171–180 of 226 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are books, kits, jars, drinks, restaurants. And you can buy fermented foods in shops too.
Okay I understand what you mean now (still don't agree). I'm having a hard time envisioning companies involved in the fermented foods scene coming together and "lobbying" to push their "agenda" but who knows, maybe I'm being naive! ;-)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It could be both: Fermented meat from scavenging. Sounds gross but actually many cultures still have fermented meat products in their cuisine
There is an interesting series of scenes in the book Shogun where the main character gets some meat and wants to prepare it in the traditional manner by curing it. He hangs the meat outside but people are so disgusted by the stench that they steal it and dispose of it before he can eat it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What do you mean? They eat mostly fruit and vegetables.
The top comment on this thread ( https://www.quora.com/Could-a-human-being-survive-on-the-die... ) matches what I've learned about this elsewhere. Just that "chewing for six hours a day" part is a problem.. As for gorillas - that's mostly leaves, shoots and stems. All very hard to digest, a human wouldn't get much nutrients out of that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Of course, but if you have a specific interest, and then a study comes out that backs it up, you can write about it and promote it, can't you? Show everyone, look at this, we liked this idea, and now this study gives it more backing.
If the study had said eating meat was essential for our pre-historic development they probably just wouldn’t publish it. Impartiality is hard.
If a study comes out saying meat is great, "keto" sites promote it.
If a study comes out saying plants are great, "plant" sites promote it.
I don't think a site called 'plantbasednews' is hiding their bias.
From the "about us" page: > Plant Based News is a mission-led impact media platform focused on elevating the plant-based diet and its benefit to human health, the planet, and animals. And > The world’s leading scientists agree that time is running out in the fight to stop the climate crisis. Shifting away from an animal-based food system is one of the most impactful ways we can slow global warming. It’s also a critic…
This summary article may be biased, but note that the cited paper has been peer reviewed and was published in Nature: https://www.nature.com/articles/s42003-023-05517-3 .
From the "about us" page: > Plant Based News is a mission-led impact media platform focused on elevating the plant-based diet and its benefit to human health, the planet, and animals. And > The world’s leading scientists agree that time is running out in the fight to stop the climate crisis. Shifting away from an animal-based food system is one of the most impactful ways we can slow global warming. It’s also a critic…
What are you calling them out for? A bias against torture and violent industrialized murder of sentient life?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This summary article may be biased, but note that the cited paper has been peer reviewed and was published in Nature: https://www.nature.com/articles/s42003-023-05517-3 .
It not a study. It’s a bunch of postulation and no data or experiment and based entirely on conjecture.
I have no problem with the paper in Nature, and no problem with PBN promoting it. I think they’re overreaching saying it was fermentation not fire. It may well have been both. Fire 2m years ago and fermentation more recently once we had containers to ferment things in.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Of course, but if you have a specific interest, and then a study comes out that backs it up, you can write about it and promote it, can't you? Show everyone, look at this, we liked this idea, and now this study gives it more backing.
Sure you can, but the thing about ideologies is that they are almost always pseudo-religious philosophies, and those entities that make them their foremost identity typically seek out supporting facts while ignoring contravening facts. Expecting this behavior is reasonable, almost all ideologues engage in it to some degree. Thus additional skepticism/verification is warranted when the source is an ideologue and the p…
This is a site to report 'plant based news', reporting on a study about 'plants'.
The site does not label itself as : "Completely un-biased news site weighing the thousands of studies dealing with all food types and providing equal 50-50 coverage of both plants and meat studies so people on the internet don't cry about bias".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Humans (since Erectus) _can't_ eat more. We don't have a big enough ingestion system for that. Our guts are tiny compared to other great apes. We're completely unable to survive on what chimpanzees eat, not to mention gorillas. The fire/cooked food hypothesis (and now this speculative one about fermented food) is that it made it possible to greatly reduce the guts, as well as chewing muscles. More calories and better…
> Humans (since Erectus) _can't_ eat more Again, the question is not if they can (they can't) but WHY. Or, differently, what is the cause, and what the effect.
From the article: "Backing up this hypothesis is the fact that humans have relatively smaller large intestines than other primates. This indicates that our ancestors were eating food that was already partly broken down by fermentation." IIRC another interpretation of the smaller large intestine is that early humans were eating more bioavailable food (i.e. meat) than other primates, which doesn't need to be broken dow…
> Explanatory power compared to other hypotheses
> The emergence of meat-eating, tuber-harvesting, and cooking have all been proposed to account for human brain expansion; why should our just-so story be given any additional credence? Below, we consider several explanatory advantages of the External Fermentation Hypothesis versus other current hypotheses.