4 ms·

Growing more quickly means higher ratio of calories to other nutrients.

skybrian 4y ago
Yes, but I wonder if it matters when vitamins are widely available? Or alternatively, some nutrients get added at a later step. Iodized salt, for example. This might seem less "natural" but it seems like it would work?
- hyperpallium2 4y ago
  That helps, though an issue is bioavailability - vitamin forms are typically harder for the body to process than the forms in food. There can also be other nutrients required together (e.g. calcium with vitamin D). Finally, I am 100% sure that, despite progress (e.g. fortified bread), we don't yet know all the nutrients, forms, and interactions. Nutrition science is historically dodgey.
  - hyperpallium2 4y ago
    ADD: rickets was common in England in the 17th century due to dietary changes, and it took a while for the cause and solution to be figured out: a legal requirement to fortify some foods with vitamin D. What rising disorders today are caused by dietary changes? Austism? Infertility? You'd think we'd be much quicker at finding a dietary cause today - unless the ones we haven't found yet are harder to find. One of the greatest health problems today has a obvious relationship to calories: obesity. Perhaps simply getting more calaries for the same mass of food is a factor? Or, maybe our feeling of hunger is triggered by a lack of nutrients other than calories? So we eat and eat but are not satisfied.
- oofbey 4y ago
  Diet research is super hard. But the current consensus is that nutrients are best obtained from natural sources.
- aaaaaaaaaaab 4y ago
  How would you know what kind of "nutrients" would you need to add? We don't even know all the molecules that make up a single grain of rice. Do you think we've already discovered all the required nutrients for humans? You don't want to end up like these cats: https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1987-08-14-mn-805-story.html https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1987-08-14-mn-805-st...
  - skybrian 4y ago
    It seems pretty low risk. Given that not all cultures are rice-based, it seems unlikely that rice has any mysterious nutrient that's essential but not in other foods we eat. It's also unlikely that having somewhat less of it in rice will have dramatic effects. After all, people do eat a variety of different diets and often change their diets.

Yes, but I wonder if it matters when vitamins are widely available? Or alternatively, some nutrients get added at a later step. Iodized salt, for example. This might seem less "natural" but it seems like it would work?

hyperpallium2 4y ago
That helps, though an issue is bioavailability - vitamin forms are typically harder for the body to process than the forms in food. There can also be other nutrients required together (e.g. calcium with vitamin D). Finally, I am 100% sure that, despite progress (e.g. fortified bread), we don't yet know all the nutrients, forms, and interactions. Nutrition science is historically dodgey.
- hyperpallium2 4y ago
  ADD: rickets was common in England in the 17th century due to dietary changes, and it took a while for the cause and solution to be figured out: a legal requirement to fortify some foods with vitamin D. What rising disorders today are caused by dietary changes? Austism? Infertility? You'd think we'd be much quicker at finding a dietary cause today - unless the ones we haven't found yet are harder to find. One of the greatest health problems today has a obvious relationship to calories: obesity. Perhaps simply getting more calaries for the same mass of food is a factor? Or, maybe our feeling of hunger is triggered by a lack of nutrients other than calories? So we eat and eat but are not satisfied.
oofbey 4y ago
Diet research is super hard. But the current consensus is that nutrients are best obtained from natural sources.
aaaaaaaaaaab 4y ago
How would you know what kind of "nutrients" would you need to add? We don't even know all the molecules that make up a single grain of rice. Do you think we've already discovered all the required nutrients for humans? You don't want to end up like these cats: https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1987-08-14-mn-805-story.html https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1987-08-14-mn-805-st...
- skybrian 4y ago
  It seems pretty low risk. Given that not all cultures are rice-based, it seems unlikely that rice has any mysterious nutrient that's essential but not in other foods we eat. It's also unlikely that having somewhat less of it in rice will have dramatic effects. After all, people do eat a variety of different diets and often change their diets.