The high energetic costs of human brain development have been hypothesized to explain distinctive human traits, including exceptionally slow and protracted preadult growth. Although widely assumed to constrain life-history evolution, the metabolic requirements of the growing human brain are unknown. We combined previously collected PET and MRI data to calculate the human brain’s glucose use from birth to adulthood, which we compare with body growth rate. We evaluate the strength of brain–body metabolic trade-offs using the ratios of brain glucose uptake to the body’s resting metabolic rate (RMR) and daily energy requirements (DER) expressed in glucose-gram equivalents (glucose_rmr% and glucose_der%). We find that glucose_rmr% and glucose_der% do not peak at birth (52.5% and 59.8% of RMR, or 35.4% and 38.7% of DER, for males and females, respectively), when relative brain size is largest, but rather in childhood (66.3% and 65.0% of RMR and 43.3% and 43.8% of DER). Body-weight growth (dw/dt) and both glucose_rmr% and glucose_der% are strongly, inversely related: soon after birth, increases in brain glucose demand are accompanied by proportionate decreases in dw/dt. Ages of peak brain glucose demand and lowest dw/dt co-occur and subsequent developmental declines in brain metabolism are matched by proportionate increases in dw/dt until puberty. The finding that human brain glucose demands peak during childhood, and evidence that brain metabolism and body growth rate covary inversely across development, support the hypothesis that the high costs of human brain development require compensatory slowing of body growth rate. Significance The metabolic costs of brain development are thought to explain the evolution of humans’ exceptionally slow and protracted childhood growth; however, the costs of the human brain during development are unknown. We used existing PET and MRI data to calculate brain glucose use from birth to adulthood. We find that the brain’s metabolic requirements peak in childhood, when it uses glucose at a rate equivalent to 66% of the body’s resting metabolism and 43% of the body’s daily energy requirement, and that brain glucose demand relates inversely to body growth from infancy to puberty. Our findings support the hypothesis that the unusually high costs of human brain development require a compensatory slowing of childhood body growth.

A lifetime of change: Measurements of total and basal energy in a large cohort of subjects at ages spanning from before birth to old age document distinct changes that occur during a human lifetime. Pontzer et al . report that energy expenditure (adjusted for weight) in neonates was like that of adults but increased substantially in the first year of life (see the Perspective by Rhoads and Anderson). It then gradually declined until young individuals reached adult characteristics, which were maintained from age 20 to 60 years. Older individuals showed reduced energy expenditure. Tissue metabolism thus appears not to be constant but rather to undergo transitions at critical junctures. —LBR

S M Garn, W R Leonard, V M Hawthorne; Three limitations of the body mass index, The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Volume 44, Issue 6, 1 December 1986

Assessing the effects of markets on the well-being of indigenous peoples and their conservation of natural resources matters to identify public policies to improve well-being and enhance conservation and to test hypotheses about sociocultural change. We review studies about how market economies affect the subsistence, health, nutritional status, social capital, and traditional ecological knowledge of indigenous peoples and their use of renewable natural resources. Market exposure produces mixed effects on well-being and conservation. Unclear effects arise from the small sample size of observations; reliance on cross-sectional data or short panels; lack of agreement on the measure of key variables, such as integration to the market or folk knowledge, or whether to rely on perceived or objective indicators of health; and endogeneity biases. Rigorous empirical studies linking market economies with the well-being of indigenous peoples or their use of renewable natural resources have yet to take off.