9 ms·

Study puts fermented foods, not fire, as pivotal moment in human brain growth

• WorkerBee28474 3y ago
  Previous discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39469988 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39469988
• taejavu 3y ago
  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 down as much as more fibrous material (seeds, leaves, stalks etc). Can someone more knowledgable than me confirm or deny?
  • zer00eyz 3y ago
    Were finding evidence of ... "milling for food dates back to the transitional period between Neanderthals and Homo sapiens." From: https://nouvelles.umontreal.ca/en/article/2023/06/19/the-old-grind-just-got-a-little-older/ https://nouvelles.umontreal.ca/en/article/2023/06/19/the-old... I just don't buy that fermentation from random food piles is a driver for evolution...
  • xenonite 3y ago
    Fermented meat would be a combination of both interpretations.. (sausages etc)
  • wouldbecouldbe 3y ago
    Yeah not sure I understand the entire idea behind correctly. To stick with other primates for now. Gorilla's have an obscene amount of muscles; adults need 8000 calories per day, compared to 2000-3000 calories for an adult human. Somewhere, even though they eat low bioavailable food, even though they had to eat all day the heave muscle guys & girls had better chances of survival. Why do we think the brain's need are more special then a feature like muscles? Am I missing something here? There is a decent amount of unfermented and uncooked food with lots of nutritional value a smarter brain can find, mainly meats (fatty parts especially) & nuts (if you are smart enough to open them), that would relatively on parr with the Gorilla way. I'm sure as soon as tools, fire etc, became part of human culture it became even easier for those with more intelligence to became favorable. But that also needed to be in line with the development of more complicated social structures, either genetically or culturally.
    • toxik 3y ago
      Generally, the great apes are better adapted to plant diets, humans are better adapted for eating meat. Gorillas eat leaves and pith, and A LOT of it. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2964658/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2964658/
      • berkes 3y ago
        Yes. But the parent commentor asked "why". As in: why can a gorilla sustain it's immense needs to build muscles by eating a lot, but humans cannot do this to build a large brain? To ask that question differently: why would humans need to change to meat/fermentation/cooking in order to grow brains, if they could "just" eat more, as other primates do?
        • Tor3 3y ago
          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 nutrients (both cooking and fermentation greatly improves the nutritional value of many foods), and less need of energy for guts is what's supposed to be the driver here (and seafood has also been mentioned as a possible source of important amino acids which is necessary for brain development)
          • AlecSchueler 3y ago
            Sounds like "standing up" was the real pivotal moment.
          • wouldbecouldbe 3y ago
            but we can, you can perfectly fine live on raw meat (pork back fat) nuts etc. And Guts also shrank because they could. It sounds to me like this part mostly came after we learned to cook, then the body didn't need to waste energy on large complex guts. Hugely complicated brains such as Elephants & Whales do just fine on raw food diets.
  • arp242 3y ago
    The paper addresses that, the tl;dr is that there is no evidence for hunting from this time period and that scavenging wouldn't have provided enough meat to make a substantial difference. It's of course entirely possible that both fermented foods and a meat diet were pivotal, just at very different time periods and in different contexts.
  • depressedpanda 3y ago
    Yes, meat being the driver is the more common (and simpler) explanation for our smaller intestines and larger brains. I guess plantbasednews.org just accidentally left this alternative explanation out. That said, fermented foods could very well have played a part in it.
    • 0xEF 3y ago
      Likely more accurate. I'm not sure why anyone thinks any surviving development in an organism is due to this "one weird trick" thing, as opposed to a multitude of factors that rendered that organism fit for their environment, at least enough to pass said development on, anyway. Meat, fermented foods, fire, and a slew of other variables likely played a role. Talking about evolution as though there was some single exploding popcorn kernel that caused change is a pretty narrow take on things. Sites like the one in the link only serve to perpetuate such shallow thinking on the matter, and in this case, likely to push a narrative.
      • throwup238 3y ago
        > Talking about evolution as though there was some single exploding popcorn kernel that caused change is a pretty narrow take on things. That’s kind of one of the predominant theories in evolution though: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium > Eldredge and Gould proposed that the degree of gradualism commonly attributed to Charles Darwin is virtually nonexistent in the fossil record, and that stasis dominates the history of most fossil species. The theory deals with the morphology of animals in the fossil record but that’s the gist of it: the actual evolution happens really fast, usually to adapt to a large environmental change, and species enter a stable state where they very slowly change if at all.
