Our Mineral Deficient Soil?

(Bob M) #21

Sorry! It was selenium, not Mg. Though I think Mg is still a problem.

(Central Florida Bob ) #22

I’m listening to this podcast as I type.

I don’t mean to imply that some places don’t have crappy soils. It’s going to happen - think of the goiter belt in the inland SE and Ohio river valley. All I meant was that I couldn’t find a source showing a decline in Magnesium vs. time. No hard data at all. Add to that the absolute requirement for magnesium in chlorophyll and I think if you’re growing vegetables that are good looking with dark green leaves (when you can see them) they have good levels of Magnesium.

Re: selenium abundance, look at this map

Looks pretty good in parts of Michigan, although not so good in other places, like the Keweenaw peninsula.

(GINA ) #23

Iodine deficiency in soil is real. That’s why there is iodine in salt.



for me, it is about what foods you are eating that rob the body. plants rob more than they give so when ya eliminate the crap plant foods that rob ya, your body functions way better on the vits/minerals that your body receives from your carnivore lifestyle.

it is the food intake…what you eat vs. ‘what amt of vits/minerals’ etc are in that food cause while we focus on just that, best know that the ‘other part of that plant product’ you are eating is what is working against absorption of vits/mins etc…now this of course is my carnivore take on it :slight_smile: but it is great seeing you improve on carnivore vs the other.


and agree our food of today is so lacking.
soil depletion, pollution the crops absorb, chem. fertilizers, livestock being fed this junkier fodder before processing and more…just a big backward overall nasty of our entire food supply.

(PJ) #26

This… is impossible, isn’t it. Perhaps it could become more bioavailable… perhaps something could ‘combine’ to another thing… but heating things does not normally PUT METALS in anything.

(Central Florida Bob ) #27

I think what’s happening is just that they’re measuring content as weight of the nutrient per weight of the meat (mg/kg). As the meat is cooked, it loses water, reducing its weight. As kg gets smaller, the ratio gets bigger.

(Bacon is better) #28

That’s the explanation in a nutshell.

And along similar lines, I doubt they were scooping up the rendered fat and including it in the total weight, either. After all, who eats the fat? It’s going to kill us, right? :bacon: :cut_of_meat: :meat_on_bone:

(PJ) #29

But if they were to ignore both those things, they would be morons.

They’re supposed to be PhD researchers, right.