Hacker News Reader

Comment by mritchie712 | Hacker News Reader

Ohalo (the company Dave Friedberg is now CEO of) recently got approval for a potato edited by CRISPR:

> Ohalo had two RSRs under consideration this year for its potato, one which focuses on higher concentrations of beta carotene – enhancing the overall health and nutrition value of the potato – and another which results in reduced glucose and fructose content in the potato, which, according to Ohalo, will reduce the adverse side effects that lead to significant spoilage during cold storage of potatoes.

https://thespoon.tech/gene-edited-food-startup-ohalo-emerges...

View on HN

I would have bred them for more potato protein. It's a very close meat protein substitute by essential amino acids. Might be why it tastes so good. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6245118/

>Of the ten plant-based proteins included in the current analysis, potato protein is the only protein source containing the WHO/FAO/UNU requirements for all essential amino acids. Thus, when consuming potato protein as the only dietary protein source at the recommended adult protein intake level of 0.66 g/kg/day, sufficient amounts of all essential amino acids should be consumed. It remains to be investigated whether the ingestion of a single meal-like amount of potato protein has the capacity to stimulate muscle protein synthesis.

Anyone know about vegan protein profiles and best ones now?

I supplement protein, filtered for vegan because my body doesn't like whey, and Pea protein is pretty solid. It's a "complete" protein and doesn't require any complicated processing steps, just drying, pulverizing, and a centrifuge step to spin out the fiber.

Are you sure that's all they do? Peas aren't even close to 100% protein, so you'd be eating a very high-carb powder if that were the case.

Yep, here's an article [1] describing the process. Here's some youtube video I found showing the various steps [2].

They don't have to use any chemical solutions more exotic than water and air. I bungled the explanation with "centrifuge", it's more complicated than that, but the fiber content is removed in that step.

[1]: https://gogood.co.nz/blogs/news/how-is-pea-protein-manufactu...

[2]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wbX_w0ZIunM

Hence the "spinning out the fiber" bit. Likewise, whey protein is a byproduct of cheesemaking where fat gets separated from milk, otherwise it'd be a very high-fat powder.

I'm assuming that's the point of the centrifuge?

Not quite vegan, but I like cricket protein.

Cricket protein is still insanely expensive though.

Cricket protein can trigger shellfish allergies, fyi.

I skimmed the article but it seems to contradict itself:

> Soy, brown rice, pea, corn, and potato protein have essential amino acid contents that meet the requirements as recommended by the WHO/FAO/UNU (WHO/FAO/UNU Expert Consultation 2007) (Fig. 2).

1. Soy, brown rice, pea, corn, and potato all hit their EAA/total protein cut-off.

2. I don't see how amino acid % of total protein is a useful way to gauge a food's protein especially in this context. Wouldn't you want to look at protein per calorie or EAA per calorie?

For example the paper's chart might make you think that you should eat potatoes and corn if you want to maximize plant-based protein, but that's not the case at all.

- 500 calories of potatoes boiled: 10g protein (650g of food)

- 500 calories of rib-eye steak: 54g protein (200g of food)

- 500 calories of soy chunks (TVP): 75g protein (btw hits all EAA objectives for the day) (150g of food)

- 500 calories of wheat gluten (seitan): 101g protein (135g of food)

Potatoes are dense in other nutrients and a great part of a healthy diet, but you definitely wouldn't use potatoes as a "meat protein substitute". Even broccoli is 3x as protein dense as potatoes.

On the other hand, seitan, tofu, and TVP are the trifecta of plant-based protein that can actually substitute for meat.

> Wouldn't you want to look at protein per calorie or EAA per calorie?

PDCAAS is a reasonable standard to use, pro-rated against total calories.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protein_Digestibility_Correc...

One problem with PDCAAS is that it's based on the limiting EAA in a food, but everyone interprets it as a general bioavailability ratio when it's not.

A food with 1000x the EAAs per calorie of every other food, but 0 of one EAA would score below the other foods even though you could get the day's worth of EAA on 1/1000 the calories + one serving of an additional food that can give you the missing EAA (i.e. eat more than one food every day).

Don't compare whole potato, it should be to potato protein extract.

If you were just talking about min-maxing protein extracts for a protein powder or something, I wouldn't have commented.

But your comment on the EAA/totalProtein ratio (when potatoes are very low in protein) possibly being responsible for why potatoes taste good made me chime in for clarification.

thanks that's neat, although I wish it wasn't with a Solanaceae member. Do you know if they are working on other types of produce or are they just working on potatoes?

Are you concerned about off-target edits activating toxin producing pathways?

Maybe they are referring to the small percentage of people are sensitive to the whole family (potatoes, tomatoes, peppers, tobacco, etc) and find any exposure produces inflammation/digestion issues.

yes it's both actually! Potatoes are wildly toxic to humans when they have any green on them, and that can actually happen in the refrigerator if left to long and then consumed. They have the capacity to really F us up. Editing those strikes me as like threading a needle between hair triggers. You don't want to miss your target.

But also yes exactly, the whole family can cause inflammation and difficulties in people sensitive to them (which tragically because I love spicy food, includes me D-:). So that means that any cool stuff they do I won't be able to try.

