You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

ephion comments on Yet More "Stupid" Questions - Less Wrong Discussion

4 Post author: NancyLebovitz 08 September 2013 02:18PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (265)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: ephion 10 September 2013 03:42:50PM 1 point [-]

Every plant (and every part of the plant) is going to have a different micro- and macronutrient profile. "Healthy" food has a lot of micronutrients (ie vitamins, minerals) and a generally desirable blend of macronutrients (protein, carbs [simple/complex/fiber], fats [saturated, unsaturated, polyunsaturated {omega-6, omega-9, omega 3 (ALA, DHA, EPA)}] jesus sorry for the nesting). "Healthy" isn't a goal but rather a descriptor of things that tend to promote certain goals, generally weight loss or reducing symptoms of cardiovascular disease.

Broccoli has a lot of fiber, micronutrients, and a pretty respectable net carb vs protein ratio. It's pretty much always a good idea to eat broccoli regardless of your health goals. You could say that broccoli has a very favorable calories:nutrients ratio, which you might refer to as nutrient density. An apple has more calories and less protein, micronutrients, and fiber, so you could say that an apple has a worse calorie:nutrients ratio, and is less nutrient dense.

I'd imagine that most of the benefit of vegetables comes from the high nutrient density as compared to fruits, grains, legumes, etc. A potato has less micronutrients than broccoli and over twice as many calories.