        • _0ffh 3y ago
          > the actual evolution happens really fast With the qualification, that they can be "fast" in geological time scales, which are rather big. It might look like rapid change in the fossil record, but that is a very compressed representation.
  • xenonite 3y ago
    Josef H. Reichholf, a German evolutionary biologist, writes that the first grain cultivations were not as nutritious and productive as they are today. His thesis is that grains were first used in fermentation – not for food, but alcohol consumption, along with other drug substances like poppy, betel nut, coca and others. Then, storage of these (luxury) goods reduced mobility of hunters and gatherers, which led them to settle down (still eating mostly a hunter and gatherer diet). His book "Warum die Menschen sesshaft wurden" is summarized in https://oe1.orf.at/artikel/213690/Warum-die-Menschen-sesshaft-wurden https://oe1.orf.at/artikel/213690/Warum-die-Menschen-sesshaf... For a scientific journal reference, see "The role of cult and feasting in the emergence of Neolithic communities. New evidence from Göbekli Tepe, south-eastern Turkey", Antiquity (2012), https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003598X00047840 https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003598X00047840
  • chewz 3y ago
    It seems that humans got Ruminococcus hominiciens (bacteria that is pivotal for brealing down celulosis) only after domesticating cows etc. > Our evolutionary analysis strongly suggests that R[uminococcus] hominiciens likely originated in the ruminant gut and later transferred to humans, possibly during domestication. > The human-associated strains possess functional adaptability highlighted by the acquisition of genes that can degrade specific plant fibers of monocots such as maize, rice, and wheat—major components of the human diet. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adj9223 https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adj9223
  • goalieca 3y ago
    Cooked food, including meat, is hypothesized as the reason for a smaller digestive track. Of course, this needs fire.
  • ergonaught 3y ago
    Why not just read the actual study, to which the article links, and discuss that? "One such proposed dietary change is increased meat eating, which has been argued to have been central to human evolution" Behold the long comment train on a tangent unrelated to the study.
  • Ensorceled 3y ago
    > 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 down as much as more fibrous material (seeds, leaves, stalks etc). Can someone more knowledgable than me confirm or deny? Yep, it's also why the Giant Panda needs to eat so much bamboo in a day, they also have a carnivore-like short gastrointestinal tract. The idea that humans were fermenting via persistent food caches a million years before we discovered fire, and doing it consistently enough to affect brain evolution is, well, a stretch.
    • multjoy 3y ago
      Why?
    • giraffe_lady 3y ago
      Why is that a stretch? At a warm room temp fermentation is quite noticeable after 18 hours in a lot of raw edible plants. As little as 6-8 for some of them. You don't need a cache, simply carrying leftovers with you for the next morning would be enough. It's not a big stretch that a resource you would have to go alarmingly out of your way to avoid (by destroying edible food after gorging) would come before fire. This is related to what I've heard called the carrier bag theory. Once you can acquire food, the next technological step is being able to bring it with you. A gourd, a large folded leaf is sufficient. Once you're doing that fermentation is inevitable.
      • Ensorceled 3y ago
        > Why is that a stretch? Because you need to do it over generations, so consistently that it effects the species evolution, selecting for a developing brain you can't support without the fermentation. Similar developments, such as lactose tolerance, required a society that had already domesticated lactating animals.
        • giraffe_lady 3y ago
          Yeah I get that, it still doesn't seem like a big leap to me. Fermentation is just the early curve of the spoilage processes. All you need to exploit it is continued access to food you acquired recently.
  • happytiger 3y ago
    It’s actually discussed in the paper. > 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. https://www.nature.com/articles/s42003-023-05517-3 https://www.nature.com/articles/s42003-023-05517-3
• triyambakam 3y ago
  It used to be meat, and then that was corrected to be starch (potatoes are easy to farm and store)
  • ScoobleDoodle 3y ago
    Potatoes are native to the Americas https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potato https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potato But there are other starches too.
    • Terr_ 3y ago
      When it comes to the "Columbian Exchange" [0] there are quite a lot of animals and plants the people today will (wrongly) assume have existed somewhere since antiquity. (Italian tomatoes, Irish potatoes, wild horses in the American midwest, etc.) [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbian_exchange https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbian_exchange
      • thaumasiotes 3y ago
        Bigger than any of those would be chilis. Peanuts are pretty significant too. Maize is hugely significant, but fairly likely to be recognized as American. Just think what the world could have been like if not for the environmental devastation of the 16th century. ;D
      • justinator 3y ago
        Horses are actually endemic to North America, died out around 5,000 years ago and were then re-introduced a few hundred years ago. Kinda crazy.
