
What megalodon really ate to meet its 100,000-calorie daily requirement, according to a new study
Sign up for CNN's Wonder Theory science newsletter. Explore the universe with news on fascinating discoveries, scientific advancements and more.
CNN —
What scientists understand about the voracious feeding habits of the colossal megalodon could be up for some revision.
The prehistoric predator that went extinct about 3.6 million years ago was not hunting only large marine mammals such as whales as researchers widely thought, a new study has found. Instead, minerals in fossilized teeth reveal that megalodon might have been an opportunistic feeder to meet its remarkable 100,000-calorie-per-day requirement.
'When available, it would probably have fed on large prey items, but when not available, it was flexible enough to feed also on smaller animals to fulfill its dietary requirements,' said lead study author Jeremy McCormack, a geoscientist at Goethe University in Frankfurt, Germany.
The study, published Monday in the journal Earth and Planetary Science Letters, also showed there were regional differences in the giant shark's feeding habits. The finding suggests megalodon would pursue whatever was in local waters, devouring other top predators and smaller prey alike.
'They were not concentrating on certain prey types, but they must have fed throughout the food web, on many different species,' McCormack said. 'While certainly this was a fierce apex predator, and no one else would probably prey on an adult megalodon, it's clear that they themselves could potentially feed on almost everything else that swam around.'
Megalodon dispatched its prey with a ferocious bite and lethal, serrated teeth that could reach up to 7 inches (18 centimeters) long — the size of a human hand. The superpredator's teeth — abundant in the fossil record — are what McCormack and his colleagues used to conduct a geochemical analysis, unlocking fresh clues that could challenge megalodon's role as sole king of the ancient seas.
Zinc in megalodon teeth
It's not the first time that a study has challenged previous knowledge about the enormous sea creature. In fact, many questions remain unanswered about Otodus megalodon — its scientific species name meaning 'giant tooth' — since no complete fossil has ever been discovered. The lack of hard evidence stems from the fact that fish skeletons are made of softer cartilage rather than bone, so they don't fossilize very well.
Recent research found that the animal was more warm-blooded than other sharks, for example, and there is an ongoing debate about its size and shape. Scientists who created a 3D reconstruction suggest ed in 2022 that megalodon was about three times as long as a great white shark — about 52 feet (16 meters). However, a March study hypothesized that the megashark was actually much larger — up to 80 feet (24 meters) in length and even longer than the fictional version in the 2018 blockbuster 'The Meg,' which suggested the ancient predator was 75 feet (23 meters) from head to tail.
As for megalodon's feeding habits, determining what it ate based on fossil evidence poses challenges, according to McCormack. 'We know that they fed on large marine mammals from tooth bite marks,' he said. 'Of course, you can see bite marks on the bones of marine mammals, but you will not see them if they fed on other sharks, because sharks don't have bones. So there's already a bias in this kind of fossil record.'
To glean more about megalodon's prey selection, McCormack and his coauthors looked at the giant shark's fossilized teeth and compared them with those of other animals that lived at the same time, as well as teeth from modern sharks and other predators such as dolphins. The researchers used specimens from museum collections and samples from beached animal carcasses.
Specifically, the study team conducted a lab analysis of zinc, a mineral that is acquired only through food.
Zinc is essential for living organisms and plays a crucial role in tooth development. The ratio of heavy and light zinc isotopes in the sharks' tooth enamel preserves a record of the kind of animal matter that they ate.
Different types, or isotopes, of zinc are absorbed when fish and other animals eat, but one of them — zinc-66 — is stored in tooth enamel much less than another, zinc-64. The ratio between those zinc isotopes widens the further away an animal gets from the lowest level of the food chain. That means that a fish eating other fish would have lower levels of zinc-66 compared with zinc-64, and the fish that eat those fish will have even less zinc-66 compared with zinc-64, creating ratio markers that can help draw up a sequence of the food chain.
