
Ranking Vegetables by How Healthy They Are - Doubleguitars
https://melmagazine.com/en-us/story/ranking-vegetables-by-how-healthy-they-are
======
bad_user
>> “ _100 calories of ground beef contain 10 grams of protein, whereas 100
calories of baby spinach contain 12 grams of protein._ ”

That’s disingenuous because 100 grams of spinach only has 23 kcal and 2.9 g of
proteins.

To get 1 g of protein per lean body mass, which is about the minimum we need
in order to avoid muscle loss or fragile bones, in my case I would need more
than 70 g of proteins per day.

If I were to eat only spinach, I would have to eat 2.5 Kg of spinach per day.
Can you imagine yourself eating 2.5 Kg of spinach in a single day? You
couldn’t, because it’s not possible.

So no, spinach is not a better protein source than beef. And as a matter of
fact you won’t find better protein sources than meat.

Beans come closer, the problem with beans being that they are toxic and those
proteins won’t get assimilated well.

N.B. calories is a useless metric, don’t fall for it ;-)

~~~
black-tea
Who told you that you need that much protein? The amount you're talking about
is the one commonly used by body builders who are using steroids. That's an
absurdly high protein intake for a normal person.

~~~
ocharles
70g is definitely not "absurdly high". The British Nutrition Foundation
recommends 0.75g per kg bodyweight, though it's unclear if that's lean or not
([https://www.nutrition.org.uk/nutritionscience/nutrients-
food...](https://www.nutrition.org.uk/nutritionscience/nutrients-food-and-
ingredients/protein.html)).

> The amount you're talking about is the one commonly used by body builders
> who are using steroids

Sorry what? Those of us who lift and are trying to grow muscle take more
protein, but don't just lump us in with steroid users.
[https://examine.com/nutrition/how-much-protein-do-you-
need/](https://examine.com/nutrition/how-much-protein-do-you-need/) is an
evidence based review on the subject.

~~~
black-tea
The seemed to be using the 1g per lb bodyweight which is the bodybuilding one
but now I notice they omitted the unit. I assumed they were a 70lb person.

I lift and I've found the 1g per lb to be excessive. My point about steroid
users is that that's what they eat too.

------
blueblimp
This list doesn't seem systematically constructed.

A more systematic way to rank vegetables is to look at the fiber content per
100 calories. You generally want this to be high, because a typical modern
diet has too little fiber. USDA is a helpful source for this:
[https://ndb.nal.usda.gov/ndb/search/list](https://ndb.nal.usda.gov/ndb/search/list).

For example, Asparagus has 10.5 grams of fiber per 100 calories. That's indeed
very good. Sweet potato has only 3.5 grams of fiber per 100 calories. That's
much less, though still better than you'll get from most grains.

~~~
gnoppa
I eat a zero fiber diet and I do just fine. It seems as if there is no need
for fiber if you do not consume carbs.

~~~
cageface
Very likely that you either have a damaged gut or your gut microbiome is way
out of whack. Fiber is _extremely_ important for long term health.

Your saliva is full of enzymes to break down starches. Why would that be the
case if carbohydrates aren’t meant to be part of our diet.

~~~
justtopost
Its almost as if this was still an emerging science.

Got a source backing up your bold assertion that 'fiber is extremely important
to long term health"? Because its not true at all in my understanding, or
experince.

~~~
cageface
This “bold science” is nutrition 101. Let’s try the first google search
result, from the Mayo Clinic.

[https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/nutrition-
and-h...](https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/nutrition-and-healthy-
eating/in-depth/fiber/art-20043983)

------
cageface
Eating more veggies, especially leafy greens, is a great way to improve your
health across the board. But don’t go too crazy with raw spinach. The high
oxalate content can cause problems for some people:

[https://www.jillcarnahan.com/2017/11/06/oxalates-101-oxalate...](https://www.jillcarnahan.com/2017/11/06/oxalates-101-oxalates-
messing-gut/)

~~~
blueblimp
Frozen spinach is a convenient source of pre-cooked spinach.

