_
The reason why people might be (having to) eat(ing) more… the decline of nutrition in produce… an unsustainably affair.
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yl_K2Ata6XY[/youtube]
More obvious and demonstrable is the simple fact that processed food is definitely less nutritious, and in a sense pre-digested.
In fact it was Kellog’s main aim for people to eat without the bestial act of digestion in the avoidance of sexual libido.
When you take the video to it natural conclusion you learn that every cultivar is an absurd exaggeration of ancestor species that were very difficult to digest and painfully time consuming to ingest - except meat.
…and so is badly-modified produce… the nutritional value of which, is so atrociously-low… which means having to eat more to get enough nutrients in, to stave off malnutrition.
Case in point… when I started buying a periodic [heritage/heirloom variety] vegetable box, my blood-nutrient levels sky-rocketed, and my GP was so worried that I told him it must be due to the old-strain vegetables and promised to cut back.
I stopped eating cereal a long time ago… long before it became known how bad it was for us… even the so-called natural and gluten-free options reek havoc on my gut.
I thought to buy some chocolate and crisps the other day, and as I looked over all the available options, my brain said no and my legs started walking away.
Oranges and crudités… the better option. 
I think that the brassicas/cruciferi, nightshades/solanums, fruits, and legumes/grains are the worst for that… in that their modification has greatly raised the lectin-content they contain. I cannot eat them anymore… the inflammation they cause me, is off the charts.
Meat and two veg… the way forward, for some of us.
Lectins are the new Gluten. Buzz words for stay away.
But not all glutens are bad and not all modified plants contain more as a result of modification.
Beans can be bad, for several reasons. But if you can tolerate them you can eat them.
Dr, Gundry is the new Lectin worrier, as Davis “wheat belly” is the new gluten warrior. As is David Perlmutter (Grain Brain), who links wheat to Alzheimer’s’.
I suppose if you heeded everyone you would be left with distilled rain water and Oilve Oil.
I seem to be able tolerate most foods, but I am looking back to my childhood for the things I instinctively rejected; mushrooms, sprouts, seafood, greens.
There is an interesting fact about spouts and other brassicas that some people are able to SMELL a certain chemical that others cannot. The smell of sprouts used to make me want to vomit (literally). And I remember two teachers at school spotting me trying to throw away a massive smelly leathery leaf of some sort of green, yuk. The made me eat it with my dessert. Bastards!
It seems that as you get older you lose the ability to smell that smell. But hating seafood was prescient as I am an adult sufferer of GOUT and seafood is a massive trigger. Not sure what it is about mushrooms but I stall can’t stand them.
As for the brassicas I can eat that stuff now, but nothing is ever going to make me eat a sprout.
PS.
If you have the gene TAS2R38, or the PTC gene, sprouts smell like a swamp.
You can smell phenylthiocarbamide in the sprouts where others cannot.
A rise in CO2 could not possibly reduce protein in plants by 30%.
Many of these vids are silly.
I never said it did… my concern is with nutritionally-poor food and increased toxic chemicals.
Do what works for you, and don’t do what doesn’t.
The guy in the video did say that. The point is - if he is going to talk bollocks why would you trust the rest of what he said?
No - the truth happens regardless of what works for you.
Whilst there is probably a lot of truth in the idea of modern growing methods might lead to lower concentrations of micronutrients, his argument is not advanced by talking nonsense.
“Forcing” vegetables with fertilizer has long been suspected of spoiling reducing the taste and possibly nutrition too.
In the first instance, I do what works for/benefits me, and all else comes after that… others can wait for the ’experts’ to lie to advise them on what to eat, and how to subsequently live their lives.
Which part of what he said is nonsense, to you? …because it seems like you agree with what he said… what he said, not being 'new news’ but known for many years now, like you’ve also said.
He is very right in one thing especially… getting optimal protein in -in the form of meat and vegetables- optimally satiates the palate whilst minimising cravings. Isn’t this what you are transitioning to, right now? …something that will surely help with your gout.
I said exactly where he was talking bollocks.
But a person that uses BS for an argument undermines everything else he says.
If I tell you it is dangerous to go into the cellar. You might believe me.
If I tell you not to go down there because of the ghost, then where do you stand, now on the danger/safety of the cellar?