      • TheCapeGreek 3y ago
        Related: A great read on the history citrus and Italy is The Land where Lemons Grow. It's kind of a travel book in some ways.
  • wirrbel 3y ago
    It must have been something that predates arable farming (sowing seeds on acres), just timeline wise humanity spread before farming became a thing. On the other hand I don't think that this must be a one-factor kind of a game changer thing. I could totally think that two to three changes occured in the food chain (meat, starches, food preservation, improved social skills), that combined amplified each other's effect and lead to the development.
• TheAceOfHearts 3y ago
  I wish the article lingered a bit more on how people might've been fermenting foods in the past as well as exploring what fermentable food options were available. It would be interesting to run some experiments storing various foods in different ecosystems over long periods of time. How falsifiable is their hypothesis? This would've been mostly in the African continent, right? I'd imagine it would be hard to get consistent fermentation going in more tropical climates.
  • jslabovitz 3y ago
    The excellent book On Food and Cooking: The Science and Lore of the Kitchen (Harold McGee) has sections on major food groups, along with some incredible stories of how those foods have been preserved in the past — many of which involve some sort of fermentation. I recall one story about birds being encased inside a dead seal, which was then buried for a time (looking that up now, I think it's Inuit 'kiviak'). It's a great book all around, if you're interested in how food works.
    • fbdab103 3y ago
      I must be missing something. That sounds like encasing some rapidly rotting meat inside more rotting meat. A significantly less appealing turducken. It would take some strong convictions to turn multiple meals now (seal + bird) into a future meal that could potentially be stolen by scavengers.
      • 4gotunameagain 3y ago
        From wikipedia: Up to 500 whole auks are packed into the seal skin, beaks and feathers included. As much air as possible is removed from the seal skin before it is sewn up and sealed with seal fat, which repels flies. It is then hidden in a heap of stones, with a large rock placed on top to keep the air out. Over the course of three months, the birds ferment, and are then eaten during the Arctic winter, particularly on birthdays and weddings. Things were rough up there
        • 3y ago
• vjust 3y ago
  Fermented foods, especially yogurt, kefir, buttermilk are vital for good health. People buy probiotic pills etc. But all it takes is to buy a tub/can of Greek yogurt. The best snack there is. Medicine is food, food is medicine.
  • elchief 3y ago
    Less so, chocolate and salami
    • hnick 3y ago
      Don't overdo the beer either
  • faebi 3y ago
    That really depends on the country. Some yogurts are very much dead where as in Switzerland they must be alive . Same thing with so many other items.
    • _moof 3y ago
      I keep hearing about this "dead" yogurt. What does this mean?
      • ml_basics 3y ago
        They make the yoghurt, then pasteurise it (I guess so it has a longer shelf life). So it tastes roughly like yoghurt but doesn't have any of the good bacteria. I've also seen that sometimes lactobacteria are then artificially added back in so that they are present but in a controlled way.
      • fuzztester 3y ago
        Heat treating / pasteurizing the yogurt after making it, kills the bacteria in it. Now the yogurt is "dead". Actually it is the bacteria that are now dead.
      • thaumasiotes 3y ago
• ars 3y ago
  This is a conjecture, not a study. Sorry if that seems to be nitpicking, but I see too many "studies" like this. A study is supposed to report the truth of something that the author studied. But this is an idea that the author liked and explored, and then wrote up. Maybe we can keep calling these studies, and come up with another term for fact based studies. And not "theory" please, that word in a scientific context just confuses everyone. Edit: "research paper" might be a good name (I saw someone else call it that in a post). i.e. "Research paper posits/theorizes/suggests that Fermented ....." Also the paper itself doesn't call itself a study, it calls itself an article.
  • sapling-ginger 3y ago
    That is not at all how science works. Outside of Mathematics, there is no such thing as Truth, only conjectures of varying certainties. Also, research journals are really just fancy forum boards where researchers in a particular fields talk to each other, and even occasionally shit talk. They aren't ever supposed to be a source of truth, and in fact the first thing we learnt as grad student is how to critically read a research journal article and try to poke holes in the study. We are supposed to assume that the articles are wrong, until we can be convinced that they are likely to be correct. Sometimes I think Google Scholars is a mistake. The general public aren't supposed to be exposed to research literature.
