Finding nutritional information about different vegetables

[abba12]

I was trying to think who I could even ask this question of, then the hive came to mind! I'm not looking for actual answers to my questions, I'm looking for suggestions of where I could find the answers.

 

I have been trying to find information about vegetables and fruits. About which ones are 'better' than others, how nutrient dense various ones are, and the nutrient loss through various cooking methods, etc. And it is proving to be quite impossible! Since many people don't eat enough veg, we have a general attitude that any vegetable is better than no vegetables. But for someone like me, who does eat enough, I like to be aware of my selections. 

 

Note that I also understand variety is important, we should have as wide a range of veg as we can, but we all have our go-to standards, and we can't buy everything every week, which is what I am thinking about here

 

There's a few standard rules, I know the so called 'superfoods', i know iceberg lettuce is not much more than fancy water and fiber, I know bananas are a special fruit and onions and garlic have health properties beyond nutrition, I know corn isn't very nutritious and leafy greens are important, etc etc. But what about things like

 

- Which is more nutrient dense, a salad based on mixed lettuce or a salad based on raw wombok (chinese cabbage) and is one more filling than the other?

- Is there much nutritional value to the stems of silverbeet (chard to americans). or are most of the nutrients contained in the leaves? I always save the stems to use in cooking, but am I better off using silverbeet or, say, zucchini/courgette instead from a nutritional perspective

- Health benefits of onions aside, how do the nutritional benefits of onions stack up against things like, say, leeks or spring onion. 

- If they're the same price, am I better off having snowpeas regularly and asparagus occasionally, or asparagus regularly and snowpeas occasionally, which one is the 'better' vegetable nutritionally. And how are either of them compared to the standard old peas?

- How does baby spinach stand up against standard spinach? Is baby spinach any better than standard lettuce?

- How does cauliflower stack up against broccoli? The fact it is white always leaves me assuming it is low in nutrients since I was always taught that the darker colours are the more nutrient dense foods, and I rarely cook it, usually selecting broccoli instead as a green. But now I am questioning that. Is it similar to broccoli?

 

Also, there's things like cooking methods and their impacts on food. I know vegetables lose nutrients when boiled because it goes into the water, or to a lesser degree when steamed because it is released into the steam and, again, into the water. And we keep hearing how we should cook veg for as short a time as possible to keep as many nutrients in. But how does that relate to cooking veg in a stew, or frying them in a sauce which will be consumed? Is cooking my stew for hours less healthy than the same foods steamed seperately for as short a time as possible? One of my favourite ways to cook cabbage is just in a wok with just a little bit of butter, i cook it a long time to wilt right down, but everything in that pan goes on the plate, so, have I lost any nutrients?

 

And, more to the point, why is it so dang hard to find answers to these sorts of questions!!! The one time I did find a chart, it was based on per-100-calorie servings, which I found rather silly. Naturally, this list had sweet potato somewhere down the bottom, and things like kale much further down than lettuce, so, thoroughly unhelpful. 

 

So, I'm not looking for answers specifically, the questions were just examples. What I'm after is websites, or charts, or books, which can give me this sort of information, without having to attempt to cross reference long lists of nutrients. Any ideas? Or am I overthinking the whole thing.... 

[Guest]

I have tried to find a similar resource and did not succeed. I think one would ultimately need to research and set up a chart that included the info that is pertinent to you. I did find a site once that gave nutritional info for a very large number of natural foods, so that was useful, but I was not able to find one source that broke down an "ideal" eating pattern.

[jak of in]

How about this:  http://www.whfoods.com/foodstoc.php.  It's not just vegetables, though.  

[Joyofsixreboot]

I think even if you fine the info you are looking for it is limited in usefulness. What we don't know would fill volumes. Different fibers affecting the gut biome, different genetic make ups affecting absorption, stress actually producing desirable effects mitigated by too many anti-oxidants, etc. I believe variety is key. Eating the seemingly most nutrient dense foods could still leave a hole we don't know about.

[hornblower]

I think you're overthinking.

A variety of vegetables, legumes & beans, fruits  + some nuts & seeds --- > best odds for health.

Maintain a normal range bmi, eat tons of a variety of plant based foods, exercise, don't smoke, drink only in moderation or not at all. THAT'S IT.

 

From David Katz

"The one point is this: we know enough.

 

Believe it or not, when the parsing and peddling, back-pedaling and back-stabbing are all done – it’s a fact established and reaffirmed over a span of decades that we know enough! What we know about health promotion, disease prevention, sustainable weight control, and lifestyle as medicine IS ENOUGH to prevent 80% of all chronic disease and premature death. We already know enough, and have known enough for literal decades, to add years to life routinely; and add life to those years.

 

No one refutes this; the evidence is too strong, too consistent, too often replicated. The iconoclasts don’t refute it. The renegade geniuses don’t refute it. Those with competing theories to sell don’t refute it.

They simply ignore it, and pretend that the focus should be on what we don’t know; what can be made (to seem, at least) controversial. They ignore it, and pass on to the one particular thing they want you to believe, buy, or berate.

 

They ignore it."


more from David Katz here. I get a kick out of him because he constantly writes & repeats the same thing and he TELLS us he's writing the same thing. Each new book, each new fad, each new super ingredient on the covers of the magazines - it's all bunk.  See for ex. the March 27 column on that page "What's Good to Eat?"



but if you just really enjoy following the latest utd research on specific ingredients or specific conditions, I recommend Dr Gregor's Nutrition Facts site.  :)