The researchers found that sea bream, a fish that feeds on mussels and crustaceans, was at the bottom of their reconstructed chain, followed by smaller sharks from the Carcharhinus genus, up to 9.8 feet (3 meters) in length, and extinct toothed whales comparable in size to modern dolphins.
Farther up were larger sharks such as the Galeocerdo aduncus, similar to a modern tiger shark, and occupying the top slot was megalodon — but its zinc ratios were not so different as to suggest a massive gap with the lower-tier animals, meaning they might have been part of megalodon's diet, too. 'Based on our new results, we see that it was clear it could feed at the very top, but it was flexible enough to feed also on lower (levels of the food chain),' McCormack said.
In addition, the researchers found megalodon was not alone at the top of the food chain but instead shared the spot with other 'opportunistic supercarnivores' such as its close relative Otodus chubutensis and the lesser-known Araloselachus cuspidatus, another giant fish-eating shark.
That revelation challenges the assumption that megalodon was the exclusive ruler of the oceans and draws comparisons with the great white shark, another large opportunistic feeder. The finding also reinforces the idea that the rise of the great white may have been a factor in megalodon's extinction, according to paleobiologist Kenshu Shimada, one of the coauthors of the latest study.
'One of the contributing factors for the demise of megalodon has been hypothesized to be the rise of the great white shark, which feeds on fish when young and shifts its diet to marine mammals as it becomes larger,' said Shimada, a professor of biological and environmental sciences at DePaul University in Chicago.
'Our new study, that demonstrates the 'diet overlap' between the great white shark and megalodon, strengthens the idea that the evolution of the smaller, likely more agile and maneuverable great white shark could have indeed (driven) megalodon to extinction.'
Megalodon vs. great white shark
The new research allows scientists to recreate a snapshot of the marine food web that existed about 20 million years ago, according to Jack Cooper, a UK-based paleobiologist and megalodon expert who wasn't involved with the study.
'The general picture of megalodon has been of a gigantic shark munching on whales,' Cooper said in an email. 'This study adds a new dimension that megalodon probably had a wide range of prey — essentially, it probably ate not just whales but whatever it wanted.'
Another interesting find, he added, is that megalodon's diet probably varied slightly between different populations, something observed in today's great white sharks. 'This makes sense and is something we would have probably expected since megalodon lived all over the world and not all of its prey items would have done; but it's wonderful to have concrete data supporting this hypothesis,' Cooper said.
The study adds to a growing body of evidence that is reshaping commonly held beliefs about megalodon and its close relatives, said Alberto Collareta, a researcher in the department of Earth sciences at Italy's University of Pisa who was not involved in the research.
'These have led us to abandon traditional reconstruction of the megatooth sharks as 'inflated' versions of the modern white shark. We now know that the Megalodon was something else — in terms of size, shape and ancestry, and of biology, too,' Collareta said via email.
'The Miocene (palaeo)ecosystems in question did not work in a radically different way compared to their modern counterparts — even if they feature … completely extinct protagonists such as the megatooth sharks,' he added, highlighting what he found to be the report's key takeaway.
'That said, it is still useful to acknowledge that our understanding of the Meg is essentially limited to its ubiquitous teeth, a few vertebrae and a handful of scales. What I'd really love to see emerging from 'the foggy ruins of time' is a complete Meg skeleton… Let's hope that the fossil record will amaze us once again.'
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Forbes
an hour ago
- Forbes
Why Do We Care How Much We Spend On Medicaid?
