3 ms·

Tomatoes "have no significant nutrient content" according to Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomato#Nutrition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomato#Nut

Tomatoes "have no significant nutrient content" according to Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomato#Nutrition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomato#Nutrition And are 95% water. They just taste great due to the umami flavour. Is there any way to grow nutritious food that isn't just transporting water everywhere? https://tools.myfooddata.com/nutrient-ranking-tool/Water/Vegetables/Highest/100g/Common/No https://tools.myfooddata.com/nutrient-ranking-tool/Water/Veg... I guess this is the end result of selecting for 'yield' which is basically just weight...

aaaaaaaaaaab 5y ago
>Is there any way to grow nutritious food that isn't just transporting water everywhere? Dried tomatoes?
- samstave 5y ago
  And their eco-friendly sustainable organic vegan cousin, the sundried tomato!
- yissp 5y ago
  destroys most of the vitamin C, though
antisthenes 5y ago
Okay? I mean that's not why people eat fresh fruits and vegetables. You can find common produce that has even less nutrients, yet is a widely used staple. If your goal is protein/aminoacid delivery in an efficient manner, you need milk & meat. Or maybe soybean/pea concentrates if you want to go vegan. No way around that. > Is there any way to grow nutritious food that isn't just transporting water everywhere? Yes. Growing literally any one of hundreds legume or cereal varieties.
- maxerickson 5y ago
  That's not what 'staple' means in a nutritional context.
phonypc 5y ago
Did you miss the part before your quote about them being a moderate source of vitamin C? The whole sentence needs a re-write anyway IMO, "no significant nutrient content" seems like too strong a statement given the table. A large tomato would cover ~10%DV of a whole bunch of vitamins and minerals.
debacle 5y ago
> Is there any way to grow nutritious food that isn't just transporting water everywhere? Put goats in a field. Meat has 20x-100x the energy density of most veggies.
- phonypc 5y ago
  Little hyperbolic there. Pure fat is only about 50x as calorie dense as the subject tomatoes. It would take some very fatty meat to get to 20x.
xenocyon 5y ago
For one thing, your own source shows that tomatoes are a rich source of many different vitamins, minerals, and fiber. But furthermore, this treatment of nutrition is a little reductive. You could eat highly processed food that is formulated to deliver the desired daily value of major nutrients, yet it would fail to deliver the same benefits as a simple diet of fruit, vegetables, small fatty fish, and nuts - even if the latter isn't optimized for nutrients. Why is this? We don't seem to know enough to answer at this time, but it appears food is more complex than a tabulation of various nutrients. So does this mean we should be trucking tomatoes long distance? Not at all. People should eat whatever fresh produce grows locally, and supplement with canned or fermented foods that capture the benefits of faraway and out-of-season crops without the downside of wastage and shelf-life optimization.
- Factorium 5y ago
  My take is that it makes sense to grow the water-heavy vegetables yourself. These vegetables seem to be the most prone to damage during transport anyway. Plus, you can select heirloom varieties. Then just get your staples (grains, potatoes, dairy products), plus fruits which require specialised agriculture, via the commercial food system. If I had a house, instead of an apartment, I'd test the soil and then replace most of the backyard plants with good-looking and low-maintenance food producers; and replace the front lawn with pollinator-attracting xeriscape and maybe some herbs.

aaaaaaaaaaab 5y ago

>Is there any way to grow nutritious food that isn't just transporting water everywhere? Dried tomatoes?

samstave 5y ago
And their eco-friendly sustainable organic vegan cousin, the sundried tomato!
yissp 5y ago
destroys most of the vitamin C, though

antisthenes 5y ago

Okay? I mean that's not why people eat fresh fruits and vegetables. You can find common produce that has even less nutrients, yet is a widely used staple. If your goal is protein/aminoacid delivery in an efficient manner, you need milk & meat. Or maybe soybean/pea concentrates if you want to go vegan. No way around that. > Is there any way to grow nutritious food that isn't just transporting water everywhere? Yes. Growing literally any one of hundreds legume or cereal varieties.

maxerickson 5y ago
That's not what 'staple' means in a nutritional context.

phonypc 5y ago

Did you miss the part before your quote about them being a moderate source of vitamin C? The whole sentence needs a re-write anyway IMO, "no significant nutrient content" seems like too strong a statement given the table. A large tomato would cover ~10%DV of a whole bunch of vitamins and minerals.

debacle 5y ago

> Is there any way to grow nutritious food that isn't just transporting water everywhere? Put goats in a field. Meat has 20x-100x the energy density of most veggies.

phonypc 5y ago
Little hyperbolic there. Pure fat is only about 50x as calorie dense as the subject tomatoes. It would take some very fatty meat to get to 20x.

xenocyon 5y ago

For one thing, your own source shows that tomatoes are a rich source of many different vitamins, minerals, and fiber. But furthermore, this treatment of nutrition is a little reductive. You could eat highly processed food that is formulated to deliver the desired daily value of major nutrients, yet it would fail to deliver the same benefits as a simple diet of fruit, vegetables, small fatty fish, and nuts - even if the latter isn't optimized for nutrients. Why is this? We don't seem to know enough to answer at this time, but it appears food is more complex than a tabulation of various nutrients. So does this mean we should be trucking tomatoes long distance? Not at all. People should eat whatever fresh produce grows locally, and supplement with canned or fermented foods that capture the benefits of faraway and out-of-season crops without the downside of wastage and shelf-life optimization.

Factorium 5y ago
My take is that it makes sense to grow the water-heavy vegetables yourself. These vegetables seem to be the most prone to damage during transport anyway. Plus, you can select heirloom varieties. Then just get your staples (grains, potatoes, dairy products), plus fruits which require specialised agriculture, via the commercial food system. If I had a house, instead of an apartment, I'd test the soil and then replace most of the backyard plants with good-looking and low-maintenance food producers; and replace the front lawn with pollinator-attracting xeriscape and maybe some herbs.