Monday, September 19, 2011

Conversation with a Foodie and New Theory

“Always eat the brightest colored vegetables\fruits since those are the ones that are best for you”

I think this has a dangerous undertone because it is not really explaining what you need and leads to confusion. In a personal example I know someone who eats lots of kale and spinach and because this is a “dark green” and they think they are really healthy. – (FU buy the way I enjoy iceberg, it is a texture thing.)

Now I know where he was going, yes there is a correlation between the darkness of the inner flesh of the fruit aka the density of pigmentation and its nutritional value but that is not key advice you want to give people.

So I replied does that mean cauliflower, bananas, onions, garlic, and turnips are not as good for you? I mean the meat of these plants is almost completely devoid of color?

With a really vague response I had to go in for the kill. He knew it had to do with pigment which shows that he knew or at least read the concept but lacked the understanding of why. He was parroting a set of statements but didn’t understand the data and assumptions that make it up.

So if I eat Larry (Caucasian man) is he more nutritious with a tan then without a tan? And by how much? Now I know this is a ludicrous questions but I know besides the fact that we could agree eating Larry is wrong he didn’t know.

Once you know the answer to why cauliflower and tomatoes are both good for you the advice that gets created is you want people to eat a variety of colors and shades within those colors, the variety is more important health wise then eating in a particular shade, while there is a correlation between the pigment that case does not always hold true.

I also proposed an alternative theory that the closer a fruit or vegetable is to the color of my poop the less health value…this one still has to be tested so let me know if you need a thesis.

No comments: