I've never been too interested in whether my home-grown veggies are more "nutritious", whatever that is. I think my veggies taste much better, and are as fresh as it gets. I also pay for my food this way in mostly sweat, not dollars. I BELIEVE that homegrown food is healthier for me, but as much because I'm outside working in my garden as because it's innately more nutritious. I'm going to be 75 in March.🌻
Great talk! Very much enjoyed. Would love to see you two do a GMO topic, and maybe if you could also discuss the difference between hybrid, open pollinated. I always thought you couldn't save hybrid seed, but apparently you can?
This is a fasinating talk, we have all been asleep at the wheel using the word nutrition without having the faintest idea what is really meant. I suspect most people would identify it as what you need to eat to stay alive and healthy every day but we certainly haven't analysed the details at all. I think the more we consider it probably the more complicated it will get. I think people may well be confusing hybrid breeding of plants, either accidentally or by people, with GMO ones which I think would be quite different. I believe the hybid would be the breeding of say 2 varieties of brassicas and the GMO breeding would be using a brassica and a plant from another species altogether. But I am not a geneticist! There is no doubt that garden produce tastes different from store bought produce , but how would you begin to measure the nutrients? Impossible for now. A lot to think about
So, have either of you heard of a "grapple"? I bought some in 2016 here in Edmonton Ab. It is a gmo fruit, which is a grape gene spliced into an apple seed. It looked like a slightly purple 💜 ❤red-ish colour, but the shape and size of an 🍎 .It tasted firm and wet like an apple, but it had grape flavour. The cost was something ridiculous, like $6 each, but I could not resist. I imagine the seeds were sterile. I am from NL, and my grandparents had a very short growing season on the northeast coast. My family saved its seeds for cabbage carrot beet and onions potatoes and rudibega. I remember asking my grandmother why she was doing that as a small child in Grates Cove, and she said that only these seeds grew here. Clearly, they were GMOed by the family rather than in a lab. This is not new. Think of pedigree 🐕. Basically, it's a GMO Dog. Lol. Science just does it faster rather than hundreds of years of user acceptance testing. Love your channel, and thank you, both
Supermarket produce is optimized for the industrial supply chain. It grows bigger, faster. it is more durable when being piled in bushels and rattled on the truck. It is slower wilt or yellow on the shelf. These properties come at the cost of other properties. The food grows bigger faster because it is easier to accumulate water weight than sugar weight. The food is more durable on the truck because it has higher fiber weight. The food spoils more slowly because the ambient microbes are poorly fed by the poor *nutrient density*. If you grow industrial varieties at home, you will get the same lousy industrial results. If you grow home-optimized varieties, your results will be delicate, tender, sweet, and they will spoil very fast because they are **more nutrient dense**.
I've always found it odd that even though we carry around nearly all written knowledge in our pockets, fly in the air across the globe, beam signals into deep space, etc... Yet we still don't really know what we are supposed to be eating.
My main qualm with the term GMO is instability. We don't know how those genetics are processed in the body. Of course I'm consuming it daily, but if I'm presented with a choice, I'll stick to nature made hybrids.
I simply figure that they are broken down to the basic building blocks of life by our digestive systems, and are then used by our bodies like any other food. I have no good reason to think otherwise.
In a side-by-side taste test, the garden tomato is obviously more fragrant and flavorful than the equal-weight bland supermarket tomato. The garden tomato is therefore more fragrance-dense and flavor-dense than the supermarket tomato. Insofar as flavor and fragrance molecules are nutrients or correlates of nutrients (which they absolutely are), the garden tomato is more nutrient-dense. You don't need to define units and plot numbers on a linear regression. Your nose and tongue provide the measurement.
@ The key point is, those things are correlated. You detect A, which means B. Olfaction does not give you neutral chemical formulas and molar weights, it evokes mood and affect - deep, ancient limbic responses. Per adaptive evolution, a given taste or smell is /appetizing/ because it has reliably correlated with nutritious food over a thousand centuries. Otherwise the same molecule would evoke a neutral or nauseating affect. (GMO eventually destroys this logic, but it holds for naturally bred, palate-optimized varietals. Rich smell and flavor is rich nutrition.)
