Hacker News Reader

Comment by ssijak | Hacker News Reader

“Vegetables dont have that many nutrients”, well that is a first time I see such claim, even while reading bogus carnivore diet related material

View on HN

Vegetables are getting less and less nutritious as the topsoil is being ripped off with each harvest. We only have about 60 left https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/only-60-years-of-...

And comparing nutrients, animal products have far more, in better format, and more available then vegetables. For example liver is about 20 times more nutritious than fruit by weight.

well you have just compared the most nutritious meat food item (liver) to the medium dense vegetable item, nutrition vise. And you compared them by weight.. Compare them by calorie. For example, put 2000cal of kale in app like cronometer and you will see that you satisfy almost all micro nutrients and all protein and ala needs just from 2kcal of kale. But of course no body eats 2000cal and nobody should, I just gave an example when you compare by calorie.

Plants, have hundreds of active compounds in them that meat products do not. Those more bioavailable micronutrients from meat are linked to problems and cancers (heme iron) because our body can't regulate them as well as from plant sources.

Now I am not saying that liver is not packed with micronutrients, but I am just replying to a hilarious claims that plants are somehow drasticaly lacking in nutrients

Animal products have more active and bio available nutrients than plants. Eat nose to tail, why not include liver? There is nothing you can't get from animal products that you get from plants. One can, and people do live on meat alone. But you can't live on plant alone.

I would assume they are saying after vegetables are cooked they lose a lot of nutrients that are originally in them.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com