科学与数学scientificamerican.com
贫瘠的土地：水果和蔬菜的营养真的变少了吗？
Dirt Poor: Have Fruits and Vegetables Become Less Nutritious?
2018 — 2020，它一次次回到首页
黑点是上首页（≥ 50 分）的那次投稿，空心点是没冲上去的投稿，点越大分数越高。
导读
这篇《科学美国人》文章讨论现代农业是否让水果和蔬菜的营养含量下降，并把土壤耗竭列为可能原因之一。评论区指出，文中引用的研究更倾向于用1950—1999年间作物品种和栽培方式的变化来解释营养下降，并批评文章对土壤耗竭和有机种植的表述过重。
为什么经久不衰：它触及“现代食物是否变得没营养”的长期争议，而评论区补充了原始研究、反驳意见和农业背景，今天读来仍有辨析价值。
HN 评论精选
引用的研究把营养下降归因于品种变化而非土壤耗竭，并质疑文章对有机农业的推荐。
文中第二段提到的研究在这里：结论是，任何真实下降最容易用1950—1999年间栽培品种的变化来解释，其中可能存在产量与营养含量之间的权衡。值得注意的是，文中没有使用“土壤耗竭”这个说法。我对结尾附近这句话有异议：“放弃农药和化肥、改用有机种植对土壤、农产品和消费者都有好处。想要最有营养果蔬的人应经常从本地有机农民那里购买。”据我所知，有机农业使用的农药和化肥即使不更多也差不多；只是有法规规定哪些产品可标为“有机”，而这些规定可能相当任意；例如很多所谓有机农产品来自辐射诱变育种。
n4r9查看英文原文
Here is the study mentioned in the second main paragraph: http://saveoursoils.com/userfiles/downloads/1351255687-Changes%20in%20USDA%20food%20composition%20data%20for%2043%20garden%20crops,%201950-1999.pdf Conclusion: We suggest that any real declines are generally most easily explained by changes in cultivated varieties between 1950 and 1999, in which there may be trade-offs between yield and nutrient content. Worth noting there is no use of the phrase "soil depletion". I take issue with the comment near the end: > Also, foregoing pesticides and fertilizers in favor of organic growing methods is good for the soil, the produce and its consumers. Those who want to get the most nutritious fruits and vegetables should buy regularly from local organic farmers. To my knowledge, organic farming employs just as much, if not more, pesticide and fertilizer. But there are regulations determining which products are allowed to be classed as "organic". Such regulations can be somewhat arbitrary; for example, a lot of so-called organic produce is the product of radiation-induced mutation [0]. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation_breeding
批评文章先承认研究指向品种培育，却无证据地把原因说成土壤耗竭。
《科学美国人》过去20年质量明显下滑，但这篇文章糟糕得惊人：蔬菜营养比1950年代低；这里有一些严肃学术研究能证明；研究显示原因是农民种植和培育了营养含量更低的品种；但我将在没有任何证据的情况下断言：土壤耗竭。WTF，《科学美国人》？
JackFr查看英文原文
The quality of Scientific American has dropped off significantly in the past 20 years, but this article is astonishingly bad: * Vegetables are lower in nutrients than in the 1950's. * Here is some serious academic research that shows that. * It indicates that the cause is the breeding and cultivation of varieties which are lower in nutritional content by farmers. * But I will assert absent any evidence, soil depletion. WTF, Scientific American?
