Salad Is “Nutritionally And Calorically Irrelevant”?

Salad2The author of this article (Why Salad Is So Overrated, Washington Post, 23 August 2015) says that lettuce, cucumber and radish, are nutritionally and calorically irrelevant.

Do you agree? I don’t.

Lettuce and other greens are important, not just for the “27 nutrients” they provide (what about the hundreds of phytochemicals? That act as antioxidants and antiinflammatories?) This is a reductionist way of thinking, a way of thinking I have railed against. Greens are important, ironically, for the nutrients they don’t provide … they add bulk, fluid, and dilute the other food we eat. They reduce calorie density.

If eating was just about getting 27 nutrients, we could take a pill and be done with it.

3 thoughts on “Salad Is “Nutritionally And Calorically Irrelevant”?

  1. Bix Post author

    It’s hard for me not to focus on nutrients, given my background. And I see their point about nutrient-dense foods, and about, in effect, transporting water from farm to table. But I still see value, a lot of value, in these foods that Haspel says are mostly water.


  2. RB

    I read the article too. I think the author just wants an excuse not to eat veggies. Most fruits and veggies are mostly water; so that means we should stopped eating them? I don’t think so. It takes a lot of water to produce meat and dairy too.

    The only thing he got right is restaurant salads are unhealthy because of all the added junk added to them. So what is the author’s alternative? He doesn’t have one. Don’t tell me salads are bad unless to have a better alternative.

    I wonder if the author gets enough fiber in his diet.



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s