Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Estimates that mineral levels in vegetables have dropped by up to 90% since 1914

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 315 posts

Re: Estimates that mineral levels in vegetables have dropped by up to 90% since 1914

#51

Post by bluGill »

all_usernames wrote: post #40
opportune wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If organic food actually had a noticeably higher mineral count than nonorganic, I would start eating it. But I don’t see why organic food would actually have more minerals. Organic doesn’t mean healthier it just means that it uses different kinds of pesticides, to my knowledge

Organic farming includes crop rotation, fertilizer, soil quality, and erosion control standards that would hypothetically affect mineral contents. Monoculture (conventional corn or soybean for example) uses huge amounts of synthetic fertilizer to increase yields per acre far beyond what the soil can naturally sustain. Wide swaths of American farmland has lost literally feet of topsoil over the past 50 years. The soil…

Farming has changed since the dust bowl of the 1930s. Soil has been lost, but conservation factors have been found. Farmers are now building topsoil. We can only build top soil by about 1mm/year so it takes a long time to get any measurable change (vs the rate of loss which was much higher).

Re: Estimates that mineral levels in vegetables have dropped by up to 90% since 1914

#54

Post by all_usernames »

all_usernames wrote: post #40
opportune wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If organic food actually had a noticeably higher mineral count than nonorganic, I would start eating it. But I don’t see why organic food would actually have more minerals. Organic doesn’t mean healthier it just means that it uses different kinds of pesticides, to my knowledge

Organic farming includes crop rotation, fertilizer, soil quality, and erosion control standards that would hypothetically affect mineral contents. Monoculture (conventional corn or soybean for example) uses huge amounts of synthetic fertilizer to increase yields per acre far beyond what the soil can naturally sustain. Wide swaths of American farmland has lost literally feet of topsoil over the past 50 years. The soil…

Can't imagine why this was downvoted.

Re: Estimates that mineral levels in vegetables have dropped by up to 90% since 1914

#55

Post by NickM »

Something that has puzzled me recently: how is anyone supposed to get the daily recommended amount of potassium? If you look at foods like bananas that are supposed to be good sources of it, you still need to eat something like eleven bananas a day to get enough (according to US recommended daily intakes, anyway). At least with the minerals mentioned in this posting, you can fall back on supplements if you need to...but if you try to buy potassium supplements, the max dosage you can get over the counter is 99mg, which is only about 3% of the daily recommended intake. WTF?

Re: Estimates that mineral levels in vegetables have dropped by up to 90% since 1914

#57

Post by foofoo55 »

legulere wrote: post #37
opportune wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If organic food actually had a noticeably higher mineral count than nonorganic, I would start eating it. But I don’t see why organic food would actually have more minerals. Organic doesn’t mean healthier it just means that it uses different kinds of pesticides, to my knowledge

Slower growth through less fertilizer (including CO2), leads to a higher mineral rate if I remember correctly

Minerals need to be in the ground before they can get into the plant. The depletion of soil & vegetable quality has been going on for years. This isn't the first study on the topic by a long shot. [1]

[1] - https://www.vitacost.com/blog/food-nutrition/nutrition/how-i...

Re: Estimates that mineral levels in vegetables have dropped by up to 90% since 1914

#58

Post by behringer »

graeme wrote: post #27
behringer wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not only expensive pee, but also potentially damages your kidneys. https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/wellness-and-preventi... You shouldn't take supplements unless your doctor advises you to due to some (actual and not perceived) deficiency.

Did you mean to link something else? That page doesn't appear to mention kidneys.

It was more supplemental than citation. Maybe they won't affect your kidneys. That's just something I heard when the NIH study broke in the news. Consult your doctor, etc.

Re: Estimates that mineral levels in vegetables have dropped by up to 90% since 1914

#59

Post by khawkins »

nategri wrote: post #31
late2part wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do you not want to have LinkedIn links on HN?

Clicking on a LinkedIn link evokes the same "unpredictable behavior" paranoia/stress reaction as a url for a site that peddles game ROMs or guitar tabs.

Ever since I realized they will inform users directly of who's looking at their profile my trust in the platform plummeted.

Re: Estimates that mineral levels in vegetables have dropped by up to 90% since 1914

#60

Post by wil421 »

all_usernames wrote: post #40
opportune wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If organic food actually had a noticeably higher mineral count than nonorganic, I would start eating it. But I don’t see why organic food would actually have more minerals. Organic doesn’t mean healthier it just means that it uses different kinds of pesticides, to my knowledge

Organic farming includes crop rotation, fertilizer, soil quality, and erosion control standards that would hypothetically affect mineral contents. Monoculture (conventional corn or soybean for example) uses huge amounts of synthetic fertilizer to increase yields per acre far beyond what the soil can naturally sustain. Wide swaths of American farmland has lost literally feet of topsoil over the past 50 years. The soil…

Corn and soybeans are most definitely rotated. Peanuts are a common nitrogen fixer and Alfalfa is great too.

>This crop rotation benefits both alfalfa and wheat/barley/corn. On the one hand, cereals tend to decrease the development of weeds, leaving the field free for the alfalfa cultivation. On the other hand, there are findings suggesting that corn following alfalfa yields approximately 10% more than corn following corn.[1]

[1]https://wikifarmer.com/alfalfa-crop-rotation/

Post reply on HN