Ruining Broccoli: Making the "Best" the "Worst"

Broccoli is, indeed, a super vegetable.  What a nutritional profile!:  Antioxidents, calcium, protein, vitamin A, C & K, fiber --- the whole biochemical kit'n'kaboodle is fantastic.  Imagine my surprise when a vegan cook manages to take a superb no-fat mega-vegetable and transmute it into deadly pieces of cardiovascular killing shrapnel.

Over at "Super Vegan" (here), our cook dips each broccoli flowerette into Veganaise, sprinkles on some Nutritional Yeast, and then broils 'em all.  We're talking around a tablespoon of Veganaise per broccoli flowerette.  The photo of the "dish" shows 8 flowerettes.  Why is this a problem?  At 9 grams of pure fat per tablespoon/per flowerette (1 gram of saturated fat), that broccoli has been magically transformed from an incredible, essentially no-fat, and totally healthy product of nature into a total of 72 grams of artery-clogging added fat for the one serving (even at 1 teaspoon of Veganaise per flowerette (not likely), it's still a total of over 26 grams of fat per serving).

To put this into perspective:  the ENTIRE Denny's Grand Slam Breakfast (no vegetables in sight!) is around 50 grams of fat.  The guys who've, independently, reversed heart disease (Dr. Dean Ornish and Dr. Caldwell Esselstyn) recommend 14 to 24 or so grams of fat PER DAY, and even the stodgy American Heart Association recommends no more than 60 grams of fat TOTAL per day (2,000 calorie diet). That broccoli now contains around  8 grams of saturated fat which is about half what is recommended by the American Heart Association for women per day.

Wonder full, healthy, tasty, nutritionally dense, broccoli... slathered in pure non-food fat, saturated fat, and broiled.  Well over a whole day's worth of fat in a side dish.  Hardly "the best" broccoli recipe as claimed, and pretty high in the running, imho, for the absolute worst.  No longer a "super food" by any stretch of the imagination and a pretty sad example of how something so healthy (and vegan) can quickly be turned into quite the opposite.

Bleech...

Comments

[Chaz]

What is so hard about creating a tasty dish of broccoli without all of the additives? I find food in its most natural state (ok...with a little curry or some other delicious grouping of herbs) to be its best. I don't know. In good conscience, I could never take part in that nutritional yeasty, Veganaisey mess of a wonderfully healthy vegetable.

I'm with you all. I do not buy anything with added sugar, salt, or much unnecessary fat. It is so simple to me. I don't understand what these companies like McDougall are missing.

[Peter]

Why do people, particularly chefs feel so compelled to 'ruin' food that only needs to be prepared simply? I guess a blog on lightly steamed broccoli with a squeeze of lemon or lime would be perceived as a 'boring'. All too often people are convinced their dishes are healthy because the central ingredient is 'nutritious' in spite of the 'crap' they add to make it more palatable in their eyes.
I'm for keeping things simple which means sticking to whole foods as much as possible.

[J]

i agree, but it just urks me that such a health oriented company would add even 1/4th of the daily sugar recommendation for women. i won't buy things with added sugar... it would be great to have clean food EDEN ALL THE WAY!! :) too bad they don't make muesli or instant breakfast cereals, right? haha. just in terms of seeling on college campuses, these foods are a must and we have no clean options! not even mcdougall!

[vgpedlr]

Yeah the broccoli dish is a disaster, but it wasn't that long ago that I did similar things, thinking that the high nutrient vegetable overcame all the grease. In McDougall's defense, he is not as concerned with sugar as he is fat. He wrote an interesting newsletter article a year or two back explaining sugar is overly demonized. He still recommends limiting it, especially if trying to lose weight. As for his packaged foods, they are a bit high is sodium which was a compromise for taste. They do compare favorably to similar products. As I understand it, his main purpose was creating no added fat foods that would be ultra convenient to help people stay on plan in challenging circumstances. The different products vary a bit in nutritional content too.

[Thanks for the nice summation of McDougall, etc. I can understand the need to make an income (hence the products), but it's still a bit tough from an admittedly "hardcore" nutritional perspective).

Granted, too, that on a scale of "badness" fat is at the top. Whether sugar or salt is next is not something I'm qualified to judge.

I just go with concept that the "unholy trio" is to avoided and minimized in diet as much as possible. Our genetic predilection to desiring these substances has been taken advantage of by food corporations (and vegan ones, too) to the degree that an unhealthy addiction to same has been encouraged.

Appreciate your feedback! Best regards, Mark]

[whole]

another thing that disturbs me, though, is that dr. mcdougall's packaged food almost ALL includes added sugar... i am a student in college and just went to one of my campus markets, excited to see a mcdougall muesli instant cereal bowl, but it had 8 added g of sugar... why would his products be loaded with sugar just like the rest of all processed, instant american foods? UGH.

[Yeah, that's about a fourth of a day's worth of sugar for a women:

http://americanheart.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=800

McDougall justified the sodium content in that the company he worked with said people had to have it for taste. He kind of dances around the issue, although overall, I think his work is fantastic and truly ahead of it's time.

But, the food products, imho, are retro and just not a good use of money for the little nutrition they offer.

Thanks for your feedback! Best regards, Mark]