Is spinach or kale better?

A lot of claims were raised in recent years about spinach and kale. The most commonly asked question is their contribution. If one of the two will be chosen about healthy living, which is not really important questions are asked as to be selected. We wanted to present you the article shared by Lisa Middleton. Everything in this content is presented with details. In short Is spinach or kale better? You can easily answer the question.

Do you love kale.  Or do you just eat it because it is supposed to be good for you?  I like kale, but I do question the hype.  So I decided to look a little closer and do some nutrient comparisons.  Specifically, I was keen to look at the differences between kale and other common green leafy vegetables that are used in similar ways to kale - spinach and rocket (arugula) and your everyday iceberg lettuce. 

Kale is not a new vegetable.  Kale has been around for centuries, with its popularity as a 'superfood' having only skyrocketed in recent times.  Does kale deserve this reputation as the king of all things green?  Kale is from the cabbage family and related to the highly nutritious cruciferous group of vegetables, which includes broccoli, cauliflower and brussel sprouts.  There are many different types of kale, with either curly or flat leaves, which can be eaten in a variety of ways, from salads to soups and smoothies.

To start with, let's just clarify that ALL dark green vegetables are packed with nutrients. Any small differences in nutrient content can be balanced out by eating a variety of greens for a range of different nutrients and health benefits.  This is easy if you like vegetables!  But if your palate hasn't quite extended to enjoy green vegies and you know you probably don't eat enough, then small differences could have more of an impact, and it may be well worth focusing on those vegetables with a higher nutrient density.

So here are the statistics for kale vs. spinach vs. rocket vs. iceberg lettuce.  Of course there are many other green vegetables, but these represent some that are often used interchangeably with kale.  These figures are from the US and represent a tested sample of each vegetable.  Therefore they are approximate values only, as nutrient content can vary from place to place, often due to growing conditions.  Although approximates, these figures still provide a useful comparison for measurable nutrients. 

What do you think?  First of all, I know some people may have looked straight at the  carbohydrate values and panicked when they saw that kale has over twice the amount of carbs compared to the other greens.  Before you throw your kale out, remember that 8.8g is a tiny amount of carbohydrate and these values are per 100g, which is a lot more than a standard serve.  Leafy greens are pretty light, so a serve of kale with other mixed vegetables is more likely to be around 20g, providing less than 2g of carbohydrate, which is practically nothing. 

My interest is not so much in the kilojoules or carbs, but the vitamin and mineral content and nutrient density.  Looking per 100g (which indicates the % of the nutrient in a food), the nutrient contents for kale look pretty impressive and you can see where the claims arise for 'high calcium' and 'rich in Vitamin C'.  But again, because leaves are so light, you need to divide the nutrient by 4 or 5 to get a better idea of actual nutrient content per serve. 

The firs thing that really stands out to me when I look at this table is the vast difference in nutrient content between the darker green leafy vegetables and iceberg lettuce.  Iceberg just doesn't compare really, right across the board.  This provides a very clear message that for nutrition, stack your salads with darker leaves.  Of course iceberg lettuce provides wonderful texture and can be a great base for other flavours within a salad, but for nutrition it really lags behind.

If we then look back to compare kale with spinach and rocket lettuce, for most nutrients there are only small differences.  When you compare the differences to the huge gap to the iceberg lettuce, then you realize that kale, spinach and rocket are jostling for first line position, with iceberg a distant last, rather than being spaced out well across the field.   Kale and rocket have more calcium than spinach but spinach has more iron (although not terribly well absorbed).  Most differences are minimal and although I could analyse every nutrient, when we consider the overall impact on health there is really no point.  There are, however, a handful of nutrients for which kale is a standout.

Kale is a far greater source of Vitamin C and Vitamin K compared to spinach and rocket.  Kale contains 120mg/100g Vitamin C, so per serve may contain around 25-30mg Vitamin C, making it a useful source when eaten raw.  Vitamin C can be damaged with heat/cooking so cooked kale may not provide the same benefits as raw.

Kale is high in Vitamin K, which is particularly important for blood clotting, but not a nutrient that is at a high risk of being low or deficient for most people.  So strong is the blood clotting effect, that people need to monitor their intake of Vitamin K if they are taking blood-thinning medication such as warfarin.

Kale and spinach are both able to supply plenty of Vitamin A, an important nutrient for the health of our skin and eyes. The beta-carotene in kale and spinach can also act as an antioxidant.

All other differences in nutrients are either minor, or insignificant or not all that important for overall health.  One thing that is missing from the table above is baby spinach leaves.  I have found it difficult to find nutrient breakdown info for baby spinach to compare to regular spinach, but have read that the baby leaves may be higher in some nutrients and lower in others.  Current data on baby spinach would be welcomed. I have a sneaking suspicion that the baby spinach, such a popular option in salads, may in fact not be quite as nutrient dense as regular spinach, but I would love to compare the figures to be sure.

It is important to remember that the nutrients presented in the table above are those that we can measure readily in food, but this analysis does not include other phytonutrients which are not routinely tested for.

Kale is reported to contain important antioxidants, including flavonoids and polyphenols.  Kale contains the flavonoids quercetin and kaempferol.  Quercetin has received some attention for a potential influence on endurance exercise capacity, however published research findings have been mixed (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21606866).  Antioxidants provide a range of health-related benefits and dark green vegetables, including kale, contain plenty.

So it seems that kale really is good for us, but is the nutrition value worth making the effort for?  I recall the first time I tried kale and it was definitely a case of take it or leave it!  I continued to revert back to the trusty spinach leaves as my tried and true salad base.  But lately I have been experimenting a bit, and recently ordered a kale salad with prawns and haloumi at a local restaurant.  When it came out I was actually very concerned about how I was going to manage to eat the amazingly large bowl full of green curly raw leaves, that to be honest looked terribly unappetizing.  But here is the thing with kale, and in fact most green vegetables.  How you prepare it and what you add to it can make or break your eating experience.  On this occasion, the chilli and lemon on the prawns, with the salty haloumi, pinenuts and a yoghurt based spicy dressing made the seemingly throat scratching unchewable bowl full of kale totally edible. In fact it was delicious.

The benefit of adding some healthy fats, like olive oil, avocado and nuts, is that the fat helps with the absorption of fat-soluble vitamins, such as Vitamin A, from the leaves.  So dressing your kale with some oils for flavour has the added benefit of boosting the nutrient availability.

The other great thing about kale is that, unlike many other so-called superfoods, kale is not ridiculously expensive when you consider other similar alternatives.

But oh no, I have just read an article claiming that kale is full of chemicals and should be avoided: http://bentleyartist.com/2015/03/29/kale-why-you-need-to-stop-eating-it-right-now/.  Luckily this is a tongue-in-cheek jibe at chemical-free living, reminding us that all foods are composed of chemicals and they are not all dangerous.

So what's the verdict, does kale win out over all other green vegetables as the senior member of the superfood brigade?  Kale is just one of the wonderful foods that is no doubt super, but certainly not that much more super than spinach, and for some nutrients less super.  But well worth including as one of your green vegetable options as part of different coloured vegetables every week.  If you haven't tried kale before, or would like some new kale ideas, here are a few recipes from Food Daily that might encourage your intake of this versatile and nutritious vegetable: http://fooddaily.com.au/search/kale.

If you enjoyed this article please share, or have a look at the Thoughts page on my website for more nutrition articles.

Source: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/kale-great-necessarily-king-vs-spinach-rocket-lisa-middleton