Um...that site you linked to says the exact same thing I quoted in my very first post, the same thing that spuuky said was "just false". It also receives a 5 star rating for optimum health from the site you used and scores at just about the top of the chart for nutritional value to fullness factor, which doesn't sound so bad. You can take it up with them if you have a problem with it but as that seems to be where you're getting all your facts from I assume they get the okay from you.Originally Posted by Vivi22
Iceberg lettuce has less nutritional value compared to any other form of lettuce I know of.
As for the stuff above, I could run through it one at a time if you'd like.
Low in sodium, saturated fat and cholesterol: it's lettuce for one so no trout. Second, none of that actually matters all that much.
Thiamin: This is in pretty much everything you'll eat anyway, but 100g of iceberg lettuce only has 3% of your daily requirement. You'll find almost double the amount in romaine lettuce, quadruple in beef liver, and triple for a 100g steak as well. It's a source sure, but there's no shortage of better ones for the same mass of food.
I also like how you stopped using percentages before you got to vitamin C, which iceberg gives you 3% of your DI for (romaine/cos gives 2%), folate (iceberg has 5%, romaine has 2%). manganese (iceberg 4%, romaine 0%), or vitamin K (iceberg 22%, romaine 8%). In fact there isn't a single mineral in a portion of romaine lettuce that gives you even a 1% increase toward your recommended daily intake, while iceberg has 8.
And all of that is comparing the two lettuces which I specifically said I did not want to do in the first place sosmurfthank you so much for dragging me into a petty, fact spouting, internet argument. That said, I really can't wait to hear your next condescending, elitist and downright rude rebuttal though, I'm waiting with baited breath
Reply With Quote