new research debunks trad views on nutrition

Well that is certainly unnerving!
I really wish there was more of a discussion on possible mechanism of action. Looks like biofilm is their only idea.
A good hypothesis on why/how would go a long way to move this beyond a possible correlation remembering correlation is not the same as causation.
As defenses go, biofilm isn't a bad one. Nature doesn't like to reinvent the wheel, and biofilms are remarkably effective. Why should she tinker with what works?

One of many reasons I only reach for antibiotics when I have not other choice. and then I don't use the minimum recommended dose.
 
Seen this on FB. Not sure how accurate it is . Not really nutrition but byproducts.

Screenshot_20250318-160936.png
 
Seen this on FB. Not sure how accurate it is . Not really nutrition but byproducts.

View attachment 4076011
from past research, I can confirm a number of those (though several aren't commercially viable). The casein in milk (one of the more famous milk proteins) is a binder used in natural glues, some paints, and plastics for the same reason. I'm guessing its an emulsifier for cosmetics?? The brain is also used for natural tanning - but that's a niche use. I don't think anyone is brain tanning at commercial scale anymore [though I could certainly be wrong].
 
from past research, I can confirm a number of those (though several aren't commercially viable). The casein in milk (one of the more famous milk proteins) is a binder used in natural glues, some paints, and plastics for the same reason. I'm guessing its an emulsifier for cosmetics?? The brain is also used for natural tanning - but that's a niche use. I don't think anyone is brain tanning at commercial scale anymore [though I could certainly be wrong].
Yes, I also was thinking a lot of these were uses at one time and now probably have been replaced by some petroleum product.
 
Seen this on FB. Not sure how accurate it is . Not really nutrition but byproducts.

View attachment 4076011
I recognize most of those as historical uses, but is much of this still true? My understanding is that in the UK at least a lot of traditional by-products are now discarded or go into pet food/snacks, because the traditional products they went into are now made of other things (e.g. tennis racquet strings, glues; interestingly china is not even listed for bones) or are obsolete, so their market has disappeared.
 
I recognize most of those as historical uses, but is much of this still true? My understanding is that in the UK at least a lot of traditional by-products are now discarded or go into pet food/snacks, because the traditional products they went into are now made of other things (e.g. tennis racquet strings, glues; interestingly china is not even listed for bones) or are obsolete, so their market has disappeared.
I think you are mostly right.
However gelatin is still made with beef or pork (there are vegetarian options also) and you can still find animal based glue (or so I was told by an antique restorer I was talking to).
They have ceramics listed rather than china.
 
interestingly china is not even listed for bones)

They have ceramics listed rather than china.

They have ceramics listed under fat, not under bones. So they are still missing china (or ceramics) using bones.

And it's not a matter of listing each product just one place, because they have "plastics" in at least three different columns, with "textiles" and "cosmetics" in at least two places each.
 

New posts New threads Active threads

Back
Top Bottom