Hacker News Reader

Comment by tmp190914pn2 | Hacker News Reader

tmp190914pn2

Both parent and grandparent are saying something important here. Mineral availability from the microbiome via root interactions is critical. But throw nitrogen at a plant and it will rapidly grow utilizing CO2, O2 and water, leaving a mineral deficient plant. And that is true in any soil. Also, modern plants have been selected to be large and tender, which tends to be inversely coorelated to mineral density. So it's been a perfect storm against.

View on HN

That's right! They throw on Nitrogen, Phosphorus, and Potassium, but they do not add the other 14 elements, which yes, carbon, hydrogen and oxygen come from CO2 and H2O. But they also need iron, cobalt, selenium and others: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plant_nutrition

Are nutritional supplements a sufficient solution for the full 17(?) in the meantime?

I've heard many people say they get their nutrients from eating enough vegetables where the don't need any pills or vitamins. I'm curious how true this is as the internet doesn't offer much clarity.

Not to mention the always vague scientific literature about multivitamins and other supplementations. Or the extremes like Ray Kurizwel who take hundreds of supplements "just in case".

If agriculture doesn't provide us with any realistic solutions in the near term this may still be a worthy area for future innovation to deliver legitimately useful supplementation, minus the snake oil. But I fear that is too optimistic of a goal vs the current state of things, where there's already an over supply of people offering 'solutions' merely exploiting the never ending pool of shame hyped up over mass consumption, not only in western culture but even more so in the new eastern entrants to middle classdom.

The funny thing is that current advice is that nutrition supplements aren’t necessary. I finally got around to taking a “one a day” pill every day, but stopped when I read in the “American College of Sports Medicine’s Complete Guide to Fitness and Health (2nd Ed)”:

“If you are thinking about taking a multivitamin–mineral supplement, you should analyze your diet first to assess if a supplement is required. The best way to obtain nutrients is through whole foods (e.g., fruits, vegetables, whole grains; foods that are not processed). ... If you do decide to take a multivitamin–mineral supplement, consider taking it every other day to enhance your ability to digest and absorb it and to save money” (chapter 3).

They aren’t the only group with that kind of advice either: https://www.health.harvard.edu/staying-healthy/do-you-need-a... .

Maybe I should rethink that.

The supplements-aren't-necessary-advice is often the lawerly "you don't need supplements if you're not malnourished" or "if you're getting a balanced diet."

Left unsaid is my takeaway: modern agriculture has damaged our food supply to the point where a nourishing and balanced diet isn't readily available in the produce section of your local supermarket. If you're eating stunted frankenfood, you need to supplement, because you're malnourished from eating an unbalanced diet.

Costco multivitamins cost 2 cents per pill. I don't think saving money is a good reason to try to get all your minerals from whole foods.

I did a blind trial on myself by getting liquid multivitamin (bargain large European superstore brand, powdered), and creating a sequence of vitamin or placebo based on a pseudorandom hash function to take every day with breakfast in drink. The sequence is prepared a month ahead so I don't know on any specific day what I'm getting.

I also record my mood and excercise at some time most days with a survey.

After 2 years, I saw a significant decrease in general happiness on days I took the multivitamin, and a lesser (not p<0.01) effect the following day. I was less likely to leave the house, and less likely to plan a social activity on those days.

I've now stopped taking the multivitamin for that reason.

I'd still like to know if I have stumbled on a p<0.01 fluke, or if I'm unique somehow, if the multivitamins have a negative short term but positive long term effect, if these particular multivitamins are harming me somehow, or if all multivitamins have this issue.

Life isn't long enough for me to find out, but if anyone else is happy to take on a bigger trial, results could be interesting.

I am also worried they put toxic doses of vitamins and minerals. My hair supplement used to contain 10000 micrograms of biotin and caused acne. Other supplements put 100 micrograms. Melatonin doses also vary too wildly, like 4x. They seem to be concerned about bragging rights at our expense.

Agreed the standard dose is probably 300mcg, but there’s a reason it doesn’t get sold at that amount. There’s communities that track what the right amount is for them and take that, see https://trackmystack.com

my own experience is that I have to eat a sickening amount of meat to get enough minerals so I started to get some supplements. apparently vegs that I can buy are little more than starch and sugar.

You get what you incentivize. Produce is typically sold by weight.

produce rich in nutrients are typically also tastier. However, modern groceries (such as massive chain stores) require huge logistics and scale, and thus expect farmers to produce a steady, homogenous and sturdy crop that also happen to lack nutrients. It's unfortunate that for the produce to be cheap, it has to be done the way it is today.

Not everybody can afford to have "organically grown" heirloom tomatoes, because it's too expensive, and labour intensive. May be genetically modifying foods to also take in minerals properly is the answer...

heirloom crops are not as productive. I grew many different varieties and some of the plants engineered for greenhouses would produce 5x as many tomatoes per plant than heirlooms in the same greenhouse, getting the same amount of water and fertilizer -- and they still tasted good. Much better than typical grocery store tomatoes. More modern varieties are also more resilient to disease and pests.

What's been incentivized in most countries farming-wise has had the scales significantly tipped in certain directions where it's not simply the most valuable plants/animals at the maximum weights.

Produce is sold by weight, and bought by appearance but neither nutritional content nor taste.

And, higher CO2 levels.

There may be some unintended consequences with that approach...

The "perfect storm" includes the fact that CO2 levels are higher today than in 1914.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com