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

291–300 of 315 posts

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

#291

Post by mito88 »

markdown wrote: post #244
fiblye wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where I live, I can buy tiny fruits and vegetables from local farmers, or I can buy imported ones that are 3x as large and get twice as much for half the price. The difference in fruit flavor is unbelievable. Tiny strawberries grown on a couple acres of land versus mega farm strawberries aren’t even in the same flavor category. The tiny ones taste almost identical to strawberry candies, but large ones that draw peopl…

> but large ones that draw people in with the wow factor are like firm lumps of sour water. Sounds like they were grown hydroponically. I can't stand hydroponically grown tomatoes for the same reason. Just bags of water.

sreet protesters like them.

:)

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

#292

Post by noobdood »

jillesvangurp wrote: post #219
wil421 wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hydroponics can’t scale like industrial farming. Our farming practices need to improve to make industrial farming sustainable. My own foray into hydroponics has been lack luster. Lettuce didn’t taste as good and it’s much more maintenance. I can setup water timers and fertilize every x weeks in my garden. You have to constantly check hydro and put chemicals in it very often. Too labor intensive.

Recent trends in vertical farming are to heavily automate all of this and use sensors to maximize yields and minimize waste. Greenhouses in the Netherlands have been using hydroponics at scale for decades and are a reason it's a leading exporter of e.g. tomatoes and many other crops. The whole point of hydroponics is industrial scale and maximizing yields. What you call industrial farming started roughly mid last cen…

Interesting. Examples?

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

#293

Post by porknubbins »

opportune wrote: post #12
wil421 wrote: post #2

The link got that actual paper is much better than a sentence or two on LinkedIn. The paper’s title isn’t as catchy to put in nicely. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6163803/ From my link: >It is important to note that the USDA mineral content of vegetables and fruits has not been updated since 2000, and perhaps even longer, given that the data for 1992 was not able to be definitively confirmed for this…

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

Thats the legal requirement for organic but I’ve noticed it varies a lot in other aspects depending in the food. In US supermarkets standard food is generally big ag, bland, commodity level junk. I think organic has now become a byword for a subset of consumers who want to opt out of our low quality US food system and are willing to pay to do that. For example organic chicken seems to me to be often a different (smaller, better tasting) breed, free range, not water frozen, better packaged etc, not just organic, so that overall it is healthier in a variety of ways.

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

#294

Post by chrisco255 »

ssijak wrote: post #272
chrisco255 wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No it doesn't. B12, K2 and DHA based Omega-3s that your brain runs on are non existent in plant foods. Cholesterol, Choline, calcium, Vitamin D are difficult to come by in plant based diets. Finally, the plant based form of Vitamin A (beta carotene) is only bioavailable to humans in 0-8% of the quantities consumed depending on your individual genetics. And women can convert this better than men.

Plainly false, read my comment (search for ssijak on the page) in this thread about b12, k2, vit D and dha so I dont repeat myself. Regarding cholesterol, why would I need any additional cholesterol? Liver and cells make enough for what the body needs. Choline RDA is questionable and European food agencies are lowering RDA for Choline. But anyhow when I track my food intake through apps like Cronometer I consume RDA…

To your above point about Vitamin A, some people can't convert vegetable forms of caratanoids to a useable AT ALL. It is entirely genetic in the same way that roughly half the world is lactose intolerant.

Natto does have K2, but that is not the common form that Westerners consume at all. Meanwhile soy has quite a lot of lectins and phytic acid that inhibits uptake of nutrients.

The thing is with a vegan diet it requires this carefully balanced cocktail of complex foods that require fermentation, sprouting, etc to get around the many trade offs in the diet. And people just pitch it as some cure all approach to human health.

Hong Kong eats 50% more beef per capita on average than Americans do and they're the 3rd longest living population in the world. The Sami (an indigenous group of carnivore reindeer herders in Northern Scandinavia) and Swedish people (mostly omnivorous) have comparable life expectancies, but the Sami suffer from lower rates of heart disease.

India has a very large population of vegetarians, and their life expectancy is less than 69 years.

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

#295

Post by t0ughcritic »

aitchnyu wrote: post #286
maxlybbert wrote: post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The funny thing is that current advice is that nutrition supplements aren’t necessary. I finally got around to taking a “one a day” pill every day, but stopped when I read in the “American College of Sports Medicine’s Complete Guide to Fitness and Health (2nd Ed)”: “If you are thinking about taking a multivitamin–mineral supplement, you should analyze your diet first to assess if a supplement is required. The best wa…

I am also worried they put toxic doses of vitamins and minerals. My hair supplement used to contain 10000 micrograms of biotin and caused acne. Other supplements put 100 micrograms. Melatonin doses also vary too wildly, like 4x. They seem to be concerned about bragging rights at our expense.

