Why would low bioavailability convince you to care less about the declining minerals? Surely declining mineral content would be exacerbated by low bioavailability? How does that make things better?
An 80% loss still means you have to quintuple consumption to maintain the same level of nutrients, and your agricultural resources have to scale beyond that to account for crop losses to pests and pathogens. Meat production becomes even more expensive and unsustainable. How does low bioavailability reduce the significance of this trend?
Well, but maybe an 80% loss doesn't matter as we only absorb x mg of minerals. You know?
This might not matter for humans if we don't know how much we can absorb, it might not be a percentile but rather than a cap and we pee or poop the rest out.
I see what you're saying now, thanks for clarifying. I'm not sure how much nutrition people need in general. Perhaps we're still getting a surplus of nutrients at the current volume of food consumption, despite the loss of minerals. I am fearful of food unsecurity and malnutrition.
Ya me too on malnutrition and food desserts. Americans eat so few veggies and we are still living for a long time. And for rich Americans who match Japanese longevity, this doesn't seen to be hurting us.
Like if we all had scurvy and were bleeding from the gums by age 19 I'd be worried more :)
Or maybe it is what is spiking auto immune diseases or something weird.
https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/78/3/633S/4690005#1098...
Why would low bioavailability convince you to care less about the declining minerals? Surely declining mineral content would be exacerbated by low bioavailability? How does that make things better?
An 80% loss still means you have to quintuple consumption to maintain the same level of nutrients, and your agricultural resources have to scale beyond that to account for crop losses to pests and pathogens. Meat production becomes even more expensive and unsustainable. How does low bioavailability reduce the significance of this trend?