The first mention of their name is "Legumati" and the rest is "Leguminati". I'm guessing the first one is an error.
this post was submitted on 01 Dec 2024
60 points (94.1% liked)
Interesting Shares
1260 readers
24 users here now
Fascinating articles, captivating images, satisfying videos, interesting projects, stunning research and more.
Share something you find incredibly interesting.
Prefix must be included in the title!
Prefixes for posts
Certain clients offer filters to make prefixes searchable/filterable.
E.g. Photon (m.lemmy.zip) used for links below:
If someone is interested in moderating this community, message @brikox@lemmy.zip.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 37 comments
sorted by:
hot
top
controversial
new
old
In a local shop, they have these massive jars of pre-cooked white beans, which are really great. I keep them in the fridge and when a meal could do with a bit more sustenance, I just scoop a few spoonfuls into there.
Works really well for curries and tomato sauce, but honestly, I'd have trouble naming a meal where it doesn't fit (assuming that meal doesn't already have a ton of protein). Yesterday, I did the beans on toast thing by basically just chucking beans on toast, seasoning them and then microwaving the lot. For an extremely lazy meal, that was actually quite decent.
Hell yeah. I love beans, eat them nearly everyday, and preach how awesome they are.
Maybe I should join the cult 😅
Sous vide is mainly used for meats but you can do some neat things with it and beans. I've had lentils come outv with an almost caviar texture/feel.
Sous vide vegetables are underrated in general. It can intensify the flavor of the natural vegetable itself or the seasonings you've added, without sacrificing texture or color.
Yeah, ima keep eating steak.
EDIT: Spelling
Keep eating your stake in what?
No, it's a vampire proclaiming their toughness. Like: Keep coming hunters, ima eat stake night after night.
there's something about food that always gets a strong reaction. you tell people to drive less, recycle, shop differently, its whatever, so why are people so defensive about changing what they eat?
People are really weird about food. Like, really fucking weird.
I cook food for small groups of people (2-10 at a time) and have to find ways to make sure they're all happy while not having to cook something different for each person. Sometimes it's really hard with people's hangups about food.
I used to be a really picky eater, but through just growing up and naturally changing, and also putting in a decent amount of effort to force myself to like foods that I previously didn't, I now have a very broad palate and like most foods. It's very frustrating to me when I have to work around people who eat like toddlers.
And I'm not talking about allergies or dietary restrictions. Only preferences.
you tell people to
Haven't figured it out yet I see, Ill give a hint, it's in the quote
Because taste is one of out most basic human senses. Imagine if u told people that they had to wear contact lenses to make the whole world just different shades of beige.
Vegan food tastes great. Y'all just won't try any green eggs and ham.
Ive tried the green eggs and ham and they dont compare to the real thing. The texture is wrong. The nutrition profile is different. The flavours are a cheap approximation (like vanillin approximating vanilla). The fat distribution is wrong.
And it feels artificial and processed with 1000 additives and fillers.
And u to can have all this for double the price of a good ol slab of real cow.
Mind you, sometimes the vegan stuff is just plain superior to the original. I won't buy regular cream anymore; the vegan stuff I can get tastes better and has a much longer shelf life. Then again, I've never seen vegan "cheese" with a flavor other than "rubbery beige rectangle". It's very product dependent.
You're Australian, right? Try the Bird's Eye sweet chili "chicken" tenders.
https://birdseye.com.au/product/birds-eye-plant-based-sweet-chilli-tenders/13194
https://www.coles.com.au/product/birds-eye-plant-based-sweet-chilli-tenders-300g-5645681
then dont eat the artificial stuff. i eat the legumes themselves and they're wonderful.
We're not talking about fake meat and other products designed to exploit people's stupidity and childish unwillingness to try new things. This article doesn't mention them once, that's entirely your own projection.
We're talking about FOOD. Try some sometime. Many or most of your favourite things to eat are vegan. You've been eating them all your life. You eat them at every meal. You like them when the word "vegan" isn't in your munted brain, you're just triggered.
Found the vegan in the room!
Oh I meant carnist.
How do you know if someone abuses animals? Don't worry, they tell you, and tell you, and tell you, and tell you...
Steak and other snacks?
"Yes the planet got destroyed, but one beautiful moment we had a really nice dinner"
Yup, the regular people are the reason the world is burning, definitely not the billionaires and corporations burning tons more fuel and dumping waste in drinking water.
Yeah not all meat is as bad for the environment as its made out to be. A vast majoriry of land can support grazing but not crop farming.
A grazed paddock will sequester more carbon than an empty one.
real grass fed meat (like what we have here in australia) is actually a carbon negative product since it is sequestering carbon.
The shit meat u have in the states that tastes like cardboard thats fed grain in a barn is what actually is fucking the environment.
I think we and literally the entirety of the climatologist field needs to see some sources on how animals that take away sequestered carbon somehow sequester carbon themselves.
Here is the explanation for beef:
Tldr: cows in sheds eating corn is the problem, cows eating natural grass actually sequester more carbon than an empty field.
Long answer: Photosynthesis can only get carbon from the atmosphere. This carbon is then turned into plant material in grass. This grass is then eaten by the cow. A small portion of this grass will be converted into methane and other byproducts in the cow’s digestive tracks. Some will be turned to energy for the cow and a vast majority will be shit out as raw unprocessed material. This raw unprocessed material, i.e. cow shit, this will last in the environment sequestering more carbon for longer time than just grass sitting there by itself. A grazed paddock will grow more grass than a non-grazed paddock because the cows are eating the fucking grass. i.e. more carbon from the environment is getting sequestered in the grass and the cow shit.
The only reason that cows get such a bad wrap is that variouse other factors are being counted that really shouldnt be under cows. Deforestation to grow plants to feed livestock, the transportation of meat, livestock feed etc etc.
A properly managed grass fed beef (like what we have here in australia) actually has a net negative effect on ghg. The factory farmed beef eating corn in a shed thats never seen a blade of grass is whats actually causing the ghg seen in the reports.
We have already seen this narrarive been used to strongarm small farmers grazing cattle while the multinational farms get away with fucking the environment cos they can afford the cost of beurocracy.
We are all just 3 warm meals away from anarchy thats something we should do well to remember.
So that's a lot of nonsense, with no sources whatsoever that explain how carbon is wholesale destroyed in your mythology. It's be amazing if the secret to the carbon cycle was a black hole that we can eat.
Did u read it? Apply a little critical thinking and explain where the flaw is.
Sure. The cow is the flaw. It does not produce more carbon than it exhumes, due to entropy, but beyond that it itself is carbon based, therefore it inherently cannot sequester or aide in sequestering more carbon than it used to make itself.
Your math simply isn't.
If u read what i wrote then u would understand ur i completly missing the point. Cows eat grass which is atmospheric carbon and shit a majority of that out wich will be sequested in the soil. Entropy is concept relevent to energy quality or microstates. Im not talking about the cow itself im talking about the processing of grass (atmospheric carbon) the cow is doing acting as a machine in the proccess of carbon sequestation.
And you're not understanding the machine itself takes by far most of that carbon which is released at a later point when it is slaughtered, not sequestered. It is released and wasted, most of it removed from the local cycle unless you Aussies are to the point of spreading human feces and butchers waste back on to fields.
No animal is a carbon sink. Some plants are, not grasses, but some plants can be. Some fungi might be. Animals are not.
But the carbon of the animal itself is a small percentage of the grass itself. Im not claiming the animap itself is a sink but the proccess the animal has upon the environment is.