Don't worry, once they figured it out they are going to put this stuff in every food and you won't be able to eat anything at the supermarket anymore.

>and another which results in reduced glucose and fructose content in the potato,

That's pretty amazing. Imagine if we can change apples to produce Aspartame instead of sugars!

I don’t see how a plant is supposed to metabolize the aspartame for energy?

It would only be a successful reproductive strategy if some external actor decided to propagate the plants that were putting something not useful to the seeds into the fruit.

Unless you are diabetic, aspartame is much worse for you than sugar. It causes metabolic issues, such as reduced metabolism (leading to more weight gain than a subjectively equivalent amount of sugar), migraines in some people, interacts with drugs, is bad for your digestive tract, and probably has other side effects.

Even if you are diabetic, you can already eat apples. They have a low glycemic index.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Can you back any of this up, or provide a reason I should believe what you’re saying? Because it directly contradicts decades of research on what is perhaps the most scrutinised and studied dietary supplement in the world.

Aspartame is safe, and very well tolerated.

You’re spreading misinformation.

You are the one spreading misinformation. Aspartame is horrible for you.

Here, have a read. I have more if you would like them.

https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/jo...

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2022/03/220324143800.h...

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1392232/

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1964906/pdf/ehp0...

http://www.mpwhi.com/soffritti_2010_20896_fta.pdf

https://ehjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12940-...

https://annalsofglobalhealth.org/articles/10.5334/aogh.4163

http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/96/6/1419.long

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24436139

https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2213120119

https://news.fsu.edu/news/university-news/2022/12/08/fsu-res...

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-41213-2

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8939194

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yCoBuTr0Or0

http://www.cmaj.ca/content/189/28/E929

https://www.statnews.com/2017/07/17/artificial-sweeteners-we...

https://blogs.wsj.com/experts/2017/09/14/why-one-cardiologis...

https://www.philly.com/philly/health/this-cardiologist-wants...

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27129676

http://stroke.ahajournals.org/content/early/2017/04/20/STROK...

https://www.bumc.bu.edu/busm/2017/04/20/daily-consumption-of...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/04/2...

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24787915

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24787917

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1579221

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1474447/pdf/env...

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28198207

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28049023

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17684524

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1043661805...

https://diabetesjournals.org/care/article/doi/10.2337/dc23-0...

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27997218

http://www.massgeneral.org/News/pressrelease.aspx?id=2016

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3772345/

For anyone else reading this, feel free to ignore this person's post. If there's a good case to be made that aspartame is harmful, this isn't it. Few of these studies are germane to typical human exposure, and typical exposure levels aren't strongly correlated with large increases in risk.

For the author, try reading some of these papers. Also don't bother linking to press releases or newspaper articles, you're just wasting other people's time. You probably want to skip the animal studies too. Go for no more than three links, preferably meta-studies -- at least if your intention is to be taken for something other than a crank.

> * reduced metabolism (leading to more weight gain than a subjectively equivalent amount of sugar),*

Doesn't that mean aspartame somehow contains more energy than sugar?

I mean, assuming the increased weight is fat, that is stored extra energy.

The idea works longterm. You take aspartame, which has a sweet taste but no energy. Your body starts all kinds of digestive functions and gets confused. After a lot of aspartame it doesn't know how to respond to sweet food anymore.

There is some evidence that artificial sweeteners increase insulin resistance: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7014832/

I have also heard that because artificial sweeteners increase insulin levels without increasing blood glucose to the same extent that sugars would, this leads to a blood sugar drop which induces increased eating.

Decades of research have found rare, but still very mildly negative health results from aspartame, and an overwhelming flood of direct evidence for strong negative health effects from sugar.

Back up what you are saying with some studies. Because what you are claiming is going against a LOT of modern medical knowledge.

Are you kidding? Aspartame is horrible for you. Dozens of studies link it to cancer, cardiovascular disease, Alzheimer’s, seizures, stroke and dementia, as well as negative effects such as intestinal dysbiosis, mood disorders, headaches and migraines. It's also linked to weight gain and obesity.

Regardless of whether aspartame is better or worse than sugars (I neither know nor care) that sounds awful. I find the taste of aspartame revolting.

Hmmm. That second one reminds me of the Flavr Savr (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flavr_Savr).

More shelf life in exchange for likely worse taste...

Worse taste but probably healthier in this case.

Yeah potatoes will fill your stomach and better than starving but they aren't really healthy food. Eat them in moderation, and prefer sweet potatoes/yams.

>prefer sweet potatoes/yams.

Sweet potatoes, as you might expect, have more sugar in them. As do garnet yams.

The issue with potatoes isn't really their (low) sugar content.

On the contrary, potatoes are full of good stuff: https://www.mayoclinichealthsystem.org/hometown-health/speak...

Just make sure to go easy on the toppings!

That says,

“ true that potatoes are high in starch or carbohydrates, the nutrients that cause spikes in blood sugar. But pairing them with foods high in protein, fiber and unsaturated fats can slow digestion and lead to a steadier release of glucose into the bloodstream.”

Which suggests you should add toppings or else potatoes are not very healthy if eaten on their own. (I think they’re fairly high up on the glycemic index).

Pretty cool, I wonder if it changes the chemical composition of the soil in any way compared to a regular potato.

monster-potato?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com