3 ms·
None at all. I stopped reading when he ranked iceberg lettuce as over four times healthier than chicken and beef. Not to mention the telltale "toxins" which are
by jmillikin 17y ago
None at all. I stopped reading when he ranked iceberg lettuce as over four times healthier than chicken and beef. Not to mention the telltale "toxins" which are always mentioned (but never enumerated) in this sort of scam.
- ca98am79 17y agoIt is a fact that iceberg lettuce has over 4 times more nutrients per calorie than chicken and beef. He does say "Keep in mind that nutrient density scoring is not the only factor that determines good health. For example, if we only ate foods with a high nutrient density score our diet would be too low in fat."
- lmkg 17y agoSo iceberg lettuce "wins" by being low in calories, rather than high in nutrients. It's a common problem with any metric involving division. Salt water completely breaks it. Anyways, are nutrients even a more-is-better sort of thing, or is nutrition more or less threshold-based?
- stcredzero 17y agoNone at all. I stopped reading when he ranked iceberg lettuce as over four times healthier than chicken and beef. That's a straw man inadvertently created from a cursory reading of the website. It's not his position that maximizing nutrient density is equivalent to eating a healthy diet. Not to mention the telltale "toxins" which are always mentioned (but never enumerated) in this sort of scam. I agree that this should be taken as a sign of a scam. (Though it is unfortunately so common, that it's entered the realm of "fluffly marketdroid language.")