Chromium picolinate
Read my comments in this thread as well as the original article https://poal.co/s/Science/543207
1989 https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1992-10-20-mn-637-story.html
Sure, this is valid. It seems reasonable that even with the most rigorously controlled diets that humans will be deficient in some minerals or other componets. It gets worse than that because there is no way to tell what is a normal level of minerals and vitamins for humans. Sure we have some idea of the range but humans vary widely in body mass and you cannot apply vitamin proportions merely based on that. Not only that, balances for men and women MUST be different for obvious reasons. To add to the confusion, there are at least 7 distinct human species existing on the planet right now each of which has their own nutritional requirements based on their evolutionary biological destiny.
Sure, maybe chromium is one potential variable, but the reality here is that there are quite a lot of additional variables to consider.
You bring up valid points that aren't readily considered, so all good.
Yes the apparent fact is that soil used to have a lot of chromium but that particular element has been taken out of the soil by repeated farming as have most minerals and other things in soil that we used to get from the plants growing in those soils. Obviously if you keep growing the plants and the plants keep pulling it out of the soil and eat the plants and you don't put the minerals back in the soil then the next plants aren't going to have them. Apparently Bread used to be a really good source of chromium but it no longer is. Not to mention the fact that people used to eat quite a bit of dirt as an ancillary function of cooking and eating and farming because dirt would remain in the food. Now all of our food is cleaned obsessively so we don't get much dirt.
(post is archived)