The fact is that there is a lot of rumour about modern veg - organic non organic, yet as far as I know its just myth. Where is the evidence.
Now whilst I agree that using factory made chemical fertilizers are a bad idea because of the industry , pollution in their production, I really have no basis to tell you that eating those veg is any worse than those grown on horse or cow shit.
The problems is that people will use any bogus argument to make you eat “organic” because of their environmental concerns, despite plants themselves being perfectly safe no matter how they get their NPK.
Most of the organics industry is blather. Little more than a lifestyle choice with no practical difference in the product.
Buying into an “organic” claim my be nothing more than a label, because being so commercialised it does not pay to have too much scrutiny for compliance of rules.
Another such case is the “dolphin friendly” Tuna badge. The producer pays for the Logo to appear on the tin, but there is no scrutiny. And it does not pay for them (those that bestow the badge) to scrutinise because they would loose their membership subscription.
So where is the evidence?
The 30% less protein findings…?
Know… your… [reliable] source/supplier.
…from 4.30 onwards.
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yl_K2Ata6XY[/youtube]
Not cited. But given a palpably false reason.
Could be a number of reasons.
What is that number based on, who did the analysis??
It is a meaningless anecdote, and he is asking you to take it on faith.
There is only a trace amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, about 0.04% It is thought to have increased from 0.028% so the increase is 0,016%. It has not increased “A LOT”.
It has long been known by greenhouse growers that you can increase the plant growth in a greenhouse by raising CO2 . This effect is small and stops when CO2 reaches 1%.
But plants, despite his fake picture of two wheat stems picked at random from a field, is not a difference that even 1% CO2 could achieve. And an increase of 0.016% does not have a measurable effect.
His entire video is utter BULLSHIT
This is a lesson in bullshit baffles the brains.
The trouble with idiots like this is that people who are genuinely concerned by nutrition depletion repeat his ridiculous reasons and make a fool of themselves and call question upon the very thing they want to say.
Check out his referencing.
The serious articles are not about CO2.
The ones that mention CO2 are news stories with sensationalist headlines.
The first cited article has this to say…
- Conclusions
As with many widespread beliefs, there is a grain of truth to the notion that the mineral nutrient content of certain crops has declined but the story of what has been seen and the importance of these changes are quite different from the popular narrative. Separating the wheat from the chaff when it comes to causes for apparent historical declines in nutrient content can be challenging.
Comparing government food composition table data from different publication years is not a valid approach and the results obtained from these comparisons are misleading as to the nature and degree of changes in the mineral nutrient content of foods over time.
Contemporaneous analysis of different varieties of the same crop grown side-by-side or of archived samples of grain have confirmed that some modern varieties of vegetables and grains are lower in some nutrients than older varieties due to a dilution effect of increased yield by accumulation of carbohydrate (starch, sugar and/or fibre) without a proportional increase in certain other nutrients. However, well-conducted comparisons have shown that consistent trends of decrease in content of certain nutrients are mostly seen only when crops are lumped into broad groups of vegetables, fruits, and grains. Statistical significance is lost when trying to see historical changes by comparing varieties of a single crop due to a high degree of variability. Some modern cultivars have higher concentrations of selected nutrients than older cultivars while other cultivars may have lower concentrations of selected nutrients. The ranges of values for mineral nutrient content may extend over two orders of magnitude or more.
This is not new news
[“Were vegetables more nutritious in the past?” google.co.uk/search?q=were+ … nt=gws-wiz] so perhaps the talk-show host took it for granted that the viewer would be up-to-speed on the topic.
He cited plenty of findings… were you not listening attentively enough to follow the information trail he laid, for you to join the dots?
I think his final summing-up of the situation -as we enter into the near-future- hi-lighted the impact that the resultant culmination of this depletion in food proteins and nutrition is starting to have, by triggering obesity.
These are not fake images… the original banana strain is more ‘pineapple’ in texture and taste, and so has a lot less carbs and a lot more flavour and nutrition.
Regardless of the reason… consumers would rather prefer their produce more nutritious and satiating than not, One would presume.
My meals are satiating, and that makes me happy and content… just the thought of eating anything processed or mass-farmed, does not… coz I already know how they make me feel.
A fair point… which is why the individual needs to eat what works for/satiates them.
