4 ms·

I thought it was a little weird that they start off talking about "calcium, magnesium, and iron" and then immediately switch to talking about how vitamin C degr

I thought it was a little weird that they start off talking about "calcium, magnesium, and iron" and then immediately switch to talking about how vitamin C degrades over time in produce. OK sure, vitamin C can enhance iron absorption, but it doesn't do that for calcium or magnesium and, being atomic elements, they assuredly do not disappear from food in storage. When an article conflates things like this without calling it out, I become suspicious of the rest of the claims.

hansonkd 2y ago
The article doesn't say those minerals degrade, however it also fails to reiterate the linked paper's reason: > The high rate of magnesium deficiency now postulated [5–8] can be attributed in part to a steady decline in general magnesium content in cultivated fruits and vegetables, a reflection of the observed depletion of magnesium in soil over the past 100 years > Increasing demand for food has caused modern farming modern farming techniques to impact the soil’s ability to restore natural minerals such as magnesium. techniques to impact the soil’s ability to restore natural minerals such as magnesium. In addition, the use of phosphate-based fertilizers has resulted in the production of aqueously insoluble use of phosphate-based fertilizers has resulted in the production of aqueously insoluble magnesium phosphate complexes, for example, further depriving the soil of both components
- solomonb 2y ago
  Well that quote appears to contradict the article's claim that speed to market is the most important factor. Now I don't know what to think..
  - hirako2000 2y ago
    Here is a way to look at it. You read the article, and by the end you have actionable items, that you can execute today, literally. Many piece published on the topic go on and on about how agricultural methods should do this and that. Sure, and in the meantime what do we do?
- modeless 2y ago
  It does mention those reasons and others, however all those reasons directly contradict the article's next point "If all you care about is nutrient content, SPEED is the only factor that matters". Seems like all these other factors should matter too! Surely not every farm is equal in these respects...
  - hansonkd 2y ago
    > It does mention those reasons whoops you're right, I somehow skipped that part. I guess it is kind of weird article with contradicting points of view and the author could have communicated that improving soil quality and pairing it with speed to consumption is the best combination.
    - hirako2000 2y ago
      My read is that the author is taking the view of consumers. Not regulators and producers.
  - biot 2y ago
    > Seems like all these other factors should matter too! The way I read it was that there are some minerals that are no longer there to begin with because they're simply not in the soil. For nutrients (like vitamin C) created as part of the growing process, speed is the only factor that matters. So yes, it does matter but unless you have a way of knowing which farm(s) the produce came from and what their soil mineral content is, that's not something you can factor into your purchasing decision.
    - ghostly_s 2y ago
      But you don't typically have any reliable info about how fresh produce is either?
      - aziaziazi 2y ago
        Smell, look and touch. You can even taste in some cases.
- paulgerhardt 2y ago
  One of my unorthodox views is that the popular blue light obsession is exacerbated by magnesium deficiency, given how hard it is to get enough in our diets. Yes, blue light disrupts melatonin and makes it harder to get to bed. But magnesium disrupts sleep quality and deregulates melatonin production in the first place and makes one particularly sensitive to blue light.
  - manmal 2y ago
    Melatonin production is influenced at least also by: Zinc, iron, calcium, copper, P5P (active B6), and tryptophan. Selenium, iodine, and manganese are involved in indirect ways. Many people are deficient in most, or all of those. To be fair, some of these, like iodine and selenium, have always been problematic in some regions, like Switzerland (lots of goiters). But I find it less than ideal that only some minerals are fortified in bread and milk etc, because their deficiency is very obvious. While all the other minerals are not fortified because their deficiencies are less obvious or less well understood. A healthy human body contains quite a few minerals in greater abundance than iodine: copper, bromine, strontium, rubidium, gallium, silicon, zinc, iron, and the electrolytes. Some of them don’t even have lab tests (not that blood tests work well for minerals, which is another issue - blood is short term transport for most minerals, not storage).
  - ivewonyoung 2y ago
    Also Lithium, proven in studies.
  - fnordpiglet 2y ago
    Magnesium is also a mineral that is under supplied by multivitamins due to the bulk required. This is why I take a magnesium supplement on top of a multivitamin. Given the state of vegetables today it seems wise and I feel much better with it.
giarc 2y ago
It's an odd article all around. Look at the first graph. It's an average mineral content of calcium, magnesium, and iron in 4 different vegetables, but only represented by a single line. Why isn't it broken out for each category (ex. iron in tomatoes over time)?
- miltonlost 2y ago
  The first graph is also 5 data points connected by a line and separated by decades and most likely differing methodlogies. And this footnote > "The chart has unverified information "The average mineral content of calcium, magnesium, and iron in cabbage, lettuce, tomatoes, and spinach has dropped 80-90% between 1914 and 2018 30,34,35,36,371. Asterisks indicate numbers could not be independently verified." What is this chart and data? It's meaningless and nonsensical. And so the rest of the article is suspect when based on unverifiable nothing.
hirako2000 2y ago
Not contradicting your view that the article isn't very diligent, but have you heard of oxidation? Atoms constantly react to the environment, they can bond with other atoms, form new compounds. Oxidation time varies, in the case of potassium it is very fast, the claims in the articles would stand. For vitamins, it also depends. I got into a rabbit hole a few years back, digging into numbers from multiple academic sources on the subject. They concur that fruits and vegetables have "lost" the majority of their nutrient density. The low end figure is (rather was) 70% loss, the high end 90%. The reasons are multiple like the article said. I recall reading a thorough and most backed paper explaining the main cause is the soil. We are over exploiting, not allowing the time needed for soils to recoup their content, in minerals in particular. We use fertilisers but these are to enable growth, not so that what end up in your dish is rich in nutrient. We could quite easily reverse the trend, even getting back to normal levels, but that implies a massive hit in production for several years, in a row. Some would call it greed, but can we even produce for the world's population if we did that...
- philipkglass 2y ago
  Not contradicting your view that the article isn't very diligent, but have you heard of oxidation? Atoms constantly react to the environment, they can bond with other atoms, form new compounds. Oxidation time varies, in the case of potassium it is very fast, the claims in the articles would stand. Potassium, calcium, and magnesium are always fully oxidized in foods. These elements are very reactive with water and oxygen; on Earth they are not naturally found in less oxidized forms.
  - hirako2000 2y ago
    I will read up some more, thank you.
derbOac 2y ago
I had a similar reaction to the discussion of farmer's markets. Technically yes, I've been to markets where it's obvious some vendors are not selling local produce but in the vast majority of the markets around me it's equally obvious that they are (I actually think most of them have rules that the produce has to originate within a certain radius). And selling "5 different types of produce" all grown locally at the same time is hardly difficult to do. Different produce does in fact ripen around the same time. It made me wonder about the rest of it.
hammock 2y ago
You’re sort of mixing ideas I believe. The nutrient density (minerals etc) is declining because of the soil quality it is grown in, not because it is sitting on shelf. The vitamin C thing was about nutrient loss due to blanching (a processing step) I believe
- modeless 2y ago
  The article is mixing ideas, is the point. If soil quality matters, that seems to contradict the article's claim that speed is the only thing that matters.
  - hammock 2y ago
    When it comes to nationwide grocery chains, with limited transparency on their supplies, of what you can control, speed might be an important factor
  - karldcampbell 2y ago
    The article is from the comsumer's perspective. For me, someone who doing my daily / weekly shopping, time-from-harvest is the only factor I can use in a purchasing decision. I can't rely on branding, source, grower etc as all that is a crap-shoot. Even if one grower has nutritious tomatoes this year, next year they might use a different field leading to worse nutrition.
    - ghostly_s 2y ago
      Does your grocer label their produce with date of harvest?
  - BizarroLand 2y ago
    They're saying how fast the food goes from farm to table is what matters. Doesn't matter if you grow old variety organic seeds the slow way in small batches on virgin soil if it takes 11 months for the food to get to your mouth.

