What single food is the most nutritionally perfect?

I'll throw my vote behind the ever evil milk.

Avocados ! (Kale is really good too but unless you drink it you have to use a lot of it)

DeguelloTex wrote: »

Pinnacle_IAO wrote: »

AMRROL wrote: »

While no single food is nutritionally perfect, is there one single food that comes close to being the most nutritionally perfect? (ie has the best ratios of vitamins and macronutrients) Liver? Brown Rice? Legumes?

In my own diet, it's kale...and I juice it with some other fruits and veggies, then blend back in some of the pulp.
I detest veggies otherwise and just will not eat them. No matter what my mix is, kale is a staple. It's very nutritious and cheap.

How much protein does kale have?

Kale has tons of protein...when you chop it and serve it over salmon or include it in a smoothie with greek yogurt. .

Seriously, protein has never been my issue. I get that easily. Veggies are my challenge.
I detest all veggies which is why I juice.

Another vote for milk.

Lourdesong wrote: »

Another vote for milk.

Milk is another good one.

So far we're at milk and fresh meat (not including pre-macroed, prepared foods).

abatonfan wrote: »

I had a nutrition professor tell us to always guess "broccoli" if we're asked to name a food that is high in XYZ nutrients.

If supplements counted, I would say Soylent, but who would want to live off a liquid diet?

I always thought Soylent was more cracker-like, but I might be thinking of something different. Or maybe I'm just confused.

AMRROL wrote: »

While no single food is nutritionally perfect, is there one single food that comes close to being the most nutritionally perfect? (ie has the best ratios of vitamins and macronutrients) Liver? Brown Rice? Legumes?

Great Question. Unfortunately, anyone who gives you a specific answer is providing an answer based on their own definition of nutritionally perfect and their preferences and biases.

think: I like sugar, therefore, I'm going to identify most with doughnuts diets

Most science is biased. Any nutrition information recommended by the government is definitely biased. Many studies are not based on real-world scenarios (studies are often performed on rats or mice in lab environments). Many researchers are paid by specific interest groups: dairy lobby, beef lobby, fast food lobby, large food producers, nutraceutical industry (vitamins and supplements), diet industry ("miracle" diet books), etc. RDA values are a product of political compromise. There is probably not a lot of money going toward broccoli research these days. Vitamins, an incomplete concept of health benefits, based on studies from the early 1900's, are only a starting point--there's a whole lot more to food than it's vitamin C (or D, or B, or A) value. No one agrees on macro ratios whether high protein, high fat, or low fat, high carb, low protein. Bigger doesn't mean better like the nutraceutical industry would like us to believe.


I'm going with broccoli or spinach (and doughnuts, because I too am biased).

nvmomketo wrote: »

Meat.

Actually, I'd say animal organs like liver are probably more nutrient dense than just "meat". But liver tastes awful, otherwise I'd probably eat lots of it.

The Egg is pretty perfect even though it's gotten a bad rap in the past.
I would say scrambled eggs with olive oil and kale would be a perfect meal.