This 2020 study used IPCC unscientific, politically-motivated, wild-ass guesses for year 2100 CO2 levels to find that broccoli sprouts – like most plants – benefit when CO2 is increased:
“Elevated CO2 (eCO2, 620 ppm, the expected IPCC-SRES B2-scenario prediction of eCO2 of the year 2100) was applied for 9 days to further improve nutritive and health-promoting values of three cultivars of broccoli sprouts.
- eCO2 improved sprouts growth and induced GLs [glucosinolates] accumulation.
- There were increases in myrosinase activity, which stimulated GLs hydrolysis to yield health-promoting sulforaphane.
- Low levels of sulforaphane nitrile were detected and positively correlated with reduced epithiospecifier protein after eCO2 treatment.
- High glucoraphanin and sulforaphane levels in eCO2 treated sprouts improved the anticarcinogenic and anti-inflammatory properties of their extracts.
In conclusion, eCO2 treatment enriches broccoli sprouts with health-promoting metabolites and bioactivities.”
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S030881462030964X “Elevated CO2 improves glucosinolate metabolism and stimulates anticancer and anti-inflammatory properties of broccoli sprouts” (not freely available)
This study was sponsored in Saudi Arabia. Would gathering such scientific evidence even be permitted in more “enlightened” countries?
Performing research on obvious lies and thinking for yourself isn’t allowed anymore in most “learning” institutions. You already knew that, didn’t you?
At the end of How much sulforaphane is suitable for healthy people? I applauded my high-school literature teachers for forcing their students to demonstrate that they could think for themselves. I didn’t mention that each monthly assignment to read two books, then compare-and-contrast them in a 3-page handwritten paper, was individualized so that students couldn’t undo the assignment’s purpose with parasitical collaboration.
This former practice remains a good measure of intentional dumbing-down of young people, the purpose of which has become clearer.
Surface Your Real Self 
Have you seen any studies (or have knowledge) related to sulforaphane content between (a) grinding up the broccoli sprout seeds and eating them (e.g., in the form of a smoothie) versus (b) growing them over a few days into sprouts? It seems like if the sulforaphane content is the same in, say, 1 tbsp of ground seeds and the sprouts resulting from 1 tbsp of seeds, then you could get the benefit of sulforaphane with less work?
Hi Bill! Thanks for commenting.
The 3-day-old broccoli sprouts have the optimal yields study provided some relevant guidelines. The main trade-off between the higher sulforaphane content of broccoli seeds compared with sprouts is that sprouts have higher phenolics and flavonoids levels.
If I wanted to eat broccoli seeds for sulforaphane, I’d microwave them first per Microwave broccoli seeds to create sulforaphane.
*Might be of interest:*
LIVE Q&A with sulforaphane guru, Dr. Jed W. Fahey [Special Edition: Open to everyone!]
Hi, friends.
We have a very special event coming up:
*On Saturday, November 7th, at 9 a.m. PDT, I will be hosting a live Q&A with Dr. Jed W. Fahey to cover some of my favorite topics focused on hormesis, sprouting, and sulforaphane. Normally, our live Q&As are for FMF members only, but we have opened up this special event to the entire FoundMyFitness community.*
Sign up to attend and submit questions here (early submissions get preference)
*EVENT CODE:* sulforaphane
Dr. Fahey’s seminal work shed light on the exceptional place broccoli sprouts hold in the nutritional world as rich dietary sources of isothiocyanates, as well as many of their extraordinary effects on human health. I’m excited to directly connect Dr. Fahey with you, as an evangelist and big fan of his unique contributions to the understanding of the connection of these special compounds with human health.
Here at FMF we call Dr. Fahey the “sprouting guru” because of his first-hand knowledge of the science of broccoli sprouts. But his expertise extends far beyond sprouts, based on nearly 30 years of re
On Sun, Sep 27, 2020 at 7:00 PM Surface Your Real Self wrote:
> gettingwell4 posted: “This 2020 study used IPCC unscientific, > politically-motivated, wild-ass guesses for year 2100 CO2 levels to find > that broccoli sprouts – like most plants – benefit when CO2 is increased: > “Elevated CO2 (eCO2, 620 ppm, the expected IPCC-SRES B2-scenario pr” >
https://www.foundmyfitness.com/episodes/jed-fahey-q-a?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=jed_fahey_replay
Much disrespect and unconscious behavior:
– Big Case of Not Invented Here Syndrome regarding https://surfaceyourrealself.com/2020/03/28/microwave-your-broccoli/
around the 1:10 mark. Fahey and the “Studies Show” smirker ganged up on semantics and tried to smear “Microwave cooking increases sulforaphane level in broccoli” as misleading rather than CONTACTING THE STUDY’S CORRESPONDING AUTHOR as I did when it was published in March. They weren’t curious because…they already know everything?
– Why did Fahey say in November that he needed to talk with the authors of this study before he said anything, and then he disrespected them in the video anyway? Please be a professional even when you’re retired.
– The smirker acted like she was the presenter of information when A STUDY COAUTHOR WAS THE INTERVIEWEE! Did the smirker care enough about her interviewee to understand and RESPECT how much publication means to researchers?
– The smirker apologized for disrespecting her interviewee regarding not crediting publication, and then DID THE SAME THING AGAIN!! Any questions about unconscious act-outs of unsatisfied needs to feel important?