认为植物营养素流失主要来自育种和早采，而非土壤耗竭。
比土壤耗竭更大的问题，是为了口味而选择性育种、以及为便于运输而提早采收，导致植物营养素流失。关于这个主题以及如何找到植物营养素含量更高的农产品，《Eating on the Wild Side》是一本很好的书。
fortythirteen查看英文原文
A greater issue than soil depletion is the loss of phytonutrients through selective breeding for taste and early picking of produce for ease of transportation. A fantastic book on this subject, with advice for how to find produce with higher phytonutrient content, is Eating on the Wild Side[0]. [0] https://www.amazon.com/Eating-Wild-Side-Missing-Optimum/dp/0316227935
批评文章把营养成分差异夸大为健康后果，且论据陈旧、用词含糊。
这种胡扯正是营养流行病学几乎成了现代科学笑柄的原因。首先，文章快10年了，引用数据最晚到1999年。更重要的是，它使用“健康”“对你有益”这类营养学含糊词，而这些说法没有得到（事实上也无法得到）该研究支持。从“这根超市胡萝卜维生素C更少”跳到“吃100年前土壤种出的胡萝卜会让你少得病或活得更长更好”是巨大跳跃。前者是关于维生素含量的主张，容易测量和写论文；后者完全不同，且完全超出矿物质/维生素含量论文的范围。吃现代胡萝卜真的导致更差健康，这一主张从未被任何科学真正证实。草饲牛肉和其他“有机”东西也一样——它们从未真正与更好的健康结果联系起来，也从未达到记者和博主吹嘘的夸张说法。
TaupeRanger查看英文原文
This kind of tripe is why nutrition epidemiology is basically the laughing stock of modern science. First of all, the article is almost 10 years old and references data from 1999 at the latest. But most importantly, it uses common nutrition weasel words like "healthy" and "good for you", which are not supported (in fact, CAN'T be supported) by the study. It is a huge leap to go from "there's less Vitamin C in this supermarket carrot" to "you will get fewer diseases and/or live longer or better if you eat carrots from soil 100 years ago". The former is a claim about vitamin content. Easy to measure and write a paper about. It is another thing entirely, and totally outside the scope of a paper about mineral/vitamin content, to claim that eating modern carrots actually results in worse health. That claim is (fortunately for "nutritionists" and "functional nutrition" people) never actually backed up by any science whatsoever. It's the same with grass fed beef and all the other "organic" stuff - they are never actually connected to better health outcomes and they never live up to the wild claims made by journalists and bloggers.
历次讨论
同类还值得读
如果月球只有 1 像素：一个极其精确的太阳系模型（2014）
If the moon were only 1 pixel: A tediously accurate solar system model (2014)
一个网页版太阳系模型，以“如果月亮只有 1 像素”的真实比例呈现：你必须一路横向滚动，才能体会行星之间空旷到何等程度。
科学与数学上首页 7 次 · 2014–2025joshworth.com编辑精选沉浸式线性代数（2016）
Immersive Linear Algebra (2016)
《Immersive Linear Algebra》是一本完全免费、开放在线的线性代数“超文本教科书”，其最大特色是大量可交互的图形：读者可以直接拖动、操作图中的向量、矩阵和变换…
科学与数学上首页 5 次 · 2015–2024immersivemath.com编辑精选如何将贝果切成两个相连的半环（2009）
How to Slice a Bagel into Two Linked Halves (2009)
数学家 George Hart 的经典教程，演示如何用一刀把贝果切成两个相互扣住的环，并附上切割步骤与数学原理。
科学与数学上首页 5 次 · 2009–2022georgehart.com“犹太问题”：一组用于歧视的数学题
Jewish problems
一篇 arXiv 论文，整理并讨论苏联时期犹太学生在申请大学数学系时被问到的特殊数学难题：这些题往往有简单解法却极难想到，被用作面试中拒绝犹太考生的手段。
科学与数学上首页 5 次 · 2011–2021arxiv.org你的身体并非为长久而造：人类死亡率数据的一课
Your body wasn’t built to last: a lesson from human mortality rates
文章从人类死亡率随年龄变化的统计规律出发，解释身体并非为长久使用而设计：年轻时死亡风险较低，之后随年龄近似指数上升，像复杂系统在不断累积损伤。
科学与数学上首页 5 次 · 2009–2018gravityandlevity.wordpress.com