4 ms·

Surprised to see sweet potatoes at the bottom. A study linked from wikipedia [1] indicates that sweet potatoes ranked #1 in nutritional density. Not sure where

by latch 12y ago

Surprised to see sweet potatoes at the bottom. A study linked from wikipedia [1] indicates that sweet potatoes ranked #1 in nutritional density. Not sure where that study is. I did find one where they are ranked 8th [2] Whatever, I eat ~1 a day because they're incredibly delicious, cheap and easy to cook. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweet_potato#Nutrient_content http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweet_potato#Nutrient_content [2] https://www.cspinet.org/nah/01_09/ratings.pdf https://www.cspinet.org/nah/01_09/ratings.pdf

droithomme 12y ago
It's because of the nutrients they pick, which they then use an unjustified weighting trick to make sure that only foods with high levels of Vitamin C, Riboflavins, and/or B6 meet the grade. This methodology then rules out onions, garlic, and a few others, finding that (by using these weightings), they are without sufficient nutritional merit.
- klodolph 12y ago
  I think it's actually because they're measuring nutrients per calorie instead of measuring nutrients per serving or nutrients per weight. The linked chart above[1], on page 15, gives sweet potatoes a rating of 485 for 100 calories, and tomatoes (way farther down the list) a rating of 134 for 20 calories. Normalize to 100 calorie "servings" and tomatoes go up to 670! But that's something like 1/2 kg of tomatoes right there, and you'd be sick of it. [1]: https://www.cspinet.org/nah/01_09/ratings.pdf https://www.cspinet.org/nah/01_09/ratings.pdf
  - droithomme 12y ago
    I agree that nutrients per calorie is also part of it, which is an unusual metric as was pointed out. The bioavailability metric is just plain cheating (or poor math) though since bioavailability is already factored into percent daily value figures. Also, with the sweet potatoes, their vitamin C levels go up by a factor of 8 when cooked, which would rank them much higher on the list. Not many people eat sweet potatoes raw so whether it's good science to assume that they do is reasonably debatable.

by latch 12y ago

droithomme 12y ago

It's because of the nutrients they pick, which they then use an unjustified weighting trick to make sure that only foods with high levels of Vitamin C, Riboflavins, and/or B6 meet the grade. This methodology then rules out onions, garlic, and a few others, finding that (by using these weightings), they are without sufficient nutritional merit.

klodolph 12y ago
I think it's actually because they're measuring nutrients per calorie instead of measuring nutrients per serving or nutrients per weight. The linked chart above[1], on page 15, gives sweet potatoes a rating of 485 for 100 calories, and tomatoes (way farther down the list) a rating of 134 for 20 calories. Normalize to 100 calorie "servings" and tomatoes go up to 670! But that's something like 1/2 kg of tomatoes right there, and you'd be sick of it. [1]: https://www.cspinet.org/nah/01_09/ratings.pdf https://www.cspinet.org/nah/01_09/ratings.pdf
- droithomme 12y ago
  I agree that nutrients per calorie is also part of it, which is an unusual metric as was pointed out. The bioavailability metric is just plain cheating (or poor math) though since bioavailability is already factored into percent daily value figures. Also, with the sweet potatoes, their vitamin C levels go up by a factor of 8 when cooked, which would rank them much higher on the list. Not many people eat sweet potatoes raw so whether it's good science to assume that they do is reasonably debatable.