    • ars 3y ago
      If I report that "I did this, and then this happened". That's close enough to the truth to call it that. It's available in not just Mathematics: Chemistry, Physics for example. Then you have the type: "I saw this interesting thing", and that's also close enough to the truth. Geology, Astronomy, Archeology are examples. That's a study. But if I look at my own navel and decide "I like this idea because it makes sense to me", that's not a study. That type should get a different name. Theoretical Physics is the high quality version of this. I'm not saying there's no value in this type of thing!! Just that it's not a study. Maybe call them "research papers". > Sometimes I think Google Scholars is a mistake. The general public aren't supposed to be exposed to research literature. Yikes!!! So basically you want people to be sheep and just listen to what they are told, with no access to underlying material? I'd rather people look at the source, and understand it poorly, vs not look at it at all.
• xkzx 3y ago
  I make fermented fizzy enzyme drinks at home all the time, no soft drinks anymore. It has to be all the time as it is a perpetual drink. You buy on of those fancy hipster live enzyme drinks, but you never finish it. Just and juice, sugar, jam - whatever what bacteria like and it continues fermentation. At room temperature. Every two days it is ready again, drink it, feed it. If it is too active, put it in a fridge. I try to spread it as people have forgotten this.
  • lavos83 3y ago
    In the Netherlands it's called water and kefir. Good stuff indeed, especially during summer and basically free at the cost tapwater. No plastic packaging either! Those hipster might actually be onto something ;)
    • hetspookjee 3y ago
      Kombucha is another one.
      • AYBABTME 3y ago
        I nearly poisoned myself making kombucha at home, despite careful sanitizing and careful monitoring of pH and temperature. As a result I'm really not fond of casual recommendations to brew kombucha. Seems easy to mess up.
        • dekken_ 3y ago
          Counter anecdote for neutrality, I brew Kombucha and have done for a few years, worst I've done is make vinegar, YMMV
          • guappa 3y ago
            In 20 years a study will tell us how that increases the risk of cancer.
        • RamblingCTO 3y ago
• noduerme 3y ago
  Fermentation is just one kind of preservation. It seems to me that preserving food has a larger impact on individual survival by promoting group survival, than does any speculative benefit to individual gut health specifically tied to fermentation.
  • pwillia7 3y ago
    Me too -- Think about what a boon stored calories would be vs all your food rotting every few days and having to worry about getting more would be.
• west0n 3y ago
  Here is the original research paper: https://www.nature.com/articles/s42003-023-05517-3 https://www.nature.com/articles/s42003-023-05517-3
  • west0n 3y ago
    And this is just a "External Fermentation Hypothesis"
• cat_plus_plus 3y ago
  In Vino Veritas https://slova.org.ru/blok/neznakomka/ https://slova.org.ru/blok/neznakomka/
• trhway 3y ago
  my take based on several such articles. 8-10M ago humans (big apes that we were back then) got the ability to metabolize alcohol, ie. all those plentiful of fermenting/rotting fruit on the ground became food. That in particular allowed for less tree climbing, more walking on the floor. That, in particular for the purposes of self-defense and body calories storage - to more body mass - that in turn to less tree climbing, more walking (posture change, hands more "handy"). How far the walking? Well, about 2M ago (clocked by the divergent mutations in the tapeworm shared by hyenas and humans, and which has a lifecycle stage in antelope/gazelle) humans got additional powerful energy source - started to scavenge carcasses in savannah, ie. meat eating. That naturally led to the tools (more specifically - weapons) use - hyena has teeth, yet we had hands and the bones to be used as a weapon were right were so to speak. Sticks and stones would do to. Hyenas chances weren't good. Pack of hyenas - well, we were also walking the savannah not alone. So the tools(weapons) usage, pack/tribal organization, energetic food source - that all leads to brain development as well as enabled and improved by such a development. Other fermented foods, food storage and fire seems to be seemingly important points associated with improved tools, social organization and associated brain development.
  • staplers 3y ago
    Very interesting theory. Do we know what types of fruits they would have been eating off the ground? Also wondering if alcohol metabolization can be traced in dna or similar to align this theory.
    • trhway 3y ago
      yes, it is DNA tracing, for example (and note - "increasing terrestrialization"): https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8308604/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8308604/ "Paleogenetic reconstruction of alcohol dehydrogenase genes across the hominid phylogeny indicates a dramatically enhanced catabolic capacity in one particular ADH (ADH4, as encoded by the ADH7 allele), starting at about 10 Mya [26]. ADH4, although only one of multiple ADH forms present in mammals, is found primarily in the mouth and digestive tract and thus effects the “first pass” at the digestion of ethanol. This enzyme became dramatically better at metabolizing ethanol following the phyletic split between the lineage leading to modern orangutans and to the other great apes, including ourselves. It thus correlates well with increasing terrestrialization among the African apes, possibly yielding greater access to fermenting fruit crops on the ground, and thus resulting in increased ethanol within the diet [26]. "
• Grubbo 3y ago
  I'm thinking they ate partially digested and fermented food in their preys stomachs.
