Just saying...
Cuz first there's a bunch of boring words.
Then cool images. Hang in there.
And, while I have your attention...
Some of the images will seems small.
So, just click on them to see them in full-size.
Okay, now - back to the blog.
(Already in progress.)
So, in my last post What do you do with apricot goo? I mentioned that the rutabaga tasted an awful lot like cauliflower. Amazingly so.
I got to thinking.
Wonder which one is more expensive - rutabagas or cauliflower?
I mean, they tasted the same to me.
Then I thought about it more.
While the flavor of mashed rutabaga was like cauliflower, I was basically eating it (with a little butter and cream) like mashed potato. Wonder which one is more expensive - rutabagas or russet potatoes?
And, what about nutrition?
I also eat mashed sweet potatoes.
What is more nutritious - rutabagas, potatoes, sweet potatoes or cauliflower?
And thus a research project is born.
I headed over to NutritionData.com because it's a fun site. And, cuz it has cool charts. (And, I'm a hugely visual person.)
I wanted to compare just the veggies - straight across the board.
Sure, I ate them mashed with a bit of salt, butter and cream.
(I was gonna add the same amounts of those to each anyway.)
To be even-handed, all the stats to follow are based on "boiled, drained, without salt."
Portions. Well, when it comes to mash - whether it's rutabaga, potato, sweet potato or cauliflower - I'm eating the about same amount. So, I chose 100 grams to be consistent.
Let's begin.
Price. (Where's a 4th grader when you need to compare fractions.)
Score 1 for the Potato.
Big loser is the Cauliflower.
Calorie count (other nutrition later)
Click on the pic to enlarge.
Score 1 for Ms. Cauliflower.
Loser is Mr. Russet.
So, how about "balance?"
Okay, seriously, I'm getting lost here...but more is better, I think.
For more info head to NutritionData.com
Score 1 for the Cauliflower.
Poor potato. *sniff*
So far the scores are:
Rutabaga - 0
Potato - 1
Sweet Potato - 0
Cauliflower - 2 (She's getting a big head now, too.)
How about Ratios? Carbs, Fats, Proteins.
(I'm haunted by my comment to my freshman Math teacher, Mr. A.
"When am I EVER gonna use algebra?!") Ack!
While Cauliflower is less top-heavy on carbs...
Score 1 for the Sweet Potato for its anti-inflammatory props!
Scores:
Rutabaga - 0 (Poor Rudy. Hang in there.)
Potato - 1
Sweet Potato - 1
Cauliflower - 2
Lastly, let's talk quality - "Protein quality"...to be exact.
Wow! Look at THAT!
Nice showing, everyone!
With kudos going to the Potato with 110.
A close second to Cauliflower with 102.
Final Scores:
Rutabaga - 0
Potato - 2
Sweet potato - 1
Cauliflower - 2
To be fair...
I really think the Rutabaga should get a point for being purple.
And, how cool is it that sweet potatoes are ORANGE?
(I'm visual, remember?)
Summation?
They're all winners! And, we are too, for having a site like NutritionData.com available to us free of charge. The site also offers a handy Protein Compliment Search. So, if you are missing a couple of blue squares like Mr. Rutabaga in the last image, you can click 1 button on the site and find what foods offer the "missing"...er, amino acids.
(I think that's right.
Where's a 4th grade science student when you need one?)
Anyway, I'm sure you've drifted off by now.
But, thus ends Dana's "
In a nutshell.
(But, that's another show.)
4 comments:
Interesting stuff. Just promise you won't do a breakdown of the nutritional value of jam. Even though there is fruit involved, the sugar content would astonish ya'.
Er...we could focus on the pectin!
Yep, good for the blood!
(Actually, it is...)
That was fascinating - thanks! :)
Excellent. However, does "filling" count so that you don't overeat when dessert comes around? I'd give the plain white potato an A, and if not loaded with butter or sour cream is a great source. Sweet potatoes just sort of make you hungry (because they are sweet), and the vegetables don't satisfy.
Thanks for the information.
Post a Comment
I love to hear your thoughts!
--Dana