The Cook wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Oct 2008 22:13:44 -0400, "Nancy Young"

>> Omelet wrote:
>>
>>> "Dimitri" > wrote:
>>>
>>>> "kilikini" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> James wrote:
>>>>>> I know it's basically water and not much else but am I better off
>>>>>> eating it anyway?
>>>>>
>>>>> You're better off with something like Romaine lettuce,
>>>>
>>>> WHY?

>>> Nutritional value. Like many of us, Kili tends to cook for nutrition
>>> as much as flavor. Fortunately, it's not difficult. :-)
>>
>> Here's a chart for romaine:
>>
>> http://www.nutritiondata.com/facts/v...roducts/2475/2
>>
>> Iceberg:
>>
>> http://www.nutritiondata.com/facts/v...roducts/2476/2
>>
>> Iceberg just might deserve a little respect.

> Did you notice the serving sizes? Romaine 6 grams, Iceberg 72 grams.

I wondered at the discrepancy but didn't notice the serving size.
However, I don't think iceberg is the nutritional wasteland that
people think, and while I don't buy it very often, if at all, when I
do I actually eat much more of it than I do romaine. A wedge
or a slab, compared to a leaf or two.

Also, I don't eat those dark outer leaves that might give romaine
the edge, I eat the pale hearts. If darker greens have more
vitamins, do you think the inner leaves have lower nutritional
value? I'm just curious, I don't eat lettuce for nutrition, I don't
eat green salad as often as I should.

nancy