Agreed the standard dose is probably 300mcg, but there’s a reason it doesn’t get sold at that amount. There’s communities that track what the right amount is for them and take that, see https://trackmystack.com

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

#296

Post by LorenPechtel »

giardini wrote: post #208
NickM wrote: post #55

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...…

> the max dosage you can get over the counter is 99mg Most people get enough potassium from their diet. It's easily available in larger quantities but safety is the main concern: http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1364/can-salt-subst... Nu-Salt salt substitute is 100% potassium chloride in a 3-oz container. Morton Lite Salt is a 50-50% mix of potassium and sodium salt. Both are available in grocery stores. But…

Second the Lite Salt approach. After you adapt it seems just like regular salt--but with half the sodium and it provides the potassium.

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

#297

Post by hackerbabz »

bureaucrat wrote: post #247
hackerbabz wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I too don't understand this attitude. Vegans exist and are not all ill. Clearly animal products are not required for good health. It's certainly possible that meat makes getting all necessary vitamins easier and it takes great diligence as a vegan.

From my experience they are. They gain a ton of weight, loses muscles, hair, skin softness, become weak, emotionally unstable and underproductive. Almost all women experience menopause, and some lost their ability to reproduce. Becoming a vegan and getting nutrients you need is especially hard and almost all vegans fail on that.

And from my experience they are not. I have never met an unhealthy looking vegan. If we are both telling the truth then it must mean that it is entirely possible to be a healthy vegan, but some of them are not.

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

#298

Post by londons_explore »

bonniemuffin wrote: post #284
maxlybbert wrote: post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The funny thing is that current advice is that nutrition supplements aren’t necessary. I finally got around to taking a “one a day” pill every day, but stopped when I read in the “American College of Sports Medicine’s Complete Guide to Fitness and Health (2nd Ed)”: “If you are thinking about taking a multivitamin–mineral supplement, you should analyze your diet first to assess if a supplement is required. The best wa…

Costco multivitamins cost 2 cents per pill. I don't think saving money is a good reason to try to get all your minerals from whole foods.

I did a blind trial on myself by getting liquid multivitamin (bargain large European superstore brand, powdered), and creating a sequence of vitamin or placebo based on a pseudorandom hash function to take every day with breakfast in drink. The sequence is prepared a month ahead so I don't know on any specific day what I'm getting.

I also record my mood and excercise at some time most days with a survey.

After 2 years, I saw a significant decrease in general happiness on days I took the multivitamin, and a lesser (not pI've now stopped taking the multivitamin for that reason.

I'd still like to know if I have stumbled on a pLife isn't long enough for me to find out, but if anyone else is happy to take on a bigger trial, results could be interesting.

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

#299

Post by londons_explore »

JasonFruit wrote: post #277
Scoundreller wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not even focusing on macronutrients. We’re just focussing in mass. I’m not looking forward to the end of tomato season and the inevitable disappointment when I buy them from the grocery store.

Store-bought tomatoes are just a pale reminder of what a real tomato tastes like. It's no wonder that people who never ate a ripe tomato fresh from the garden don't like tomatoes; there is nothing good about them but the memory of something incomparably better.

Maybe my gardens faulty, but within the same variety, superstore and my-personal-garden tomatoes are near indistinguishable.

The only difference I see is my garden tomatoes seem to have a thin layer of city dirt on the skin that's hard to wipe off... (That black dusting of tyre rubber and brake dust that makes a tissue dirty if you wipe it over the surface)

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

#300

Post by ssijak »

chrisco255 wrote: post #294
ssijak wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Plainly false, read my comment (search for ssijak on the page) in this thread about b12, k2, vit D and dha so I dont repeat myself. Regarding cholesterol, why would I need any additional cholesterol? Liver and cells make enough for what the body needs. Choline RDA is questionable and European food agencies are lowering RDA for Choline. But anyhow when I track my food intake through apps like Cronometer I consume RDA…

To your above point about Vitamin A, some people can't convert vegetable forms of caratanoids to a useable AT ALL. It is entirely genetic in the same way that roughly half the world is lactose intolerant. Natto does have K2, but that is not the common form that Westerners consume at all. Meanwhile soy has quite a lot of lectins and phytic acid that inhibits uptake of nutrients. The thing is with a vegan diet it requi…

People in India eat very processed food and add a lot of refined oils and live in very bad conditions overall with no proper medical care. And phytic acid and lectins are not some vilans, they have also many positive effects. You can google that easily. And I did not say 100% of people should go vegan, I responded to say that an average human CAN trive on vegan diet, but it is not the one diet to rule them all in every situation.
Post reply on HN