Question on an article from your website

[Zena]

Hi Jeff,

I was reading an article on your website titled Is Purslane A Superfood? https://www.jeffnovick.com/post/is-purslane-a-super-food

You mentioned that purslane wasn’t the richest plant source of Omega 3, but that it was the richest source out of all vegetables, including green leafy vegetables. These were the numbers from the article of what amounts were needed to reach the 1.6 g for a male:

Purslane - 12 cups - 533 gm - 85.3 calories
Chia Seeds - 1 tbsp - 9 gm - 43.7 calories
Flax Seeds - 1 tbsp - 7 gm - 37.4 calories

Curious as to how other leafy greens might compare to purslane in the omega 3 category, I whipped out my Cronometer app and entered 533 g of purslane but it came to only 0.3 g of omega 3. Huh?

I checked both chia and flax and the numbers align with what was in your article.

Is my Cronometer broken?? I can’t figure out why my numbers for purslane are so far off and it makes me wonder what else might be off. I realize that numbers from different data bases may have variations, but 0.3 g and 1.6 g seem too far apart.

For comparison, I put in Kale and saw 420 g was needed to reach 1.6 g of omega 3.
(side note: cooked kale shows as P 20% C 52% F 28% - is this correct? Raw kale shows up at 35% Fat but who eats kale raw?! )

On a completely separate note, I was looking for another article I’d bookmarked on your website but it can’t be found. Is it no longer available or was it moved somewhere else? https://jeffnovick.com/RD/Q_&_As/Entries/2013/8/27_Supplement_Recommendations_2.html

As always, many thanks for your help and excellent information!
Zena

[JeffN]

Hi Jeff,

Hi Zena!

Good to hear from you.

The article is also here and includes the references.

https://www.drmcdougallforums.com/viewt ... 8&p=505076

There is one thing I could have clarified better in the article and that is, that my comments on purslane were intended "as if," and "even if" the numbers they were using in the articles and studies were correct, But they are not.

So, I was using their numbers on purslane to make a point, not numbers from the USDA SR Database or Chronometer

Let me clarify....

You mentioned that purslane wasn’t the richest plant source of Omega 3, but that it was the richest source out of all vegetables, including green leafy vegetables.

The comments circulating at the time was that purslane is the richest source of omega 3s in all plants including vegetables and leafy greens . Even If their omega 3 numbers were true for purslane, the comments would have only been true for vegetables including leafy greens, but not true for “all” plants as chia and flax (and others) are much richer.

These were the numbers from the article of what amounts were needed to reach the 1.6 g for a male:

Purslane - 12 cups - 533 gm - 85.3 calories

That is based on their numbers as I said in the article

"Let's compare this to the amount of flax seeds, chia seeds or walnuts needed to reach the AI 1.6 for men using 300 mg/100 gm purslane. We can see that flax and chia seeds are very close in the amount they have and both are the better sources."

Chia Seeds - 1 tbsp - 9 gm - 43.7 calories
Flax Seeds - 1 tbsp - 7 gm - 37.4 calories

These are based on Cronometer.

Curious as to how other leafy greens might compare to purslane in the omega 3 category,

On average, I always say they are about .1 for 100 grams on average with some having .2

But you can double check me

I whipped out my Cronometer app and entered 533 g of purslane but it came to only 0.3 g of omega 3. Huh?

Which would be closer to my averages.

I checked both chia and flax and the numbers align with what was in your article.

Is my Cronometer broken?? I can’t figure out why my numbers for purslane are so far off and it makes me wonder what else might be off. I realize that numbers from different data bases may have variations, but 0.3 g and 1.6 g seem too far apart.

Your Chronometer is not broken.

The numbers in those studies (which were quoting each other) were wrong.

(side note: cooked kale shows as P 20% C 52% F 28% - is this correct? Raw kale shows up at 35% Fat but who eats kale raw?! )

Yes, some leafy greens are a little higher in percent fat but very low in calorie density. However, you also have to be careful where the numbers in Cronometer (and the USDA) are coming from. Not all are equally accurate.

On a completely separate note, I was looking for another article I’d bookmarked on your website but it can’t be found. Is it no longer available or was it moved somewhere else? https://jeffnovick.com/RD/Q_&_As/Entries/2013/8/27_Supplement_Recommendations_2.html

I will post a link later.

As always, many thanks for your help and excellent information!
Zena

Thank you.

[Mark Cooper]

On a completely separate note, I was looking for another article I’d bookmarked on your website but it can’t be found. Is it no longer available or was it moved somewhere else? https://jeffnovick.com/RD/Q_&_As/Entries/2013/8/27_Supplement_Recommendations_2.html

I will post a link later.

