[Magdalen] Another "worthless" food.

[Jay Weigel]

I suspect that the "engineered" versions that we buy in stores really are
pretty worthless. Most are tasteless anyway. The old-timer ones you can get
at farmers' markets sure taste better, and may have more nutrients. The
point is to eat more variety, Mike. Of everything. Preferably not all
"engineered" to keep forever, and maybe tasting of what grew it. I can sure
taste the difference in grass-fed beef and old varieties of fruits and
veggies.

On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 12:09 PM, M J _Mike_ Logsdon <mjl at ix.netcom.com>
wrote:

> Recall my thread a while back about how little tomatoes actually have to
> offer.
>
> "A medium peach, weighing 100 g (3.5 oz), contains small amounts of
> essential nutrients, but none is a significant proportion of the Daily
> Value.  Nectarines have similar low content of nutrients." - Wikipedia.
>
> First, I learned that peaches and nectarines are essentially the same
> thing, just different.  Though I do find nectarines much more tart than
> peaches.
>
> But here we have yet another fruit (tomato = fruit, yada yada) that offers
> very little to the eater other than enjoyment, it seems.
>
> I'm left to wonder, though.  Why has the Nutritional World always
> advocated ALL (generally, that is) fruits and vegetables as "good for us",
> if at least some of them ultimately amount to little more than water?  My
> guess is, better to stuff oneself on "worthless" fruits and vegetables than
> crap that'll kill us.
>