Defend the Indefensible: iceberg lettuce

because all salads are made with iceberg lettuce do u c

The nutritional composition of iceberg vs. almost any other lettuce is negligible. The waste in growing lettuce in a field (85% or higher of US lettuce is grown in Salinas, California) is astounding. Horrible agriculture.

6 gallons of water to grow a 5 oz of organic, ready to eat lettuce. And that's not counting the water used to wash it three times.

Where the fuck are people ordering all these salads that are just lettuce, cucumber and radishes?

Yeah what a strange article. Almost no salads Ive eaten have had iceberg lettuce, and even the ones mostly greens-based are heavy on the rocket and herbs and tomatoes and cheese (parm, feta).

Most "salads" I encounter are beets, chickpeas, nuts, cheeses, greens/herbs/wild leaves.

Yeah but the vast, vast majority of salads served use iceberg as the base (food service/restaurants). The most common ingredient in a salad other than iceberg lettuce is tomatoes.

The trend is galloping away from iceberg and towards ready to eat lettuces of arguably "more nutritious" varieties such as lollo/butter or other loose-leaf leafy greens. But the nutritional profile, particularly for the serving size. Several oz of any kind of lettuce has almost no nutritional value. Even a few ounces of spinach or collards or chard or kale or whatever has meager nutritional impact. People starve themselves by eating water or they use the lettuce as decoration and load up on other stuff.

I dunno, I like dark greens in a salad for their flavour (esp wild rocket). And bitter greens are sposed to be good for digestion, tho I suppose in the bowlful amounts of a salad who knows if it has much impact as you say.

I still like iceberg lettuce salads (blue cheese / walnuts / etc.) but I do not pretend that they're anything but an indulgence.

people should only eat foods with an optimal nutritional profile-to-serving size ratio