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

Supermarket vegetables now 5-40% lower in nutrients than 50 years ago

time.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 85 posts

Re: Supermarket vegetables now 5-40% lower in nutrients than 50 years ago

#71

Post by bmj »

ars wrote: post #69
bmj wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's why I do my best to buy produce suited to my locale. Cheap energy has spoiled us--we can eat blueberries in the dead of winter. I'm not sure that's a Good Thing. If you are not sure which one is better for the environment check the price - the cheaper one is better (pesticides not included). I'm no sure what you mean? Cheap food is better for the environment? Feedlots, which generate much of the meat you find…

You are right about pollution - price doesn't tell you anything about that. Price mainly tells you about energy usage (carbon emissions). And resource usage (like mining). But you were talking about local, not about feedlots. And the reason people buy local is energy. And for that, price is an excellent way of detecting which product used less energy in it's making. So if frozen blueberries from Brazil cost less than…

These are good points, and I don't disagree. My localism is driven by more than simply C02 math, however--it's about community and supporting people I can know.

Re: Supermarket vegetables now 5-40% lower in nutrients than 50 years ago

#72

Post by artaak »

There is an interesting documentary "Food matters" (http://foodmatters.tv/). The facts presented are astonishing. However, I do not necessarily advocate on taking their point of view, In my opinion it would be reasonable to withhold judgment and look on their facts. It might change your perspective.

"You are what you eat"

Re: Supermarket vegetables now 5-40% lower in nutrients than 50 years ago

#73

Post by rarrrrrr »

scott_s wrote: post #63
rarrrrrr wrote: post #57

Nutritionists have been saying this for years. This is why the very high end multi vitamins ($50-100 per month!) include such a wide variety of ingredients, and the does is somewhere between 9-12 capsules PER DAY. Examples: Life Extension Foundation: http://www.lef.org/Vitamins-Supplements/Item01335/Life-Exten... NSI: http://www.vitacost.com/NSI-Synergy-Supreme-Multi-Vitamin-Ve...

See this short series of posts from a week ago about whether or not vitamins actually help: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=507501 Short version: I post a link to a NYT piece on the lack of medical evidence, someone eventually posts a link to a study which might show benefit. In the meantime, I think we don't know either way yet.

Like many things in mainstream media, this doesn't show the full picture. Nutritionist and serious athletes and athletic trainers will tell you differently.

Here are some factors:

- Several studies have used no vitamins at all! (only surveys about "Do you take a vitamin?") They don't take account the frequency/consistency, quality, etc.

- Vitamin studies often focus on single vitamins in isolation. Nutrition doesn't work like that. You need the full range.

- Most studies involve really low end or even average vitamins, and I'm specifically suggesting very high end vitamins.

- There are plenty of studies that show the real benefits of high quality supplementation. LEF has cataloged and published many of these. So have countless others.

Nearly all vitamins sold in pharmacies, Walmart, etc. are poor quality. A Center for Nutritional Education study found that many low end child's vitamins are no healthier than candy.

You can always tell by reading the label. If B12 is packaged as "cyanocobalamin" it's an inferior vitamin. Look for B12 as hydrocobalamin instead (but you'll probably have to go to a health food store to find it.)

One time I saw a display of vitamins advertising heart-healthy Omega oils, however the vitamins also included hydrogenated oils (which promote heart disease.)

So, I don't doubt that average vitamins fewer benefits.

There's also the issue that too many people expect vitamins alone will solve their health problems, and disregard other important factors like having healthier meals, exercise, sufficient water and sunlight. Health involves the full package.

Re: Supermarket vegetables now 5-40% lower in nutrients than 50 years ago

#74

Post by scott_s »

rarrrrrr wrote: post #73
scott_s wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

See this short series of posts from a week ago about whether or not vitamins actually help: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=507501 Short version: I post a link to a NYT piece on the lack of medical evidence, someone eventually posts a link to a study which might show benefit. In the meantime, I think we don't know either way yet.

Like many things in mainstream media, this doesn't show the full picture. Nutritionist and serious athletes and athletic trainers will tell you differently. Here are some factors: - Several studies have used no vitamins at all! (only surveys about "Do you take a vitamin?") They don't take account the frequency/consistency, quality, etc. - Vitamin studies often focus on single vitamins in isolation. Nutrition doesn't…

Nutritionists, serious athletes and athletic trainers may disagree, but without studies that show a benefit, I have no reason to believe them. As I said in that thread, if there is a benefit, we should be able to measure it.