I also like to cook it from freeze-dried (which I buy from northbaytrading).

~~~
garren
Is there an advantage to freeze-dried compared to frozen or raw (other than,
I'm guessing, shelf life)? Is there a loss of nutritional content?

~~~
80mph
Cooking spinach degrades the antioxidant lutein.

[https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/12/181221123810.h...](https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/12/181221123810.htm)

~~~
iso1337
Looking at the figures in the paper, cooking for 4 minutes (which is way
overkill for spinach leaves) decreases lutein by 25-50% (with relatively large
error bars).

I haven’t done the math in how much lutein is in spinach vs how much we need
but to a first order of approximation that’s acceptable.

In the abstract they say they cooked spinach for up to something absurd like
60 minutes. Spinach leaves are cooked within a minute or so in my experience,
so not sure why they performed the study that way.

~~~
pdpi
Cooking spinach for an hour is something that I suppose might happen if you're
making a puréed soup with spinach, and you don't think to put the spinach in
at only the last minute.

------
colechristensen
I hate the good for you / bad for you dynamic so common when talking about
food.

Ranking vegetables by how "healthy" they are is ridiculous. A diet is healthy
and is specific to a person, lifestyle, and contains many foods and also how
they are prepared. You can't separate it into tiny pieces and sort it into
good and bad.

~~~
stouset
Thank you for this.

The way I’ve always said it is that individual _foods_ are neither healthy nor
unhealthy in and of themselves and our insistence on treating them as though
they are is what leads to the ridiculous heralding of new “superfoods” du jour
like spirulina, kale, wheatgrass, açaí, chia seeds, ad nauseum.

It’s _diets_ which are healthy or unhealthy, not individual foods. Swapping in
kale for iceberg lettuce or açaí instead of blueberries is not going to
statistically improve anyone’s health or wellbeing.

~~~
wallace_f
Yea and not just that, but as the parent said it's, specific to the person.

Once someone told me:

> _" popcorn is healthy"_

They read that, and I have, too. It's true. But if your health is sensitive to
high-glycemic foods, popcorn is not a good choice.

Actually that person became angry with me. "I read it, I think in the
NYTimes!" "It said it right in there. You dont know what you're talking
about."

This person had a prestigious degree. Sometimes I wonder about how critical
thinking skills and tolerance of dissent is valued today.

~~~
Broken_Hippo
_This person had a prestigious degree. Sometimes I wonder about how critical
thinking skills and tolerance of dissent is valued today._

I'd argue that it is just as valued as it always has been - not very valued at
all _except_ in certain contexts.

Folks didn't want their slave or servant to speak up with their good idea, no
matter how much critical thinking they used nor how good the idea was.
Tolerance of dissent depended: For example, Don't Be Homosexual lest you get
shunned. OF course, there are plenty of examples in science (and other places)
of folks going against the accepted theories and getting shunned _even though
they were correct_.

It is really easy to think this is a modern problem, but i*m pretty sure it
isn't.

~~~
wallace_f
Yea, I remember as a child having a lego space shuttle kit. That inspired
wonder and marvel in me about it so I ended up seeking out reading on it.

But decades later I encountered facts which challenged everything I (and I bet
most people) knew about it. It is arguably the most dangerous and expensive
manned launch vehicle in history. It was not a technological leap forward in
really any way. It arguably was guilty of negligent manslaughter. It was
probably doomed from the start by the bureaucracies, political incentives, and
groupthink which controlled it.

Feynman ended up speaking out against it. But so few people are willing to be
a Martin Luther or Thomas Paine, even in science and engineering! Crazy.

~~~
justtopost
Thats a rather slanted view. While the shuttle was more or less dated by the
80s, it was still the most capable launch and recovery craft we have ever
produced. Most of yor critisisms are just of the political system inherent in
any government venture.

Got a link to Feynman speaking against it? I am genuinely curious.

~~~
wallace_f
A lot to say here, but you should try to do a web search for these ideas as
they're widely published. I even was given results with famous Youtubers
having videos dedicated to exactly this topic. This one[1] opens up with
exactly what I said: 'Most dangerous and expensive manned launch system in
history.'

