User talk:Rweaver: Difference between revisions
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
Hello [[User:Rweaver|Rweaver]]: I do understand your comment about taking water content into account when considering the nutritional value of [[amaranth]]. But for consistency of comparisons, nutrient content is expressed per 100 grams of food consumed, even if it contains water. For this reason, it is valid to discuss uncooked vs. cooked amaranth. We could construct a separate table for cooked, [http://ndb.nal.usda.gov/ndb/foods/show/6474?fg=&man=&lfacet=&count=&max=&sort=&qlookup=&offset=&format=Full&new=&measureby= using this data set], but I didn't bother to add it because the Conde Nast website offers a simple presentation of the same data. We can discuss here if you like as I'm watching this talk page now. --[[User:Zefr|Zefr]] ([[User talk:Zefr|talk]]) 04:47, 12 January 2016 (UTC) |
Hello [[User:Rweaver|Rweaver]]: I do understand your comment about taking water content into account when considering the nutritional value of [[amaranth]]. But for consistency of comparisons, nutrient content is expressed per 100 grams of food consumed, even if it contains water. For this reason, it is valid to discuss uncooked vs. cooked amaranth. We could construct a separate table for cooked, [http://ndb.nal.usda.gov/ndb/foods/show/6474?fg=&man=&lfacet=&count=&max=&sort=&qlookup=&offset=&format=Full&new=&measureby= using this data set], but I didn't bother to add it because the Conde Nast website offers a simple presentation of the same data. We can discuss here if you like as I'm watching this talk page now. --[[User:Zefr|Zefr]] ([[User talk:Zefr|talk]]) 04:47, 12 January 2016 (UTC) |
||
Your description of nutrient content is misleading, and would apply to any |
@[[User:Zefr|Zefr]]: Your description of nutrient content is misleading, and would apply equally to any bean or grain product. Nutrient content is expressed per 100g only because it's easy; nutrient content per serving is what's actually useful, and that hardly changes at all for cooked vs. dry amaranth. I've reworked the section to base it on a serving, and updated the reference. [[User:Rweaver|Rweaver]] ([[User talk:Rweaver#top|talk]]) 00:53, 5 February 2016 (UTC) |
||
Latest revision as of 00:54, 5 February 2016
Amaranth nutrient content
[edit]Hello Rweaver: I do understand your comment about taking water content into account when considering the nutritional value of amaranth. But for consistency of comparisons, nutrient content is expressed per 100 grams of food consumed, even if it contains water. For this reason, it is valid to discuss uncooked vs. cooked amaranth. We could construct a separate table for cooked, using this data set, but I didn't bother to add it because the Conde Nast website offers a simple presentation of the same data. We can discuss here if you like as I'm watching this talk page now. --Zefr (talk) 04:47, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
@Zefr: Your description of nutrient content is misleading, and would apply equally to any bean or grain product. Nutrient content is expressed per 100g only because it's easy; nutrient content per serving is what's actually useful, and that hardly changes at all for cooked vs. dry amaranth. I've reworked the section to base it on a serving, and updated the reference. Rweaver (talk) 00:53, 5 February 2016 (UTC)