hansonkd 2y ago

The article doesn't say those minerals degrade, however it also fails to reiterate the linked paper's reason: > The high rate of magnesium deficiency now postulated [5–8] can be attributed in part to a steady decline in general magnesium content in cultivated fruits and vegetables, a reflection of the observed depletion of magnesium in soil over the past 100 years > Increasing demand for food has caused modern farming modern farming techniques to impact the soil’s ability to restore natural minerals such as magnesium. techniques to impact the soil’s ability to restore natural minerals such as magnesium. In addition, the use of phosphate-based fertilizers has resulted in the production of aqueously insoluble use of phosphate-based fertilizers has resulted in the production of aqueously insoluble magnesium phosphate complexes, for example, further depriving the soil of both components

solomonb 2y ago
Well that quote appears to contradict the article's claim that speed to market is the most important factor. Now I don't know what to think..
- hirako2000 2y ago
  Here is a way to look at it. You read the article, and by the end you have actionable items, that you can execute today, literally. Many piece published on the topic go on and on about how agricultural methods should do this and that. Sure, and in the meantime what do we do?
modeless 2y ago
It does mention those reasons and others, however all those reasons directly contradict the article's next point "If all you care about is nutrient content, SPEED is the only factor that matters". Seems like all these other factors should matter too! Surely not every farm is equal in these respects...
- hansonkd 2y ago
  > It does mention those reasons whoops you're right, I somehow skipped that part. I guess it is kind of weird article with contradicting points of view and the author could have communicated that improving soil quality and pairing it with speed to consumption is the best combination.
  - hirako2000 2y ago
    My read is that the author is taking the view of consumers. Not regulators and producers.
- biot 2y ago
  > Seems like all these other factors should matter too! The way I read it was that there are some minerals that are no longer there to begin with because they're simply not in the soil. For nutrients (like vitamin C) created as part of the growing process, speed is the only factor that matters. So yes, it does matter but unless you have a way of knowing which farm(s) the produce came from and what their soil mineral content is, that's not something you can factor into your purchasing decision.
  - ghostly_s 2y ago
    But you don't typically have any reliable info about how fresh produce is either?
    - aziaziazi 2y ago
      Smell, look and touch. You can even taste in some cases.
paulgerhardt 2y ago
One of my unorthodox views is that the popular blue light obsession is exacerbated by magnesium deficiency, given how hard it is to get enough in our diets. Yes, blue light disrupts melatonin and makes it harder to get to bed. But magnesium disrupts sleep quality and deregulates melatonin production in the first place and makes one particularly sensitive to blue light.
- manmal 2y ago
  Melatonin production is influenced at least also by: Zinc, iron, calcium, copper, P5P (active B6), and tryptophan. Selenium, iodine, and manganese are involved in indirect ways. Many people are deficient in most, or all of those. To be fair, some of these, like iodine and selenium, have always been problematic in some regions, like Switzerland (lots of goiters). But I find it less than ideal that only some minerals are fortified in bread and milk etc, because their deficiency is very obvious. While all the other minerals are not fortified because their deficiencies are less obvious or less well understood. A healthy human body contains quite a few minerals in greater abundance than iodine: copper, bromine, strontium, rubidium, gallium, silicon, zinc, iron, and the electrolytes. Some of them don’t even have lab tests (not that blood tests work well for minerals, which is another issue - blood is short term transport for most minerals, not storage).
- ivewonyoung 2y ago
  Also Lithium, proven in studies.
- fnordpiglet 2y ago
  Magnesium is also a mineral that is under supplied by multivitamins due to the bulk required. This is why I take a magnesium supplement on top of a multivitamin. Given the state of vegetables today it seems wise and I feel much better with it.