It would be great if people were inclined to, when presented with evidence or
arguments which disagree with their worldviews, to examine the evidence
themselves. In this case, it would even be really convenient (and fun) to do
that. But I know most people aren't like that, and are more likely to rely on
their prejudgments and say, as you did, "that's a rather slanted view." It's
very common, even where it should be nowhere to be found, like in science.
Reminds me of the famous quote by Planck:

>A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and
making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die,
and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.

You may be aware of some other more-famous mismanagements in the space
industry like the Pioneer Anomaly being difficult to study because no data was
retained--same as with most all of the work done in the Apollo program.

The problems were of groupthink, and authority/hierarchy. The shuttle was
chosen by Nixon over Von Braun's plans because of those reasons. The military
industrial complex was involved, as well as the intelligence agencies, and
they tranformed the shuttle into something other than what NASA originally
designed. And nobody really knows why he chose the side-grouped design, many
speculate because Nixon thought it looked cool.

Before Challenger killed 7 people, there were engineers that had raised
precise concerns of the exact problem, under the exact conditions, which would
cause this disaster. Culture and politics had become so bad that detailing the
problem was unacceptable. Groupthink and hierarchy developed a culture not
tolerant of dissent. That's why Feynman agreed to testify of the problem
because he had credence to lend to the engineer's claims. It was negligent
manslaughter that killed those astronauts.

1 - [https://youtu.be/Ja4ZlswGvpE](https://youtu.be/Ja4ZlswGvpE)

~~~
gamblor956
If you think the space shuttle was the most dangerous launch system ever made,
you clearly are unfamiliar with the Russian launch vehicles of that era, most
of which were literally put together from spare parts.

~~~
wallace_f
I'm unfamamiliar? Really? The Let's look at the facts. Have a look
yourself(1). Manned Russian launch vehicles of that era were more dangeroys?
No. Russia had zero fatalities since 1970. By contrast, the space shuttle
accounts for the vast majority of fatalities in all of launch history, and the
most dangerous launch system per launch. The design itself has been criticized
as inherently dangerous compared to a traditional rocket+capsule.

Please consider, as I just wrote above, __it would be nice if when people were
confronted with information contrary to their worldviews, if they would please
consider the evidence in front of them, instead of just shouting out their
defiance as their cognitive bias wills them to. __How else to stop people from
being willfully stupid?

1 - [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_spaceflight-
related_...](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_spaceflight-
related_accidents_and_incidents)

------
ofrzeta
"Researchers attribute the blood-pressure lowering effects of beets to their
high concentration of nitrates"

I don't get why Nitrates in beets are a good thing while they seem to be bad
in spinach, kale and brussel sprouts.

The really "bad" stuff seem to be Nitrits that are converted from the Nitrites
by cooking. That would go for all cooked vegetables, though.

------
peter_retief
This article is so wrong its dangerous. Green leafy foods like spinach and
lettuce are the best source of nutrients, highly sugary carbohydrate vegetable
like white potatoes and beets should be consumed less. Ranking vegetables is a
pointless excessive, eating a wide range of nutrient rich foods is a good idea

~~~
balfirevic
Potatoes don't contain significant amount of sugar.

~~~
peter_retief
Well yes and no, they do have about 4 grams of sugar per potato but then your
body turns the starch, in foods such as potatoes into glucose, a simple sugar

~~~
balfirevic
Google says 0.8 grams of sugar per 100 grams, or 3.2 calories out of 77 total
in those 100 grams of potato. That's 4%.

The fact that starch is processed into glucose by the body does not make
potatoes sugary.