I cannot currently tolerate most fruits and vegetables… hence my abstinence of them, otherwise I would happily have them in my diet. Who would?
The video you posted is a dumb attempt to lay the problem at the door of Climate Change, and that is the main thrust of the whole thing. So he is rubbish and not worth following.
What you show with the banana can be done with every domesticated crop from apples to zuccini and EVERYTHING in between. This has nothing to do with global warming and CO2 and everything to do with elective breeding. This has been going on for thousands of years.
But the main results of all this breeding is to have made the plant matter more palatable, and less toxic too.
No only has it reduced micronutrients, but harmful lectins and alkaloids.
In some instances it has increased the alkaloids such as in poppy and cannabis.
For the most part slightly less nutrients are no problem at all, as vitamin and mineral deficiencies are rare in the modern world, especially for those eating real food, and the biggest problem we have is how the body can cope with all that dreadful plant matter.
All you really need to live is a pint of milk and a ribeye steak. It turns out that is you do not eat carbs you only need a trace of vitamin C. (which seems the only thing that meat eaters thought themselves at risk of deficeincy wise).
I lived on that with some mackeral and sardines for several weeks this year. The only problem was being bored.
Today I had ribeye steak. I pan fried it with red onions, leek, some chia seeds, garlic, tomatoes, which made a lovely sauce. When that was all cooked I stirred in a large quantity of blanched kale.
I avoid fruit because of fructose, and do not like many veg but know what to do to them to make them edible.
His closing argument is still a cause of concern though, as rising appetites has seen a huge increase in the need for gastric band surgery as appetites spiral out of control.
Ok… but I am talking about the state of our food, not the causal effect of decreasing CO2, on it. We seem to have been talking past each other.
I would say, that the harking back to growing earlier forms of crops [heirloom varieties] and not the mass-commercial varieties, indicates a definite want -and preference- for these more ancient crops… bananas, sweetcorn, tomatoes, potatoes etc…
Well it isn’t… because you have to cook the f out of most plant foods to make them even remotely digestible, and even then, they still reek havoc on the digestion.
I pretty-much subsist on meat, eggs, seafood, low-lectin vegetables, citrus fruit, and Camembert cheese, and nothing else… well, apart from coffee and kombucha, and sometimes wine and rum.
What was your diet like before? I’m guessing a lot more different, than now.
No - that just makes it worst. Not only is he attributing Global warming to plants having less nutrient but he is also trying to suggest a link to gastric bands, which is doubly stupid, hysterical and off topic.
There are far better, accurate and direct arguments for the rise of gastric bands. It’s not because there is less vit C in an orange. It’s because there is too much sugar and other refined carbs in the diet causing obesity. The problem is not mal nutrition the problem is super nutrition of substances that cause fat deposition. And there is a scientificly demonstrable metabolic pathways that shows this to be true.
The fat is that people who take gastric bands do not suddenly get the chance to eat legacy vegetables. They do perfectly well - simply because they are prevented from overeating.
The man is an idiot.
You posted the video which I am commenting on.
Not particularly. I think as long as we avoid food made in factories then we can live healthy lives. Most legacy vegetation is not palatable, and humans were never designed to eat them. If as it seems we are going to be forced to eat less meat then we are going to have to eat modern cultivars. Legacy carrots will not submit to peeling without 60% loss of matter. We do not have the teeth, nor the gut length, to thrive on legacy cabbages, potatoes, etc…
Yes, and for legacy veg you not only have to cook the fuck out of them you have to cook the shit out of them too.
Carnivores, Ketovores, Vegans and Vegetarians are not the ones needed the gastric bands.
It the people who have not yet realised that eating shit in packets is killing them slowly.
Whatever the causes of the steep rise in overeating may be…
My jury’s out, in that there is more than one…
I said ancient cultivars, not prehistoric… the varieties that households have been growing in their gardens/on their farmland for 100s of years. There’s a growing market for it, you know.
Why do you think modern cultivars faultless?
No, that was for all fibrous produce… heirloom or otherwise. Not that I eat any of that fibrous or FODMAP poop anyway… but when I try. : (
…by design? 
Elvis comes to mind… in practically eating himself to death, in an era that started the whole fast food/junk food business.