giarc 2y ago

It's an odd article all around. Look at the first graph. It's an average mineral content of calcium, magnesium, and iron in 4 different vegetables, but only represented by a single line. Why isn't it broken out for each category (ex. iron in tomatoes over time)?

miltonlost 2y ago
The first graph is also 5 data points connected by a line and separated by decades and most likely differing methodlogies. And this footnote > "The chart has unverified information "The average mineral content of calcium, magnesium, and iron in cabbage, lettuce, tomatoes, and spinach has dropped 80-90% between 1914 and 2018 30,34,35,36,371. Asterisks indicate numbers could not be independently verified." What is this chart and data? It's meaningless and nonsensical. And so the rest of the article is suspect when based on unverifiable nothing.

hirako2000 2y ago

Not contradicting your view that the article isn't very diligent, but have you heard of oxidation? Atoms constantly react to the environment, they can bond with other atoms, form new compounds. Oxidation time varies, in the case of potassium it is very fast, the claims in the articles would stand. For vitamins, it also depends. I got into a rabbit hole a few years back, digging into numbers from multiple academic sources on the subject. They concur that fruits and vegetables have "lost" the majority of their nutrient density. The low end figure is (rather was) 70% loss, the high end 90%. The reasons are multiple like the article said. I recall reading a thorough and most backed paper explaining the main cause is the soil. We are over exploiting, not allowing the time needed for soils to recoup their content, in minerals in particular. We use fertilisers but these are to enable growth, not so that what end up in your dish is rich in nutrient. We could quite easily reverse the trend, even getting back to normal levels, but that implies a massive hit in production for several years, in a row. Some would call it greed, but can we even produce for the world's population if we did that...

philipkglass 2y ago
Not contradicting your view that the article isn't very diligent, but have you heard of oxidation? Atoms constantly react to the environment, they can bond with other atoms, form new compounds. Oxidation time varies, in the case of potassium it is very fast, the claims in the articles would stand. Potassium, calcium, and magnesium are always fully oxidized in foods. These elements are very reactive with water and oxygen; on Earth they are not naturally found in less oxidized forms.
- hirako2000 2y ago
  I will read up some more, thank you.

derbOac 2y ago

I had a similar reaction to the discussion of farmer's markets. Technically yes, I've been to markets where it's obvious some vendors are not selling local produce but in the vast majority of the markets around me it's equally obvious that they are (I actually think most of them have rules that the produce has to originate within a certain radius). And selling "5 different types of produce" all grown locally at the same time is hardly difficult to do. Different produce does in fact ripen around the same time. It made me wonder about the rest of it.

hammock 2y ago

You’re sort of mixing ideas I believe. The nutrient density (minerals etc) is declining because of the soil quality it is grown in, not because it is sitting on shelf. The vitamin C thing was about nutrient loss due to blanching (a processing step) I believe

modeless 2y ago
The article is mixing ideas, is the point. If soil quality matters, that seems to contradict the article's claim that speed is the only thing that matters.
- hammock 2y ago
  When it comes to nationwide grocery chains, with limited transparency on their supplies, of what you can control, speed might be an important factor
- karldcampbell 2y ago
  The article is from the comsumer's perspective. For me, someone who doing my daily / weekly shopping, time-from-harvest is the only factor I can use in a purchasing decision. I can't rely on branding, source, grower etc as all that is a crap-shoot. Even if one grower has nutritious tomatoes this year, next year they might use a different field leading to worse nutrition.
  - ghostly_s 2y ago
    Does your grocer label their produce with date of harvest?
- BizarroLand 2y ago
  They're saying how fast the food goes from farm to table is what matters. Doesn't matter if you grow old variety organic seeds the slow way in small batches on virgin soil if it takes 11 months for the food to get to your mouth.