Also feels like a competition for how many different spellings English can borrow for the same etymology (cauli, coli, kale, kohl in these words, and additionally there’s also “cole” in coleslaw at least).
Don't forget about cauliflower, lettuce, celery, collards, gai lan and bok choi. I'm very much impressed with the horticultural diversity of this single species of plant. Also of interest are closely related mustard species and their varieties.
> Of all the citrus that we have, there are only three "natural" plants: the mandarin, pomelo and citron.
Well, not quite… there’s a bunch of other, more niche Citrus species too. For instance, here in Australia you might see finger limes (Citrus australasica) now and again. But it’s true that all the most widespread citruses are hybrids of those three.
Ah, yes: to be clear, different Spanish(es) have different words for things. Some differences are hilarious, such as the word for "to pick up" in Spain ("coger") meaning "to fuck" in Argentinian Spanish.
In Argentinian Spanish, "pomelo" is 100% "grapefruit". I'm sure of this: I'm Argentinian.
But yes, it's likely that we are both right and in Cuba this isn't the case!
The name "grapefruit" always seemed a little puzzling when compared with grapes, and it seems nobody is quite sure how the name got started, only that it is from Barbados. One interesting theory is that it is named after the "sea grape", the only kind that grew in that time and place, which has a bitter taste.
I'm a practicing anesthesiologist whose wife is also a physician. I'm sure I can drag up a boatload of references if you're genuinely curious, but the short version is that almost anything can be adjusted for if you do it every day. If you're on warfarin for anticoagulation, eating vitamin K-rich foods will affect that. So it's not that eating spinach is forbidden; it's that you have to eat the same amount every day or very, very little ever.
I mean, we do give drugs that have primarily renal excretion to people with nonfuctioning kidneys. After we consult a pharmacist, of course.
And I have no control over my patients' behaviors, because I don't meet them until the day of surgery. I already have to take them as they are. I might delay or cancel a case if someone isn't optimized, but sometimes "really bad" is as good as they will ever be.
No, it's okay. Coming from two people with your backgrounds, okay. What I really don't like is that sometimes people make assertions here and they really are not in a position to do so, and it looked like this was the case here until you clarified. Upvoted both.
Wouldn't you also have have the grapefruit at about the same time everyday, and take the affected drugs at the same time everyday?
From what I've read there are two ways grapefruit interferes with medication.
1. For some drugs, such as statins, those drugs are broken down by certain enzymes. Grapefruit interferes with those enzymes, resulting in more of the drug circulating in your body. In effect it is as if you took a larger does of the drug.
2. For some drugs, fexofenadine is a common example, those drugs rely on certain transporters that move the drug into cells. Grapefruit interferes with those transporters, resulting in less of the drug reaching cells. In effect it is as if you took a smaller dose of the drug.
i LOVE THE UNINTENDED PUN IN THIS COMMENT (oops on caps)
The reason is that after my grandfather passed, my grandmother (who a life-long nurse) got together with Francis Stutsman, one of the top cardiologists in the nation (and former mayor for Saratoga California - they were life-long tennis friends) and he had a famous joke ;; (he also is the biggest Pistachio grower in California)
"Well, as your cardiologist, I am happy to tell you that your heart will last you the rest of your life.... which might be three months."
In German, lemons are still citrons (Zitronen), while Limone applies to limes only and there is no such thing as a distinct concept of a lemon (which may or may not explain the fame of German engineering ;-) ).
Highly recommend calamansi if you've never tried it before. It's very prevalent in Phillipine cuisine; I first came across it as a sorbet flavor and I'm absolutely hooked on them now. They're a sort of super-acidic version of a cross between an orange and a lime.
this is mostly true. There are a few citrus varieties that until recently werent widely commercially cultivated. A prominent one is the cumquat, and there are a couple of native Australian citrus species that are now beginning to be cultivated that are not cultivars of the 3 core citrus species.
I've recently been delving deeper into our food ecosystem and have realized that the notion of consuming "natural" food, in its strictest definition, seems quite untenable. It's fascinating to note that all meat - be it chicken, beef, or pork - are all outcomes of intensive human-driven breeding and domestication processes.