Re: Supermarket vegetables now 5-40% lower in nutrients than 50 years ago

#75

Post by chiffonade »

old-gregg wrote: post #10
rjurney wrote: post #4

Its not surprising that 60 years after the green revolution ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Revolution ) that we would have washed trace minerals from the soil of our most productive farmland, which produces most of our vegetables, resulting in them having lower mineral content. Its also not surprising that nitrogen fed fruits and vegetables bred for size and weight would be larger and so contain diluted mineral…

Great comment! I like your attitude and thanks for the links. BTW we have tried your suggestion (growing our own) and after several attempts we're giving up: self-grown veggies have almost the same lack of taste as the manufactured ones from a supermarket: I suspect that's because the seeds themselves have been genetically ruined. Same with farmers markets: their vegetables are not only tasteless, but they're also ug…

> I suspect that's because the seeds themselves have been genetically ruined. Same with farmers markets: their vegetables are not only tasteless, but they're also ugly and more expensive.

WTF? Here in California (both nor and so) all our home grown veggies and farmers markets and CSA's produce excellent veggies and fruits.

The stuff you buy at mainstream supermarket is all plastic though.

Re: Supermarket vegetables now 5-40% lower in nutrients than 50 years ago

#76

Post by chiffonade »

jules wrote: post #17
old-gregg wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

* people are eating worse food, but they are choosing to do so, not being forced. * Really? Try finding a Coke with real sugar, and try getting a week worth of food without any corn syrup in them. My understanding is that the corn industry is basically forcing their products down our throats by lobbying the hell out of Washington.

Which products contain corn syrup? I didn't know that it existed until now, but I can't think of anything I eat that could contain corn syrup.

> Which products contain corn syrup?

Every packaged food in the US comes with an ingredient label.

More than likely up until lately you thought only hippies would be interested in knowing what's in their food.

Re: Supermarket vegetables now 5-40% lower in nutrients than 50 years ago

#77

Post by vlad »

Semiapies wrote: post #65
vlad wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That was the point--your arguments are unsourced. :)

You can't source an absence of evidence.

Please source your argument, that I am not allowed to appeal to authority or make bold claims without evidence, but you are. :)

Re: Supermarket vegetables now 5-40% lower in nutrients than 50 years ago

#78

Post by chiffonade »

patio11 wrote: post #64
Semiapies wrote: post #8

I'm not clear on the importance of this claim, even if it were to pan out. We aren't seeing vitamin deficiencies in this country beyond those people who don't actually eat vegetables.

When you hear people talk about food being bad for you, they aren't talking about vitamin deficiencies, they're talking about moral deficiencies. The difference is that moral deficiencies happen whether there is any externally visible impact at all. Boo boo on Big Ag, rah rah organic. But put a crate full of cheap Big Ag tomatoes in a room with a handful of people suffering from scurvy and, bam, no more scurvy. Scurv…

Vitamins aren't the only reason I eat fruits and vegetables. They aren't pills or medicine.

Re: Supermarket vegetables now 5-40% lower in nutrients than 50 years ago

#79

Post by rarrrrrr »

scott_s wrote: post #74
rarrrrrr wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Like many things in mainstream media, this doesn't show the full picture. Nutritionist and serious athletes and athletic trainers will tell you differently. Here are some factors: - Several studies have used no vitamins at all! (only surveys about "Do you take a vitamin?") They don't take account the frequency/consistency, quality, etc. - Vitamin studies often focus on single vitamins in isolation. Nutrition doesn't…

Nutritionists, serious athletes and athletic trainers may disagree, but without studies that show a benefit, I have no reason to believe them. As I said in that thread, if there is a benefit, we should be able to measure it.

On the LEF site (the first link I posted) there's a description of the various specific and measurable benefits of various high quality supplements, as established by various studies and published in respected medical, nutritional, and biochemical research journals.

That page has 182 separate citations. Click the "References" link to see all of them.

Re: Supermarket vegetables now 5-40% lower in nutrients than 50 years ago

#80

Post by scott_s »

rarrrrrr wrote: post #79
scott_s wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nutritionists, serious athletes and athletic trainers may disagree, but without studies that show a benefit, I have no reason to believe them. As I said in that thread, if there is a benefit, we should be able to measure it.

On the LEF site (the first link I posted) there's a description of the various specific and measurable benefits of various high quality supplements, as established by various studies and published in respected medical, nutritional, and biochemical research journals. That page has 182 separate citations. Click the "References" link to see all of them.

Those references are not enough for me to search for. I need article titles. (Edit: They also don't clearly mark which claims are associated with which reference.)

That site looks like its primary purpose is to sell products, not dispense genuine medical advice. As such, I view it with extreme skepticism. In more blunt terms, that product looks like modern snake-oil.

Also, "These statements have not been evaluated by the FDA. These products are not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease."

Post reply on HN