Consider, sulfur is required for onion-smell. Insofar as sulfur is a nutrient, the less-smelly onion is less sulfur-dense i.e. less nutrient-dense ceteris paribus. Smells are expensive 'luxury' compounds - they demonstrate the chemical wealth of the plant producing them. A chemically poor plant will underproduce luxury sugars and perfumes to prioritize cellulose for bigger leaves, longer stems, deeper roots, etc., so that it may become rich, thence fragrant and sweet.
Density is not a mysterious concept. A sugar cube is more nutrient-dense than a paper napkin because the cube is 100% nutrient and the napkin is 0% nutrient by mass. A tomato which is 95% nutrient by mass is more nutrient-dense than a tomato which is 94.9% nutrient.
@ Plant tissues are bags of water, with stuff in the water. It's the stuff in the water we really care about. If water weight is the denominator to other nutrients in the numerator, and you're paying price-per-pound at the supermarket, you care that the nutrient-per-water be extremely high. It should be obvious that nutrient-per-water can vary wildly, from near 0% in a stalk of celery to near 100% in a clover nectary. I'm floored by the claim that this "can't" be measured.
@@jeanpauldupuis He's saying that there is no operational definition for nutrient density. We can measure specific nutrients, but the term "nutrient density" is undefined with respect to its specific components.
@maritimegardening4887 individual and gut microbiology, environmental factors, and prenatal epigenetics primers. Everything will continue to unfold into complexity when simplifying the pieces.
I've never been too interested in whether my home-grown veggies are more "nutritious", whatever that is. I think my veggies taste much better, and are as fresh as it gets. I also pay for my food this way in mostly sweat, not dollars. I BELIEVE that homegrown food is healthier for me, but as much because I'm outside working in my garden as because it's innately more nutritious. I'm going to be 75 in March.🌻
Interesting!
Great talk! Very much enjoyed. Would love to see you two do a GMO topic, and maybe if you could also discuss the difference between hybrid, open pollinated. I always thought you couldn't save hybrid seed, but apparently you can?
You can save hybrid seeds - but the resulting plants are very unlikely to be true to type.
This is a fasinating talk, we have all been asleep at the wheel using the word nutrition without having the faintest idea what is really meant. I suspect most people would identify it as what you need to eat to stay alive and healthy every day but we certainly haven't analysed the details at all. I think the more we consider it probably the more complicated it will get. I think people may well be confusing hybrid breeding of plants, either accidentally or by people, with GMO ones which I think would be quite different. I believe the hybid would be the breeding of say 2 varieties of brassicas and the GMO breeding would be using a brassica and a plant from another species altogether. But I am not a geneticist!
There is no doubt that garden produce tastes different from store bought produce , but how would you begin to measure the nutrients? Impossible for now. A lot to think about
So, have either of you heard of a "grapple"? I bought some in 2016 here in Edmonton Ab. It is a gmo fruit, which is a grape gene spliced into an apple seed. It looked like a slightly purple 💜 ❤red-ish colour, but the shape and size of an 🍎 .It tasted firm and wet like an apple, but it had grape flavour. The cost was something ridiculous, like $6 each, but I could not resist. I imagine the seeds were sterile. I am from NL, and my grandparents had a very short growing season on the northeast coast. My family saved its seeds for cabbage carrot beet and onions potatoes and rudibega. I remember asking my grandmother why she was doing that as a small child in Grates Cove, and she said that only these seeds grew here. Clearly, they were GMOed by the family rather than in a lab. This is not new. Think of pedigree 🐕. Basically, it's a GMO Dog. Lol. Science just does it faster rather than hundreds of years of user acceptance testing. Love your channel, and thank you, both
Supermarket produce is optimized for the industrial supply chain. It grows bigger, faster. it is more durable when being piled in bushels and rattled on the truck. It is slower wilt or yellow on the shelf. These properties come at the cost of other properties. The food grows bigger faster because it is easier to accumulate water weight than sugar weight. The food is more durable on the truck because it has higher fiber weight. The food spoils more slowly because the ambient microbes are poorly fed by the poor *nutrient density*. If you grow industrial varieties at home, you will get the same lousy industrial results. If you grow home-optimized varieties, your results will be delicate, tender, sweet, and they will spoil very fast because they are **more nutrient dense**.
