Do you even kale?

Another vote for team spinach I do like other dark greens (chard, collards, mustard, etc), but I just can't get with kale. So, eat all the kale, kale lovers. Rock on! Moar spinach for me

Here the one and only way to eat it.
be careful its neither low on calories or fat or carbs. Typical winter dish. Also add mustard for the sausages or even something mixed with the kale on your plate. Also for best taste the kale has to be cut in the morning while its still freezing.

http://germanfoods.org/recipes/kale-stew-with-smoked-meat-and-sausages/

Growing up as the child of a immigrant from the Netherlands, I grew up eating kale usually mashed together with potatoes. I love it, but that is because of the fond memories it brings up. I like the taste, but no more or less than spinach or other greens.

Hornsby wrote: »

ninerbuff wrote: »

Nope. And for the record, one doesn't get "extra credit" once micro nutrients are met. Like above poster, give me spinach instead.

A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

Calorie for calorie, spinach has more nutrients anyway.

I wish I could find it now, but sometime last year I found a list ranking leafy greens based on nutrition and kale was nowhere near the #1 choice.

I prefer spinach and other greens over kale because taste. I can handle some baby kale mixed with other greens in a salad, but I'd much prefer better tasting greens with more nutrients.

I don't hate it but I don't understand the obsession because it doesn't seem vastly different from a lot of other greens. I personally prefer spinach or arugula. Kale is more of a hassle to prepare so I'd rather go with something easier.

senecarr wrote: »

I always find these infographics about a vegetable interesting, because if you did the same thing with just how many fortified vitamins, particularly the B vitamins, are in almost any grain product including Oreos, the reaction wouldn't be the same.

Personally I partially blame Linus Pauling for knowing a lot about physics, but being a quack about vitamin C intake.

Dysfunctional Foods

Like lipstick on a pig: why fortified junk foods can't change junk

One of the disquieting trends in modern nutrition—and frankly, there are quite a few—is the contention that fortification makes any food a good food.

A time-honored example is breakfast cereal. Who hasn't heard a sonorous announcer conclude a television commercial by declaring that some kids' cereal that would otherwise seem a lot like a bowl full of jelly beans is "fortified with 11 essential vitamins and minerals—part of a complete breakfast!"

They tend not to mention that it can be a very dubious part of a complete breakfast. Nor do they tend to specify in what way it's complete.

This was bad enough, but now we have vitamins and minerals added to almost every edible thing, including soda, and even water. The food industry would have us believe this makes the food better for us. I disagree.

What is in play here is the definition of functional food, or functionally enhanced food. Our bodies need essential nutrients; that, of course, is what makes them essential. Our culture seems to have accepted the notion that adding such nutrients to foods always enhances them.

Michael Pollan argued eloquently against this notion in his January 2007 New York Times Magazine story. Nutrient fortification of everything as a basis for implying a food is nutritious is the very epitome of the dangerous trend Pollan referred to as "nutritionism"—the substitution of an unhelpful focus on isolated nutrients in place of the far more constructive focus on wholesome foods and overall nutritional quality.

For my part, I don't think a food that is dysfunctional to begin with can be made functional with the addition of vitamins and minerals. To borrow a metaphor, this is putting lipstick on a pig.

Read more: http://health.usnews.com/health-news/blogs/eat-run/2013/04/01/dysfunctional-foods

Took me awhile to 'warm up' to liking kale. I really like making kale 'chips' and like purple kale in soups/stews (holds up well). It does appear to be a 'better' choice than spinach - but all greens are good (health wise!)

Need2Exerc1se wrote: »

AmazonMayan wrote: »

Hornsby wrote: »

ninerbuff wrote: »

Nope. And for the record, one doesn't get "extra credit" once micro nutrients are met. Like above poster, give me spinach instead.

A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

Calorie for calorie, spinach has more nutrients anyway.

I wish I could find it now, but sometime last year I found a list ranking leafy greens based on nutrition and kale was nowhere near the #1 choice.

I prefer spinach and other greens over kale because taste. I can handle some baby kale mixed with other greens in a salad, but I'd much prefer better tasting greens with more nutrients.

I think I saw the list to which you refer. It had romaine lettuce as #1 or close to? It was kind of an odd way they were rating and only looking at certain nutrients. But most, if not all, leafy greens are nutritious which is why I like to eat a large variety. It really doesn't need to be a contest.

Yup, variety is great

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/28/magazine/28nutritionism.t.html?pagewanted=all&_r=2&

...Simplification has occurred at the level of species diversity, too. The astounding variety of foods on offer in the modern supermarket obscures the fact that the actual number of species in the modern diet is shrinking. For reasons of economics, the food industry prefers to tease its myriad processed offerings from a tiny group of plant species, corn and soybeans chief among them. Today, a mere four crops account for two-thirds of the calories humans eat. When you consider that humankind has historically consumed some 80,000 edible species, and that 3,000 of these have been in widespread use, this represents a radical simplification of the food web. Why should this matter? Because humans are omnivores, requiring somewhere between 50 and 100 different chemical compounds and elements to be healthy. It’s hard to believe that we can get everything we need from a diet consisting largely of processed corn, soybeans, wheat and rice.