= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Perplexed comments on Dealing with the high quantity of scientific error in medicine - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (55)
I don't see any reason for thinking it would be true. Any plant part should be expected to have as many vitamins as it needs to do what that part of a plant does. Different vegetables are rich in different vitamins.
Fruits are relatively rich in vitamin C because they need antioxidants. Except for the seeds, they are relatively poor in B vitamins because they don't conduct a lot of metabolic activity.
Who says that it is healthier? Oh, there are certainly arguments against dining too high on the food chain, but I am very uncomfortable with any blanket claim that vegetarianism is healthier than being omnivorous.
You mean the fruits themselves need antioxidants? That's interesting! And would explain why fruits are high in antioxidants. What do they need them for?
To keep their (concentrated, moist) sugars from oxidizing, and effectively becoming caramel-like or tar-like, and hence less appetizing to the animals that are going to be tricked into distributing the seeds. Or rather, appetizing for too short a time.
Multinationals put anti-oxidants into junk food to promote shelf-life. Nature puts anti-oxidants into fruit to promote branch-life.
Warning! I might just be making this up. Check more authoritative sources if this info matters to you.
Edit: It occurs to me that the essential oils (fragrances) are also subject to being oxidized into something less savory than the original. Maybe more at risk of oxidizing than the sugars.