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

61–70 of 315 posts

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

#61

Post by koolba »

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

That sounds reasonable if the absorption rate is not uniform. Any source for this?

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

#62

Post by buckthundaz »

Wait until everyone learns about bioavailability of nutrients with respect to type of food -- ie. Animal-based nutrition is more bioavailable than plant-based nutrients. [1]

[1] - https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/78/3/633S/4690005#1098...

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

#64

Post by tryitnow »

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...…

I've wondered about this too. I have no idea why people never discusses it.

I suspect it's an Illuminati secret.

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

#65

Post by AngryData »

I don't think this is new or that unexpected, but it should be talked about. We use to breed plants based on both taste and size, taste being altered significantly by mineral contents. Currently, we mostly only breed plants based on weight, taste doesn't factor into it, and increasing sugars and starches increases weight far better than any mineral count. Heirloom plants are generally considered luxury products and since they don't have as large of yields, aren't a good competition against commercial plants, despite the fact that most people agree heirloom plants taste better and usually have higher mineral counts.

Now I don't know how much the the growing medium effects this, our topsoil is getting thinner and is fed primarily on 'purified' artificial fertilizers, and heirloom plants are far more likely to be home garden or 'organically' grown, but im willing to bet plant genetics play a much bigger role in mineral contents than anyone wants to admit. It would be another hit to the idea that current farming practices are sustainable long term and nobody wants to admit that.

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

#66

Post by exhilaration »

chrisco255 wrote: post #46
fucking_tragedy wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wouldn't doubt that meat suffers from similar nutrient deficiencies. After all, livestock are fed from the same supply chain.

Cows are still fed grass. Over 90% of their diet even in grain-finished beef is grass. Chicken and pork I can't speak to as much.

In American feed lots? That's not what I read in the Omnivore's Dilemma. It was the opposite actually.

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

#68

Post by lightedman »

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

No, bioavailability of the nutrient is the only real thing that matters when it comes to fertilizers. Most organic fertilizers are not as bioavailable as even the most basic hydroponic fertilizer.

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

#69

Post by jkeuhlen »

carry_bit wrote: post #45
bt848 wrote: post #24

These are normalized mass rates, ie grams per gram of plant mass. However, the mass yield per acre of cabbage has radically increased over that time period. Is it possible that a cabbage plant is capable of absorbing an absolute amount of minerals, and this is simply being diluted by ever-larger cabbages?

The explanation I've heard is that the total mineral content is about the same, but plants are producing more carbohydrates now due to an increase in atmospheric CO2, diluting the minerals. Consequently, if humans eat according the amount of minerals in the food, the increase in carbohydrates could also explain the increase in obesity.

I don't think the lack of minerals in food explains obesity issues. In fact, I'm pretty sure we know what causes obesity. Significantly lower levels of activity and increased sugar consumption are two of the main culprits.

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

#70

Post by lr4444lr »

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 limited amount in multivitamin/mineral supplements is actually a legal restriction, to boot.
Post reply on HN