  • ramon156 3y ago
    Never thought about it, but that makes decent sense
• Simon_ORourke 3y ago
  It's not long now before some celebrity chef starts knocking out recipe books featuring fermented giraffe and describing it as a "true Paleo" diet.
• aszantu 3y ago
  reminds me of high meat recently learned that you need nitric oxide, and when you don't eat veggies, you can still get it from salami, which is fermented meat. Also trying to make garum these days, will take half a year until it's done though.
  • wirrbel 3y ago
    If you are referring to sodium nitrite which is used (as part of curing salt) to preserve meats. Its also not terribly healthy in foods IIRC (of course its healthier to eat cured meat than to eat meat with Botulinum bacteria).
    • steve_adams_86 3y ago
      Nitrites in vegetables, unintuitively, aren’t bad for you whereas the ones in salami are, indirectly. The problem isn’t nitrates and nitrites themselves though, but rather what’s present when they’re digested. Something has to convert nitrates to nitrites, or you need to consume nitrites, then something has to activate the nitrites into something harmful. With meat, the presence of haem for example allows for the formation of a type of N-nitroso compound (nitrosylated-haem in this case) which is cancer-causing. Vegetables don’t tend to come with such compounds, but actually come with compounds which inhibit the development of harmful nitrite-based compounds. Most of these are antioxidants. This doesn’t mean it’s impossible for vegetable-derived nitrites to harm you. It’s just far, far less likely. Fried meat that was previously cured is by far the most dangerous source of these cancer-causing compounds. The most well known example is probably bacon.
      • aszantu 3y ago
        could you just use sodium nitrate to salt your food? Like once a week or so? edit: need=use
        • steve_adams_86 3y ago
          No, they're quite different from each other. NaCl (Sodium Chloride) functions as a flavour enhancer whereas NaNO3 (Sodium Nitrate) functions to preserve foods (among other non-culinary uses). The concentrations of NaNO3 used for food preservation are far lower (and strictly regulated in much of the world) than we normally use for flavouring foods when using NaCl. The flavour profiles are different, and the limits for consumption are much different as well. Too much of both is dangerous, but too much NaNO3 is arguably easier to reach and more harmful in the short and long term. NaNO3 can lead to immediate issues with hemoglobin production for example. In the longer term, high volumes are carcinogenic. Your primary concern with NaCl is managing safe blood pressure in the longer term, and in the shorter term, it's relatively easy to avoid toxicity or other more minor complications like dehydration.
• deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
• mvdtnz 3y ago
  [flagged]
  • m463 3y ago
    I'm just waiting to eat a donut and an exercise pill for a hearty breakfast. more seriously, I don't do high-impact running, but I love minimalist (but not weird) zero drop shoes (merell/xero). I love being able to walk and be closer to grasping the ground instead of pounding it.
• happytiger 3y ago
  > We close with suggestions for empirical tests. Oooook. Call me when you have some of those. This is just complete conjecture, and while interesting, isn’t a study. It’s a postulation.
• xLaszlo 3y ago
  It's beer, isn't? Completely makes sense... If they find evidence that the next step was caffeine, I have no more questions...
  • m463 3y ago
    well kimchi and kombucha for breakfast
• famahar 3y ago
  I eat natto (fermented soy beans) every day. It's probably the cheapest and most healthy food you can buy in Japan. I used to hate the smell and texture, but force myself enough times made me gradually enjoy it.
  • walthamstow 3y ago
    What benefits does it have over other fermented soy products that actually taste good like miso or shoyu, or Chinese dou chi?
    • AnonC 3y ago
      Not GP. One of the benefits that I’ve read about is that natto is a very good source of Vitamin K (542% of DV). [1] [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natt%C5%8D#Nutrition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natt%C5%8D#Nutrition
  • spidersenses 3y ago
    Strange question, perhaps, but I'm curious because I always wanted to try Nattō: If you eat it regularly, do you also smell like it? I ask because people who eat a lot of garlic (or masala spice) often have strong body odor due to consuming these spices.