The U.S. has fewer hospital beds per person than Europe does. In evaluating the success of Obamacare in general and Medicaid expansion in particular, reporters and commentators have tended to focus on only one measure: the increase in the number of people with health insurance. At the same time, in evaluating the health consequences of the House Republican reconciliation measure, almost all the focus has been on the number of people who will lose health insurance. The implicit premise in all of this is: more health insurance means more health care and less health insurance means less health care. That has been the premise behind virtually every important piece of health care legislation going all the way back to the creation of Medicare and Medicaid in1965. Yet the premise ignores a fundamental economic principle: no matter what happens to the demand for care, there won't be a change in health care delivered unless there is a change in supply. Under Obamacare, we are certainly spending more money. The annual cost of Medicaid expansion is $130 billion and the cost of exchange subsidies is more than $60 billion. What are we getting in return for all this extra spending? Although there has been a substantial increase in the number of people with health insurance, one study finds that there has been no overall increase in health care. In fact, the nation may be getting less care. In 2023, 13 years after the passage of the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare), the number of hospital admissions per capita was 19 percent lower and the number of hospital days was18 percent lower than the year the act was passed. In the 9 years following the passage of Obamacare, doctor visits per capita declined by 18%. Further, our health care resources appear to be quite skimpy in comparison to other developed countries. Today, the United States has 2.7 doctors per 1,000 people, while the European average is 4.1. The U.S. has fewer than three hospital beds per 1,000 residents. The EU has more than five. And our country doesn't seem to be getting any healthier. Life expectancy in 2024 was lower than it was ten years earlier. As for Medicaid, numerous studies through the years have produced conflicting results on what difference the program makes for enrollee health. Yet these studies suffer from all the problems that are inherent in making inferences from population statistics. One study was different. The Oregon Health Insurance Experiment was a randomized controlled trial (RCT) that examined the medical condition of real people. Medicaid enrollees were selected by lottery and after two years the investigators compared the medical condition of those who enrolled with those who didn't. The results: enrollees had less financial stress and were less likely to be depressed, but there was no difference in their physical health. One of the Oregon investigators, MIT economist Amy Finkelstein, helps us understand those results. People without health insurance, she notes, still get about 80 percent of the health care that Medicaid enrollees get. And when they are confronted with high medical bills, they actually pay only a small portion of them. You might suppose that Medicaid enrollees are less likely to rely on hospital emergency rooms. The reverse is true. Once they enroll, Medicaid patients increase their trips to the emergency room by 40 percent. This may explain why Medicaid enrollees place a very low value on enrollment. If you were to offer to buy their Medicaid insurance coverage, it appears that the average enrollee would sell her insurance for as little as 20 cents on the dollar. Moreover, among the lottery winners who were offered enrollment in Oregon, more than half turned the offer down! By implication, these folks placed no value on the opportunity to enroll. These findings have convinced Finkelstein (certainly no right-winger) that rather than giving low-income families more Medicaid, we should give them cash instead. Here is one way to do that. Private companies managing Medicaid (or the state itself) should be able to make deposits to Health Savings Accounts (HSAs) that would cover, say, all primary care. Enrollees would be restricted to using the money for health care during an insurance year. With these funds, they would be able to pay market prices (instead of Medicaid fees) at doctor's offices, walk-in clinics and urgent care centers – allowing them to buy medical care the way they buy food with food stamps. This would allow low-income families to have the same health care opportunities that middle-income families have. At the end of the insurance period, they could withdraw any unspent funds for any purpose. If there were no taxes or penalties for non-medical withdrawals, health care and non-health care would be trading against each other on a level playing field under the tax law. People wouldn't spend a dollar on health care unless they got a dollar's worth of value. An early study by the RAND Corporation suggests that these accounts could reduce Medicaid spending by 30 percent. Excluding payments for the disabled and nursing home care, the savings would amount to almost $1 trillion over ten years. This saving would be shared by the beneficiaries and the taxpayers who fund Medicaid. This is one way to resolve the impasse in the Senate over the House reconciliation bill. HSAs for Medicaid are a way to make the program better for enrollees and cut spending at the same time.


New York Times
an hour ago
- New York Times
Join the discussion on The Athletic!