We know all these arguments - they make sense but we just have no numbers.
I've always found it odd that even though we carry around nearly all written knowledge in our pockets, fly in the air across the globe, beam signals into deep space, etc... Yet we still don't really know what we are supposed to be eating.
We don't really need blindfolds when our own hands can suffice.
My main qualm with the term GMO is instability. We don't know how those genetics are processed in the body. Of course I'm consuming it daily, but if I'm presented with a choice, I'll stick to nature made hybrids.
I simply figure that they are broken down to the basic building blocks of life by our digestive systems, and are then used by our bodies like any other food. I have no good reason to think otherwise.
I agree with yr wrd... instability.
We need more testing.
Take the Purple Tomato, mixed with Snapdragon DNA. Is snapdragon edible, Yes! But is it meant to be eaten, Not really!
The take-home message for me is that you should eat a variety of foods and stop worrying.
In a side-by-side taste test, the garden tomato is obviously more fragrant and flavorful than the equal-weight bland supermarket tomato. The garden tomato is therefore more fragrance-dense and flavor-dense than the supermarket tomato. Insofar as flavor and fragrance molecules are nutrients or correlates of nutrients (which they absolutely are), the garden tomato is more nutrient-dense. You don't need to define units and plot numbers on a linear regression. Your nose and tongue provide the measurement.
Your nose and tongue detect flavor and smell - not amounts of vitamins and nutrients.
@ The key point is, those things are correlated. You detect A, which means B. Olfaction does not give you neutral chemical formulas and molar weights, it evokes mood and affect - deep, ancient limbic responses. Per adaptive evolution, a given taste or smell is /appetizing/ because it has reliably correlated with nutritious food over a thousand centuries. Otherwise the same molecule would evoke a neutral or nauseating affect. (GMO eventually destroys this logic, but it holds for naturally bred, palate-optimized varietals. Rich smell and flavor is rich nutrition.)
Consider, sulfur is required for onion-smell. Insofar as sulfur is a nutrient, the less-smelly onion is less sulfur-dense i.e. less nutrient-dense ceteris paribus. Smells are expensive 'luxury' compounds - they demonstrate the chemical wealth of the plant producing them. A chemically poor plant will underproduce luxury sugars and perfumes to prioritize cellulose for bigger leaves, longer stems, deeper roots, etc., so that it may become rich, thence fragrant and sweet.
Density is not a mysterious concept. A sugar cube is more nutrient-dense than a paper napkin because the cube is 100% nutrient and the napkin is 0% nutrient by mass. A tomato which is 95% nutrient by mass is more nutrient-dense than a tomato which is 94.9% nutrient.
We are solid on density. It is the operationalization of "nutrient density" that we are having a hard time pinning down.
@ Plant tissues are bags of water, with stuff in the water. It's the stuff in the water we really care about. If water weight is the denominator to other nutrients in the numerator, and you're paying price-per-pound at the supermarket, you care that the nutrient-per-water be extremely high. It should be obvious that nutrient-per-water can vary wildly, from near 0% in a stalk of celery to near 100% in a clover nectary. I'm floored by the claim that this "can't" be measured.
@@jeanpauldupuis He's saying that there is no operational definition for nutrient density. We can measure specific nutrients, but the term "nutrient density" is undefined with respect to its specific components.
@maritimegardening4887 individual and gut microbiology, environmental factors, and prenatal epigenetics primers.
Everything will continue to unfold into complexity when simplifying the pieces.