Our Verdict

When comparing parsley to spinach, we picked the parsley.

Why?

First of all, writer’s anecdote: today’s choice brought to you by a real decision here in my household! You see, a certain dish I sometimes prepare (it’s just a wrap-based dish, nothing fancy) requires a greenery component, and historically I’ve used kale or spinach. Of those two, I prefer kale while my son, who lives (and dines) with me, prefers spinach. However, we both like parsley equally, so I’m going to use that today. But I was curious about how it performed nutritionally, hence today’s comparison!

Ok, now for the stats…

In terms of macros, the only difference is that parsley has more fiber and carbs, for an approximately equal glycemic index, so we’ll go with the one with the highest total fiber, which is parsley.

In the category of vitamins, parsley has more of vitamins B3, B5, B7, B9, C, and K, while spinach has more of vitamins A, B2, B6, E, and choline. So, a marginal 6:5 win for parsley (and in the margins of difference are also in parsley’s favor, for example parsley has 13x the vitamin C, and 2x or 3x the other vitamins it won with, while spinach boasts 2x for some vitamins, and only 1.2x or 1.5x the others).

When it comes to minerals, parsley has more iron, phosphorus, potassium, and zinc, while spinach has more copper, magnesium, manganese, and selenium. So, a 4:4 tie on these.

In terms of phytochemicals, parsley has a much higher polyphenol content (that’s good) while spinach has a much higher oxalate content (that’s neutral for most people, but bad if you have certain kidney problems). So, another win for parsley.

Adding up the sections makes a clear overall win for parsley, but by all means enjoy either or both, unless you are avoiding oxalates, in which case, the oxalates in spinach can be reduced by cooking, but honestly, for most dishes you might as well just pick a different greens option (like parsley, or collard greens if you want something closer to the culinary experience of eating spinach).

Want to learn more?

You might like:

Invigorating Sabzi Khordan ← another great way to enjoy parsley as main ingredient rather than just a seasoning

Enjoy!

Our Verdict

When comparing oranges to lemons, we picked the oranges.

Why?

In the battle of these popular citrus fruits, there is a clear winner on the nutritional front.

Things were initially promising for lemons when looking at the macros—lemons have a little more fiber while oranges are slightly higher in carbs, but the differences are small and both are very healthy in this regard.

However, alas for this writer who prefers sour fruits to sweet ones (I’m sweet enough already), the micronutrient profiles tell a different story:

In terms of vitamins, oranges have more of vitamins A, B1, B2, B3, B5, B9, E, and choline. In contrast, lemons have a (very) little more vitamin B6. You might be wondering about vitamin C, since both fruits are famous for that—they’re equal on vitamin C. But, with that stack we listed above, oranges clearly win the vitamin category easily.

As for minerals, oranges boast more calcium, copper, magnesium, potassium, selenium, and zinc, while lemons have more iron, manganese, and phosphorus.

Technically lemons also have more sodium, but the numbers are truly miniscule (by coincidence, we discover upon grabbing a calculator, you’d need to eat approximately your own bodyweight in whole lemons to get to the RDA of sodium—and that’s to reach the RDA, not the upper healthy limit) so we’ll overlook the tiny sodium difference as irrelevant. Which means, while closer than the vitamins category, oranges win on minerals with a 6:3 lead over lemons.

Both fruits offer generous helpings of flavonoids and other polyphenols such as naringenin and hesperidin, which have anti-inflammatory properties and more specifically can also reduce allergy symptoms (unless, of course, you are allergic to citrus fruits, which is a relatively rare but extant allergy).

In short: as ever, enjoy both; diversity is great for the health. But if you want to maximize the nutrients you get, it’s oranges.

Want to learn more?

You might like to read:

Lemons vs Limes – Which is Healthier?

Take care!

Our Verdict

When comparing red bell peppers to tomatoes, we picked the peppers.

Why?

In terms of macronutrients, these two fruits-that-get-used-as-vegetables are similar in most respects; they’re mostly water, negligible protein and fat, similar amounts of carbs, even a similar carb breakdown (mostly fructose and glucose). One thing that does set them apart is that peppers* have about 2x the fiber, which difference results in peppers having the lower Glycemic Index—though tomatoes are quite low in GI too.

*for brevity we’re just going to write “peppers”, but we are still talking about sweet red bell peppers throughout. This is important, as different color peppers have different nutrient profiles.

In the category of vitamins, peppers have much more of vitamins A, B1, B2, B3, B5, B6, B9, C, and E. In contrast, tomatoes have more vitamin K. An easy win for peppers.

When it comes to minerals, the margins are narrower, but peppers have more iron, zinc, and selenium, while tomatoes have more calcium and copper. They’re approximately equal on other minerals they both contain, making this category a slight (3:2) win for peppers.

As for phytochemical benefits, both are good sources of lycopene (both better when cooked) and other carotenes (for example lutein), and both have an array of assorted flavonoids.

All in all, a win for peppers, but both are great!

Want to learn more?

You might like to read:

• Brain Food? The Eyes Have It!
• Bell Peppers: A Spectrum Of Specialties
• Lycopene’s Benefits For The Gut, Heart, Brain, & More

Take care!