The singles quarterfinals are in full swing on day 10 of the 2025 French Open at Roland Garros. American hope Frances Tiafoe (15) is currently level against Lorenzo Musetti (8) with a set apiece on Court Philippe-Chatrier, with compatriot Tommy Paul (12) set to face Carlos Alcaraz (2) in the evening session. Aryna Sabalenka (1) beat Olympic champion Zheng Qinwen (8) in straight sets 7-6(3), 6-3 and will play defending champion Iga Świątek (5), who beat Elina Svitolina (13), 6-1, 7-5, in the semifinals. TV: TNT, truTV, Tennis Channel (U.S.); TNT, Discovery+ (UK) TNT, truTV, Tennis Channel (U.S.); TNT, Discovery+ (UK) Streaming: Max for main coverage, Fubo (try for free) for secondary Max for main coverage, Fubo (try for free) for secondary Join the discussion: live@ GO FURTHER Tennis gets the Iga Swiatek vs. Aryna Sabalenka showdown the WTA Tour craved


Associated Press
an hour ago
- Associated Press
2 Day Virtual Device Makers and Drugmakers Supplier Management Qualification, Contracts and Audits Course
DUBLIN--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Jun 3, 2025-- The 'Supplier Management for Device makers and Drugmakers: Qualification, Contracts and Audits Course' training has been added to offering. This 2-day course will cover managing a supplier for the entire lifecycle of the relationship, beginning with identification and qualification of a supplier and continuing through building a relationship, risk management, ongoing assessment (including auditing) and finally planning for an exit. The course will show attendees how to use risk assessment for ranking suppliers and reducing the number of audits that are necessary to effectively manage suppliers. Strategies for determining whether a supplier will be sole source will be included. Exercises will help attendees develop their own supplier scorecard based on the requirements of their company and develop quality agreements that will ensure clear lines of communication. Attendees will take away strategies for the ongoing monitoring of supplier process performance and for managing nonconforming incidents and changes. Why Should You Attend Effective management of suppliers and contract manufacturers is an integral component of a quality management system. Suppliers are an integral part of the supply chain and, therefore, the process of production and delivery should be understood and supplier relationships developed and improved. Supplier failures can increase the cost of poor quality through excess inventory, downtime, additional testing, and customer satisfaction. On the other hand, a significant strategic advantage can be gained by excellent supplier management. One of the seven quality principles of ISO 9001 is to build relationships with suppliers because it is a critical component of sustained success. Pharmaceutical and medical device manufacturers have a mandated responsibility for ensuring the suppliers meet regulatory requirements and produce good quality product. FDA regulations CFR 210 and 211 require pharmaceutical companies to assure the quality of the product they put into interstate commerce regardless of where it or any of its components were manufactured. The Q10 Pharmaceutical Quality System Guidance provides additional details on the agency's expectations for supplier management. For Medical Device Manufacturers, 21 CFR 820.50 places the burden on the purchasing company to establish purchasing controls. European regulations similarly require effective supplier quality management. Benefits This live training seminar includes the following for each registered attendee: Who Should Attend: Speakers: Kelly Thomas Vice President Stallergenes Greer Ms. Thomas has over two decades of cGMP hands-on industry experience in both pharmaceutical and medical device manufacturing operations. Her experience covers all Quality Systems; as well as, all areas of validation; including, process/product validation, facilities validation, CSV and 21 CFR Part 11, test method validation, equipment/automated processes and cleaning validation. Utilizing strategic thinking, risk based approaches, and Lean principles, she has demonstrated success in steering and managing complex projects within the pharmaceutical and medical device industries. ( RAPS - This course has been pre-approved by RAPS as eligible for up to 8 credits towards a participant's RAC recertification upon full completion) For more information about this training visit About is the world's leading source for international market research reports and market data. We provide you with the latest data on international and regional markets, key industries, the top companies, new products and the latest trends. View source version on CONTACT: Laura Wood, Senior Press Manager [email protected] For E.S.T Office Hours Call 1-917-300-0470 For U.S./ CAN Toll Free Call 1-800-526-8630 For GMT Office Hours Call +353-1-416-8900 KEYWORD: INDUSTRY KEYWORD: MEDICAL DEVICES HEALTH MANUFACTURING OTHER MANUFACTURING PHARMACEUTICAL BIOTECHNOLOGY SOURCE: Research and Markets Copyright Business Wire 2025. PUB: 06/03/2025 11:14 AM/DISC: 06/03/2025 11:13 AM