A similar scenario extends to the realm of fruits, vegetables and even grains, where the majority of what we consume today are far-removed variants of their wild counterparts, owing to selective breeding over centuries. Essentially, the food items that constitute our regular diets wouldn't exist in a truly untouched, natural environment.
Edit: I'm not saying that this is bad, just that it's interesting.
Sure, but this is also the nirvana fallacy; just because the food available to you isn't 100% perfectly "natural" doesn't mean that it's bad/wrong or that you shouldn't strive to eat as natural as possible anyways.
> Sure, but this is also the nirvana fallacy; just because the food available to you isn't 100% perfectly "natural" doesn't mean that it's bad/wrong or that you shouldn't strive to eat as natural as possible anyways.
I think the point is that our conception of which foods are the most "natural" isn't really coherent in the first place.
But why? Your body doesn't care if the nutrients it gets are from naturally grown animals and plants or from a lab or factory, provided they are the right nutrients in the right quantities. It all gets broken down to its constituent components anyway.
> provided they are the right nutrients in the right quantities
But isn’t that the tricky part: how do you figure out what is “right”? If you eat synthesized sugar and vitamin C in place of an orange, is it really the same thing? Perhaps the fiber or some other minerals in the orange affect how your body processes and digests the nutrients.
Nutrition is pretty complex and until we know what “right” is, I’d think it’s generally a safer bet to stick with foods that we’ve been eating for hundreds or thousands of years, rather than recently devised nutritive cocktails.
Actually there is reason to not prefer foods that we have evolved with because we may have evolved short term trade offs for reproduction that happen to be bad for us long term.
Classic example being how evolving with meat doesn’t make saturated fat good for us in the long term. And, further, replacing it with modern unsaturated fats (like canola oil) improves health outcomes. Your heuristic of "we've eaten it for a long time so it must be better" doesn't capture that.
Frankly, it seems inevitable that the optimal diet (one that maximizes health through all stages of life) will be a modern artificial one since it seems at its root just a technological problem. But we certainly aren't there yet where we can replace an orange with a synthetic orange pill. That is an interesting world to ponder though.
I'd take a few hundred over a few. My concern, as another commenter suggested, is mostly around radical changes without any longevity in testing or understanding. Even though a lot of our "natural" foods were created via artificial selection, it's a process that happened over many generations. When it comes to food and nutrition, my gut tells me to generally prefer slow over fast.
Personally I also think there is a big difference between selective breeding, and distilling foods into constituent parts in order to recombine in various ways. Maybe I'm overly paranoid, but I don't fully trust humans to understand and play that part of nature just yet.
Absolutely. But it's important to note that our bodies have evolved over millions of years to consume naturally occurring foods. Now, as we've started to create and consume foods with characteristics unfamiliar to our evolutionary history, such as highly processed foods, it's evident that this can indeed cause problems.
> Absolutely. But it's important to note that our bodies have evolved over millions of years to consume naturally occurring foods. Now, as we've started to create and consume foods with characteristics unfamiliar to our evolutionary history, such as highly processed foods, it's evident that this can indeed cause problems.
I think the original point is that virtually everything we eat has "characteristics unfamiliar to our evolutionary history" because the animals and plants we eat have been bred for various characteristics so extensively, so simply avoiding "highly processed foods" doesn't meant that we're eating the types or quantities of foods that humans would have for almost our entire existence
Did your ancestors really eat sourdough for thousands of years in ancient Egypt, or were they hunters or fishermen until more recent times? Agriculture was common but there are societies that don't depend on agriculture, even today.
I think that's debatable! Sure, some foods with a lot of additives are problematic, but so is lots of red meat. Plus there's loads of other ways in which we've digressed from what we've evolved to be used to. Like sleeping on mattresses. Its reasonable to use "natural" as a weak guiding factor, but not for it to override current scientific understanding.
> the notion of consuming "natural" food, in its strictest definition, seems quite untenable.
If not strictly natural foods, then what? I can't stand supernatural foods - the ectoplasm really doesn't agree with me. I'd like to try preternatural foods, but I've never been able to find a genuinely miraculous grower or farm to get them from.
