Long Live Microbiomes • Hacker News Board

Re: Long Live Microbiomes

#31

Post by sarah180 » Tue, Aug 20, 2019, 11:13 PM UTC

organicdude wrote: post #15

nategri wrote: post #4

I just can't make it very far in articles like this anymore. I've heard too many breathless food/nutrition takes vectored in too many different directions, and now I'm utterly desensitized. And part of me is screaming for citations while the other part knows that an examination of the literature would reveal the same structures, just one level deeper---one or more warring camps that aren't even talking to each other…

How do you use a small set of scientific studies to prove one is better? Studies are reductionist, which is a very powerful and useful perspective...but not as useful when you have to measure a dynamic living system that can be optimized along maybe 100 dimensions or more? Worse, what is the funding source of these studies, and what incentives are tied to it? So you have many different types of soils, and that will p…

You do this with a proper understanding of statistical power, and you report "no conclusion" when you don't have studies of adequate power. This is not actually a terribly difficult problem with a proper understanding of Bayesian statistics, it just doesn't lead to good headlines, because a lot of the time the answer is "the study couldn't really provide an answer."

Re: Long Live Microbiomes

#32

Post by airstrike » Tue, Aug 20, 2019, 11:15 PM UTC

perfmode wrote: post #18

scribu wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You'd probably be ok, if you only ate the veggies you grew yourself. But what about meat, dairy and other animal products? What about bread, rice and other cereals?

you don’t necessarily need meat, dairy, other animal products, bread, rice, and other cereals.

You kinda really need at least a substantial subset of those

Re: Long Live Microbiomes

#33

Post by meerita » Tue, Aug 20, 2019, 11:22 PM UTC

If you want to read more about this topic, I recommend a good book, Nutrition and Physical Degeneration by Weston A. Price DDS. ISBN-13: 978-0916764203. ISBN-10: 0916764206 A good book to understand that the food we eat is related to our diseases problems.

Re: Long Live Microbiomes

#34

Post by fnord77 » Tue, Aug 20, 2019, 11:25 PM UTC

adrr wrote: post #9

Why would Scientific American have a blog post from an organic farmer devoid of any reference to studies or actual science?

worse, it might even be a promoted piece:

https://nofa.org/

https://www.skyhillfarmny.com/farmers-pledge

Re: Long Live Microbiomes

#35

Post by steve19 » Tue, Aug 20, 2019, 11:25 PM UTC

newsbinator wrote: post #24

> An individual today would need to consume twice as much meat, three times as much fruit, and four to five times as many vegetables to obtain the same amount of minerals and trace elements available in those same foods in 1940. Wait, really?

Did they accurately measure them in 1940? I would also think trace minerals vary at least a little based on geographical location.

Anyway here is a journal article by a Canadian govt scientist that refutes that minerals in food/soil is depleted:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S088915751...

Re: Long Live Microbiomes

#36

Post by hanniabu » Tue, Aug 20, 2019, 11:26 PM UTC

newsbinator wrote: post #24

> An individual today would need to consume twice as much meat, three times as much fruit, and four to five times as many vegetables to obtain the same amount of minerals and trace elements available in those same foods in 1940. Wait, really?

If so that's pretty upsetting and impossible unless you're a super athlete taking in 5x calories a day.

Re: Long Live Microbiomes

#37

Post by bcatanzaro » Tue, Aug 20, 2019, 11:27 PM UTC

Scientific. American.

Unbelievable.

Re: Long Live Microbiomes

#38

Post by maxk42 » Tue, Aug 20, 2019, 11:29 PM UTC

newsbinator wrote: post #24

> An individual today would need to consume twice as much meat, three times as much fruit, and four to five times as many vegetables to obtain the same amount of minerals and trace elements available in those same foods in 1940. Wait, really?

Check the citation.

Re: Long Live Microbiomes

#39

Post by hanniabu » Tue, Aug 20, 2019, 11:30 PM UTC

gyrgtyn wrote: post #20

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No.

What if we don't throw half of it away instead of eating it?

It'd be nice if there were different food grades for this stuff. So instead of wasting food you can give the less visually appealing a lower grade and sell to food manufacturers/restaurants for uses where the person eating it doesn't see or eat it in the original state.

Re: Long Live Microbiomes

#40

Post by hanniabu » Tue, Aug 20, 2019, 11:31 PM UTC

organicdude wrote: post #7

asdkhadsj wrote: post #2

Just read the beginning so far, but it sounds like home-grown is safe (even if not self-started plants) ? Ie, the article (so far) makes it sound like it's an issue of soil microbiome. If that's the case, and I no-dig grow my own veggies, I'd be okay?

They are saying corn is toxic because it has round-up chemicals in it - and they can't be washed off. So growing food in your backyard, assuming you don't spray it or have heavy metals in your soil that are ingested by the crop, are likely fine. How alive is your backyard's soil? A lab would have to analyze it. It may or may not have the right minerals, depending on what you're trying to grow.

> corn is toxic because it has round-up chemicals in it

If this is known to be the case, how does this pass food safety?