In article >,
"Nancy Young" > wrote:

> 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

Red leaf is excellent but my _personal_ favorite are hydroponic heads of
Boston Butter lettuce!
--
Peace! Om

"He who has the gold makes the rules"
--Om

"He who has the guns can get the gold."
-- Steve Rothstein