Well, yes. We domesticated everything and moved it around the world to optimal growing locations. Thus enabling is to have such a large number of humans. "Back to" movements have a tendency towards accidental mass famine.
this is why I try to practice pescetarianism. re gp's beef, chicken, pork: compare these animals to those they likely devolved from - dairy cattle from gazelles, antelope; poultry from cassowaries, ostriches; farm pigs from wild boar.. there is barely any resemblance left between these animals, having traded through inbreeding agility, physique, diet and genetic diversity for meat per kg per sqft per feed and docility. fish are the only remaining palatable animals most unfucked by humans
incorrect. humans tamed the aurochs around 10,000 years ago and the most common dairy cattle breed today, the Holstein, was bred around 2,000 years ago
>Hate to break it to you, but a non-insignificant portion of store bought fish was cultivated / farmed.
you're not really breaking anything. this is a completely different sense of "farming". their genetics and physiology have not been altered to the same extent as dairy cattle, nor do we interfere with their evolution by selectively breeding. "farmed" fish are not fat and docile. so any fish you eat today is likely to be the same fish you would have eaten 300,000 years ago
Yeah, fuck the planet! “31% of the world's wild fish stocks are estimated to be overfished, 58% fully exploited” and we fish for huge amounts of non-edible fish as a feedstock for aquaculture. Discl: I do eat fish.
global landings of forage fish have trended downward (Extended Data Fig. 2), reflecting full to overexploitation, and harvest restrictions (for example, in Peru) to prevent fishing above maximum sustainable yield levels.
the annual catch of forage fish used to make fishmeal and fish oil decreased from 23 Mt to 16 Mt (refs. 47,48) (Extended Data Fig. 3). Global production of fishmeal from capture fisheries and trimmings decreased over the same period from 6.6 to 4.8 Mt (ref. 17). The production of fish oil declined from around 1.5 to 1.0 Mt and has been stable around 1.0 Mt during the past decade.
So fish meal is ~3/4 made up of non-edible fish (forage fisheries) and at most 1/4 trimmings (in 2017).
Figures do seem to show that most ocean fishing is for human consumption, but 16Mt of forage fishing is still more than a single digit percentage of total ocean fishing.
About 75% of fish meal is used for farm fisheries (aquaculture), the other 25% for animal farming on land.
Thank you - it is always good to be induced to double-check my assumptions! I don’t really know much about the topic except from some shallow googling (but that still makes me more knowledgeable than most).
I totally agree land farming is mostly very damaging, but it is visible and an individual can potentially control their impact on land. The damage by ocean fisheries and aquaculture is largely invisible, and it is very difficult to control an individual’s impact when eating fish: and unobviously the impact is very heavy.
When you begin to interrogate the origins and history of everyday things, you’ll quickly notice how “New” and tailored to extremely modern humanity it is.
Broccoli for example is only about 2000 years old via an aggressive selective breeding of mustard/brassica, and no modern grain genetics are more than a few thousand years old with the last known distinct genetics being only 12000 years old.
The Anthropocene is everywhere you look when you start really looking
It's pretty nuts to look at Teosinte, the grass that was bred into corn/maize, and seeing how it compares to modern giant hulking ears of corn that we use for everything from fueling cars to sugaring drinks.
People care about GMOs because of corporate control inherent in the concept, not because it's "engineering". If regular people could make GMO crops in their back yard then nobody would have a problem with it.
That's an especially nuanced take, to the point that it's the first time I've even encountered it. Nearly everyone I've met against GMOs seems to think the problem is that they're creating some kind of mutant plant that lacks "natural" elements, and will surely give us cancer. Of course there's anti-corporate sentiment but something is lost in the telephone game for many.
Regarding scurvy, I read an essay that said the cure actually needed to be re-discovered. Someone had decided to load the ships with a related citrus fruit that had much less vitamin C in it, leading to doubts about the hypothesis since it meant sailors would get scurvy despite getting citrus. This got cleared up later, and IIRC later yet someone figured out the critical ingredient.
