Check out some similar questions!

Clough · Aug 30, 2009, 11:27 PM

Hi, All!

The title is my question.

I guess this could be just about lettuce of various kinds. But, there's also other types of vegetables where we eat the greens from them. I always tend to go for darker lettuces rather than Iceberg, because I heard that Iceberg lettuce has next to no nutritional value and is supposedly mostly made up of water.

I'm also not sure about celery. It's very light green.

Is the darker the leaf always better, or are there some light-colored "greens" that are as equally nutricious as the darker ones.

Thanks!

antipode12 · Sep 1, 2009, 07:57 AM

Hey Clough-- While I have a weak spot for iceberg (it's that high water content and crunch... ), you are on the right track.

What the real underlying principle is, though, isn't *green* but *intensity of color*. Most foods (any color) with an intense color tend to have a greater nutritional punch (think spinach, beets, blueberries, avocado). Weaker colors --- especially internal color-- (corn, zucchini, string beans) have less dense nutrition.

It's not always true, but it works 9 of 10 times.

My nutritionally (and culinarily) favorite leaf is arugula. It has a peppery flavor, and has a solid nutritional punch: Arugula is a nutrition rock star

Another great leaf is watercress.

Keep in mind that dark leaves like spinach require combining: you should have spinach with a Vitamin C food (oranges) in order for your body to absorb its iron. Otherwise, you miss a lot of its punch.

One other thing: the *fiber* value of otherwise nutritionally light foods (celery) shouldn't be overlooked. Fiber has better and better things written about it everyday.

Clough · Sep 5, 2009, 10:42 PM

Thank you for such an informative answer, antipode12!

So, are you saying that, in order for certain foods to be the most effective, nutritionally, that they should also be combined with other types of food?

Thanks!

antipode12 · Sep 6, 2009, 11:00 PM

Well, that's true to a degree with most foods (esp. non-meat proteins), but spinach is a very conspicuous example of it. Probably the one that most people eat and the one that is most affected by combining.

You can read more about it here: Combining foods can help body absorb nutrients - ColumbiaTribune.com

Clough · Sep 6, 2009, 11:13 PM

Thank you again, for such an informative answer, antipode12!

So, are you saying that spinach is some sort of "example" food to be used as an example above others that might be combined with others to have the best effect, nutritionally?

Thanks!

antipode12 · Sep 7, 2009, 09:57 AM

Exactly. I think some 30-35% of the iron in spinach is absorbed when in the presence of vitamin c.

Clough · Sep 7, 2009, 03:03 PM

So, if a person were to take tablets/pills containing vitamin C, would that do the trick concerning what was needed to be ingested for the nutritional kind of things?

Thanks!

antipode12 · Sep 7, 2009, 04:43 PM

That would make an interesting salad, but yes, it would work. I'm picturing little vitamin c croûtons on top. It could catch on!

Clough · Sep 9, 2009, 01:20 AM

Would it make a difference if it were natural vitamin C as compared to synthetic vitamin C?

Thanks!

antipode12 · Sep 9, 2009, 03:42 PM

Do you mean natural=oranges and synthetic=capsules?

You know, I can't really speak with authority to the efficacy of vitamins.

However, I can't imagine natural vs. synthetic is an issue with "unlocking" other nutrients. Usually, the concern with natural vs. synthetic has to do with how well the human body can absorb it. Its interaction with iron (I suspect) should be much simpler.

EDIT: A little reading reveals that it's far more complicated in selecting natural over synthetic vitamins. Again, though, as far as *iron absorption* is concerned, it may not matter.

http://74.125.93.132/search?q=cache:EoiI2ki24e8J:www.wellnessrhythms.co m/files/natural%2520vs%2520Synthetic%2520vitamins2.doc+vit amin+c+iron+synthetic&cd=8&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us