Here you go: https://www.jeffnovick.com/post/supplement-recommendations

Hope I'm not overstepping by jumping into this conversation, but I thought I could save you the trouble.

[JeffN]

On a completely separate note, I was looking for another article I’d bookmarked on your website but it can’t be found. Is it no longer available or was it moved somewhere else? https://jeffnovick.com/RD/Q_&_As/Entries/2013/8/27_Supplement_Recommendations_2.html

I will post a link later.

Here you go: https://www.jeffnovick.com/post/supplement-recommendations

Hope I'm not overstepping by jumping into this conversation, but I thought I could save you the trouble.

Nope! Thanks!

Jeff

[Zena]

Thank you for your thorough explanation, Jeff, much appreciated!

So if I’m understanding correctly, purslane is not highest green in omega 3, right? It’s not that I care so much about omega 3s (or protein, or calcium or anything others seem to worry about) because I tend to just trust the diet is giving me whatever I may need in adequate amounts (except for B12, of course). But I’ve heard that about purslane before and was curious how much higher it was than the other greens I eat regularly. When I looked at the Cronometer numbers between purslane and kale, kale wins hands down. It would take 10.5 oz of kale for me to reach my AI of 1.1, but 80 oz of purslane. In fact, I looked at other greens/veggies such as spinach, Brussel sprouts, and broccoli and they all appear higher than purslane in omega 3s, at least according to the Cronometer.

Your point about not all numbers being equal or coming from the same sources in the Cronometer is well taken as I’ve noticed that myself on occasion. But do you still consider it’s the best resource available when we want to look something up? Is there any other resource that you’d recommend?

Thanks so much, Jeff!

PS: that image of Nutella someone posted on your Facebook page was shocking. I hate to think that I used to eat that garbage by the jar once upon a time!

[Zena]

Hope I'm not overstepping by jumping into this conversation, but I thought I could save you the trouble.

Thank you, Mark! But I just realized the link is not showing the same info as I recalled. My bookmark said “This link is to Jeff Novick’s protein charts for different foods”. Now wondering if I’d accidentally saved the wrong link on my bookmark and hoping either you or Jeff know which one I’m looking for? Thank you!

[JeffN]

Thank you for your thorough explanation, Jeff, much appreciated!
So if I’m understanding correctly, purslane is not highest green in omega 3, right?

Based on the numbers in the USDA SR-Legacy and also Cronometer, I agree.

Your point about not all numbers being equal or coming from the same sources in the Cronometer is well taken as I’ve noticed that myself on occasion. But do you still consider it’s the best resource available when we want to look something up? Is there any other resource that you’d recommend?

The USDA Standard Reference (SR) used to be updated regularly but that stopped a few years ago (2019).

https://data.nal.usda.gov/dataset/usda- ... cy-release

“The USDA National Nutrient Database for Standard Reference (SR) is the major source of food composition data in the United States and provides the foundation for most food composition databases in the public and private sectors. This is the last release of the database in its current format. SR-Legacy will continue its preeminent role as a stand-alone food composition resource and will be available in the new modernized system currently under development. SR-Legacy contains data on 7,793 food items and up to 150 food components that were reported in SR28 (2015), with selected corrections and updates. This release supersedes all previous releases.”

Cronometer is still good but you have to realize which are the more reliable sources (USDA SR, NCCDB, CNF and IFCDB).

https://support.cronometer.com/hc/en-us ... ta-Sources

“we recommend choosing entries from the NCCDB (Nutrition Coordinating Center Food & Nutrient Database) or USDA SR28 (United States Department of Agriculture National Nutrient Database for Standard Reference) in the Common Foods Tab. These entries along with those found from the CNF (Canadian Nutrient File) and IFCDB (Irish Food Composition Database) have compiled results from lab analyses and research papers to provide us with a comprehensive nutrient profile. ”

Even then, the numbers are often averages of several analysis.

All of this may change as time passes.

I hope that helps!
Jeff

[JeffN]

Let’s try this one……

https://www.jeffnovick.com/post/supplem ... mendations

Jeff

[Mark Cooper]

My bookmark said “This link is to Jeff Novick’s protein charts for different foods”.

I think that is probably this one: https://www.jeffnovick.com/post/the-percentage-of-calories-from-protein-in-plant-foods

[Zena]

Thanks again, Jeff!!

And thank you as well, Mark, that was the one I was looking for with the protein charts!

[JeffN]