3 ms·

A medium banana has 422 mg of K. A strawberry has 18 mg of K. So you'd need to eat like 20+ strawberries to get the same amount of K.

• xnx 4y ago
  That's why I shared the number in terms of potassium per calorie and not potassium per fruit.
  • oscillonoscope 4y ago
    Most people don't eat per calorie. They eat to fulfillment which is some combination of volume & weight.
  • rcme 4y ago
    You posed a question about why bananas are the “go to” potassium fruit compared to strawberries. Eating a single banana is way easier than eating 23 strawberries.
  • kzrdude 4y ago
    Strawberries are "famously calorie free", so it just seems to make a lopsided comparison in the other direction.
  • downvotetruth 4y ago
    The best pro for strawberries is rather that are available grown in greenhouses where the n_p=19 can be controlled as otherwise they are both are the top of pesticide contamination and use.
• culi 4y ago
  Today you have to eat 8 oranges to get the same amount of Vitamin A as your great grandpa did.[0] Plant nutrition often has a lot more to do with the soil plants are grown on than the plants themselves. This is especially true with mineral content since plants don't produce minerals [0] https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/soil-depletion-and-nutrition-loss/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/soil-depletion-an...
  • jeff_carr 4y ago
    Since No one ever talks about the elephant in the room that is the Human Population Growth problem, let's just bury our heads in the sand and pretend we aren't on the cusp of a massive catastrophic failure of limited resources.
    • culi 4y ago
      Eh humans have managed to grow large amount of foods on the same soil for many years and be very productive. There's a myth that modern agriculture has made us produce more. The reality is that it's just made us need less labor. Agriculture, even intensive agriculture, isn't new. What's new is our obsession with monocultures and the empire of destruction needed to uphold that: vast amounts of pesticides, sterilized soils, etc. Soils inoculated with mycorrhizal fungi can hold 50x more water. Over 90% of plants make mycorrhizal associations and studies comparing plants that have made these associations with those grown in sterilized soils have shown mycorrhizae improves resistance to drought, frost, soil pathogens, etc and grow larger and produce more fruit. I haven't seen the nutritional content analyzed but I'd be surprised if there isn't a big difference there as well There's a fundamental difference between, for example, the agriculture that fueled the aztec empire and the agriculture that fueled the West's "Green Revolution", China's "Great Leap Forward", Stolypin (as well as Soviet) agrarian reforms, etc. It's easy to forget that European peasants were basically bouncing from one massive famine to the next until the Andean people gave them the potato. Possibly the single crop most responsible for ending the state of constant famines. I think the limited resources are caused much more so by our own arrogance than by any fundamental carrying capacity of the environments we inhabit