~~~
peter_retief
Starch is a complex sugar and to your body it is a sugar. Google definition
here "Complex carbohydrates are made up of sugar molecules that are strung
together in long, complex chains. Complex carbohydrates are found in foods
such as peas, beans, whole grains, and vegetables. Both simple and complex
carbohydrates are turned to glucose (blood sugar) in the body and are used as
energy"

------
jayalpha
I just bought this book. They guy has a very different approach to health and
vegetables. [https://www.amazon.com/Plant-Paradox-Dangers-Healthy-
Disease...](https://www.amazon.com/Plant-Paradox-Dangers-Healthy-
Disease/dp/006242713X)

I am not saying that I am buying his ideas yet, but I find his ideas
interesting. I nearly died of gluten intolerance (I had a super rare from that
was hard to identify). No, I am not exaggerating. Hence I am interested in
foods. I am also a little bit skeptical about wheat in general. I think it may
be closely linked to weight gain and may be possibly addictive:
[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6099562](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6099562)

~~~
cageface
Plant Paradox is bad science. Don’t risk your health on that quackery.

[https://medium.com/@Kahn642/the-plant-paradox-and-the-
oxygen...](https://medium.com/@Kahn642/the-plant-paradox-and-the-oxygen-
paradox-dont-hold-your-breath-for-health-14c146e0c414)

The healthiest diets on the planet consist mostly of plants. Even common sense
exposes the ridiculousness of his claims.

~~~
jayalpha
If some plants, besides drugs, may have the potential to be addictive then I
don't think it is absurd to think that some plants don't want to be eaten and
produce substances that are not necessarily good for you.

"The healthiest diets on the planet consist mostly of plants. " Historically
we ate meat. Lots of it. If I remember right, based on tooth isotopes analysis
the Neanderthals for example ate hardly anything but meat. The eating of
plants is a relatively new phenomenon, starting with the human civilization.
Based on genetic evolution this are not really long terms.

~~~
cageface
Our nearest relatives, the primates, eat little to no meat and have very
similar physiology to us. We seem to be a little bit better adapted to eat
meat if necessary but our bodies are still optimized for extracting nutrients
from plants.

[https://www.peta.org/living/food/really-natural-truth-
humans...](https://www.peta.org/living/food/really-natural-truth-humans-
eating-meat/)

~~~
jayalpha
As much as I love animals. Do you really want me to take Peta for a credible
source?

~~~
cageface
That was just the quickest reference I had to hand. Here's another:

[https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/human-
ancest...](https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/human-ancestors-
were-nearly-all-vegetarians/)

We don't have the physiology of a carnivore at all. We look a lot more like
herbivores that may have made some small adaptations to include some meat in
our diets if necessary.

~~~
pvaldes
Is an error to think that true herbivorism is a "primitive" trait. They are
very evolved in fact.

------
VintageCool
Brussels sprouts are amazing in stir fries. Cut them in half and plant them
face down in the pan.

I was seriously misled as a child by all the kid's books that portrayed
Brussels sprouts as disgusting vegetables.

~~~
tonyedgecombe
Brussels sprouts have changed over the last 30 years, they are much less
bitter than they used to be.

~~~
jpatokal
Your palate has also changed: kids are generally much more sensitive to
bitterness than adults.

~~~
tonyedgecombe
Well, I wasn't a kid thirty years ago and I didn't like them much then :)

 _" Over the last twenty years, farmers have mellowed the "unpleasant" flavor
of Brussels sprouts by breeding a vegetable that contains fewer bitter
compounds or glucosinolates. So, Brussels sprouts just taste better than they
used to when we were kids."_

From:

[https://www.chiceats.com/recipe/vegetarian-side/how-buy-
cook...](https://www.chiceats.com/recipe/vegetarian-side/how-buy-cook-and-
reduce-bitterness-brussels-sprouts)

------
gmuslera
"The truth is that a vegetarian diet can provide sufficient protein
requirements for humans"

Maybe all carbohydrates are basically all the same, but you can't say that
about proteins. From them you get essential aminoacids, and even if you can
get all/most of them from vegetables, you should be careful to not miss some
of them having a narrow vegetables selection.

------
billforsternz
I find it weird that 1 thru 16 are basically all good, then 17 (corn) is
dumped all over (18 seems to be something of a joke).

------
alecco
For a better list of plant based diet, check out the free app Daily Dozen.
It's meant to make it easy to plan the optimal portions and it adapts to your
day. It's all science based.

------
cylinder
Don't forget huge bunches of herbs, both fresh and as tea.

