociallizing, following their food sources, etc. Meat is the polar opposite of leaves and grass in that it is incredibly nutrient dense (when fresh and raw) Fruit is kind of a half way food group as far as nutrient density goes. Now the interesting part of this is the proposed effects these food groups have had on various creatures, things such as the structure of their digestive organs to their brain size.
One good example of this is a comparison in both brain size and gut structure between two types of amazon monkeys. One, the howler monkey subsists primarily on leaves, has a much larger gut and a much smaller brain (relative to the comparison). The other, not sure of the name but it subsists primarily on fruit, has a much larger brain, and smaller gut. More variables arise when you look at other factors. The Howlers tend to have a very small territory (don’t need to travel far for leaves), move as a group, and have a fairly simple social structure. The other fruit-eating monkeys have a MUCH larger territory (travelling quite far in search of their fruit), work more independantly and have a much more complex social and communication structure.
Several theories arise as to why they are so different, some say it’s due to the difference in the nutrient density of their respective foods, the more nutritious fruit fueling a more advanced brain. Others suggest that the activities involved in aquiring their food are what stimulate the difference in brain size. The fruit seekers must employ more memorization skills to search for their bounty. Most likely it is a combination of both.
Come right around to the human question, it has been proposed that the introduction of meat, and other more nutrient dense food to our diet was a major influence in our journey towards becoming the “smartest” creatures on the planet. In regards to the chimp strength debate, while the physical differences between two species are obvious and serve to explain why we have this difference in strength; I would also argue that lifestyle plays a large role as well.
Take an average human baby, raise him like a chimp, similar diet (vegetables, meat), same environment (in the jungle baby, swinging from trees etc, no XBox here) I would think that that human child would sport some serious differences in physical prowess, etc. Maybe not to chimp standards, but far superior to the average urban human for sure.
D.