    • famahar 3y ago
      I notice the smell a bit. Not sure if anyone else notices my body odor changing. It's pretty common to eat it here in Japan. Do you mean the odor clinging to clothes or some physiological smell change?
  • Tor3 3y ago
    Natto looks somewhat.. strange. But I got used to it very quickly, I absolutely love rice with natto on top. Can't say I've ever noticed much smell.
• sph 3y ago
  Dupe from a biased source. Better link and previous discussion at: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39469988 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39469988
• zvmaz 3y ago
  The source can obviously biased. I became a vegetarian recently for ethical reasons and the critiques I receive around me center solely on health issues, with the occasional "we are humans, we eat meat!". These have absolutely no bearing on the ethics of vegetarianism or veganism. I understand people want solid arguments from different perspectives, but for me, they are useless.
  • deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
• chiefalchemist 3y ago
  Or, perhaps it was both? The combo would be something that is unique to the species, yes? Fire (via meats) supplied certain nutritional advantages. Fermentation increased guts bacteria, which we are finding has broader impact on the system that is the human body. Is don't understand the obcession with making everything binary, and then from there having to have a single winner take all assumption.
• begueradj 3y ago
  This study mentions what's briefly said in "Fantastic Fungi" 2019 documentary: https://www.netflix.com/fi-en/title/81183477 https://www.netflix.com/fi-en/title/81183477 Apart from this, when I was a teenager, I remember I read in a Belgian scientific magazine called "Athena" that studies confirmed red meat to be the key to our ancestor's brain evolution.
• Tade0 3y ago
  > "Reduced gut sizes could only evolve if our ancestors were able to exploit a more nutrient-dense and easily digestible food source,” I've been eating more fermented, marinated and pickled stuff lately and while it's nutritious, it's not very calorie-dense - hard to imagine something like this supplying enough energy to power a large brain.
  • cool_dude85 3y ago
    I think the argument is that your fermented cabbage is more nutrient dense (or your body is better able to process the nutrients) than regular cabbage.
  • pwillia7 3y ago
    It keeps too -- I think you would always waste some/have extra food unless you're starving. If you can turn that into non rotten calories, now I don't have to work on calorie getting tomorrow as much and we can try to figure out fire, pottery, whatever.
  • fuzzfactor 3y ago
    >it's not very calorie-dense >Reduced gut sizes could only evolve Well maybe with a less calorie-dense diet the reduced gut sizes would make it easier to fit into the slimmer-fitting jeans and shirts ;)
• penjelly 3y ago
  fermented foods/beverages are more acidic and therefore should aid with digestion. In ancient Mesopotamia they drank beer with most meals, what if that wasnt only because it was safer than water, but also aided you to digest the foods you did eat, faster?
  • giraffe_lady 3y ago
    My understanding is that in those early agricultural mesopotamian societies the lines between beer, bread, and porridge were very blurry by modern standards. They didn't so much drink beer with meals as drink a thick, sludgy beer as meals. And that was valued because the malting step increased the availability of the calories. They also had more familiar-to-us breads, as well as unfermented cooked grain gruels. Again though which of these things you call bread and which beer is a value judgement. Some of the porridges could be drunk and some of the beers thick enough to eat with a spoon.
• DarkNova6 3y ago
  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 critical move in preventing future pandemics and bringing equity to our global food system. I'll take it with a grain of vegan salt.
  • JosephRedfern 3y ago
    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 https://www.nature.com/articles/s42003-023-05517-3.
    • consp 3y ago
      Shouldn't that be the article reference then? Since that is both the source and not biased.
    • happytiger 3y ago
      It not a study. It’s a bunch of postulation and no data or experiment and based entirely on conjecture.
      • simonh 3y ago
        As is the idea that fire enabled us to boost our nutrition enabling brain growth. 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.
        • happytiger 3y ago
          Well I think it’s awesome to have the discussion and I certainly think the idea has merit… I just don’t think postulations should have the same weight as substantive research no matter how prestigious the journey it gets published in. That’s really the core of my point. You could very well be right on fire / ferment and whatnot. We have so very little substantive paleontological information to go off of.
• philip1209 3y ago
  Previous discussion about the same study: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39469988 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39469988
• mrbbk 3y ago
  Proving that it really is the pickle that makes the meal.
• lenerdenator 3y ago
  As opposed to fermented drinks, which were a pivotal moment in human brain shrinkage (at least the temporary variety).
• divbzero 3y ago
  In other words, slightly processed foods can be a good thing.