“In the Myanmar language, Burma is known as Myanmar Pyi (မြန်မာပြည်). Myanmar Pyi is the written, literary name of the country, while Bama is the spoken name of the country. Burmese… has different levels of register, with sharp differences between literary and spoken language.”
English doesn’t have such distinctions, so that partly explains why we get so confused about the name.
"A slice of lime in your cocktail, a lunchbox clementine, or a glass of OJ at breakfast: citrus is so common today that most of us have at least one lurking on the kitchen counter or in the back of the fridge. But don't be fooled: not only were these fruits so precious that they inspired both museums and the Mafia, they are also under attack by an incurable immune disease that is decimating citrus harvests around the world. Join us on a historical and scientific adventure, starting with a visit to the ark of citrus—a magical grove in California that contains hundreds of varieties you've never heard of, from the rose-scented yellow goo of a bael fruit to the Pop Rocks-sensation of a caviar lime. You'll see that lemon you're about to squeeze in a whole new light."
The author states that lemons were a human invention, which to me sounds like humans deliberately bred them this way. I'd find it more likely that the cross happened through open pollination, which is also true of many recent citrus that people grow. Humans were in the loop, but "human invention" goes a bit far.
> "To investigate the genetic diversity and evolutionary history of citrus, we analysed the genomes of 58 citrus accessions and two outgroup genera (Poncirus and Severinia) that were sequenced to high coverage, including recently published sequences as well as 30 new genome sequences described here... We identified ten progenitor citrus species by combining diversity analysis, multidimensional scaling and chloroplast genome phylogeny."
> In most languages of Europe, citron is the word for lemon, deriving from the Latin word citrus. This can cause some confusion, since the citron and the lemon are two different fruits. Fortunately for English speakers, we use different words for them and thus have an easier time keeping them straight in our heads.
I... what? Other languages use different words for the different fruits, too.
I think I used to live at a place with a citron tree. I always thought they were lemons, but the pith was always much thicker and they tasted so much better than store bought lemons. Sometimes a hint of sweetness in them! I've always wanted to try a real citron to compare, but I don't know where I can even get them.
I'm just surprised that all those citrus fruit could be interbred. I knew about brassica, but afaik that was the reverse process -- selecting for features in a common ancestor, like how all the myriad breeds of dogs come from far-less-diverse wolves. In this case, we're mashing up a bunch of different plants with their own lineages.
Looks like it came from an Arabic word, based on a Persian word, based on a Sanskrit word. Not too surprising given Iberia was occupied by Muslim peoples for a while.
I was curious because I swear I’ve heard somewhere that the English word for the fruit is where the color gets the name, though I could be making that up, and was curious if that originated in other languages.
This word is a clear descendent in all indoeuropean languages (and as a loan word in many others including Arabic) for the fruit and often for the color, which is named after the fruit, not the other way around. "Orange" the word is also derived from the root of the word "naranj".
> who patented a product called Rose’s Lime Juice. This worked as well as lemons, and the Royal Navy mandated that the product be issued to all ships
Limes did not work to prevent scurvy. Steam ships just happen to be fast enough that nobody noticed. This is why everyone in Scott’s polar expedition got scurvy - limes didnt work, but they thought they would.
Wrong. Limes do prevent scurvy. However the British Navy at that time failed to distinguish between limes and key limes, believing them to be the same fruit. Key limes have very little ascorbic acid (vitamin C) and they were further processed and stored in a way that eliminated what little vitamin C they had.
> Limes do prevent scurvy. However the British Navy at that time failed to distinguish between limes and key limes, believing them to be the same fruit. Key limes have very little ascorbic acid (vitamin C)
There is no single fruit called just "lime", its a category of fruits which includes key limes.
Fruit (ripe fruit) tastes delicious because it needs to be eaten by animals, and then the seeds can walk around with the animal's feces, which helps plants reproduce, which can also be explained by Darwin's theory of evolution. With such a sour taste as lemon, no animal will like to eat it, which is likely to lead to the extinction of this plant. Therefore, the evolution of nature is unlikely to have such a thing as lemons.