Learn Hardcore Spanish (Latin America): Puede que el brócoli no sea tan dulce como el durazno o la uva, pero alimenta más. - Broccoli may not be as sweet as peaches or grapes, but it is more nourishing.

“Puede que” literally comes from “(Es) posible que” = “It’s possible that”. In practice, it often functions like “maybe” / “it might be that”.

In Latin American Spanish it’s common and fairly neutral. You’ll also hear:

Puede ser que el brócoli… (very similar)
Es posible que el brócoli… (a bit more formal)
Tal vez / Quizás el brócoli… (also “maybe”, often with or without que)

All of these introduce uncertainty and usually trigger the subjunctive.

Why is it “no sea” and not “no es” after “Puede que”?

Because “puede que” is a trigger for the subjunctive mood.

Indicative (es) = a fact or something presented as certain.
Subjunctive (sea) = doubt, possibility, subjectivity.

“Puede que el brócoli no sea tan dulce…”
= It may be that broccoli is not as sweet… (not sure; just a possibility).

If you said “Puede que el brócoli no es tan dulce”, it would sound incorrect to most native speakers; they expect the subjunctive “sea” after “puede que”.

How does “tan … como” work in “no sea tan dulce como el durazno o la uva”?

“Tan … como” is the standard structure for equality comparisons with adjectives/adverbs, meaning “as … as”.

tan + adjective/adverb + como
- tan dulce como = as sweet as
- tan rápido como = as fast as
- tan caro como = as expensive as

So “no sea tan dulce como el durazno o la uva”
= is not as sweet as the peach or the grape.

Compare with “tanto/a/os/as … como”, which is used with nouns:

tanta azúcar como = as much sugar as
tantas uvas como = as many grapes as

Here we’re comparing the quality (sweet) of broccoli vs fruits, so “tan dulce como” is correct.

Why are “el durazno” and “la uva” singular, even though in English we’d say “peaches or grapes”?

In Spanish, using the singular with the definite article often refers to a whole category:

El durazno = the peach (as a type of fruit)
La uva = the grape (as a type of fruit)
El perro = the dog (as a species, in general)

So “el durazno o la uva” is really “peaches or grapes in general”.

Native speakers could also say:

los duraznos o las uvas (plural)
el durazno o la uva (singular generic)

Both can refer to the general kinds. The singular generic is very common in this type of contrastive sentence.

What’s the difference between “durazno” and “melocotón”?

They both mean “peach”, but they’re regional:

durazno – widely used in Latin America (e.g., Argentina, Chile, Mexico, etc.)
melocotón – standard in Spain; also understood in much of Latin America but used less.

Since you specified Latin American Spanish, “durazno” is the normal, natural choice here.

Why is it “el durazno” but “la uva”? Is there a rule?

It’s just grammatical gender, which is mostly arbitrary and must be memorized:

el durazno – masculine noun
la uva – feminine noun

Some patterns help (e.g. many nouns ending in -o are masculine, in -a feminine), but there are many exceptions, so you learn the article with the noun:

el brócoli
el durazno
la uva
la manzana
el plátano

So you should learn them as chunks: el durazno, la uva.

Why do we say “el brócoli”, “el durazno”, “la uva” with articles when we’re talking in general?

Spanish often uses the definite article to talk about things in general:

El brócoli es saludable. = Broccoli is healthy (in general).
La uva tiene mucha azúcar. = Grapes have a lot of sugar (in general).

This is different from English, which usually drops the article in general statements (“Grapes are…” not “The grapes are…” in that sense).

You could sometimes omit the article in Spanish, but in this kind of sentence, using it is more natural and sounds fully idiomatic.

What does “alimenta más” literally mean? Is it like “feeds more”?

Yes, literally “alimenta” comes from “alimentar” = “to nourish / to feed”.

In this sentence:

alimenta más ≈ it nourishes more / it is more nourishing / it is more filling / nutritious.

The direct object (“a uno / a la gente”) is understood and omitted:
It nourishes (you/people) more.

You could express the idea more explicitly with:

es más nutritivo – it is more nutritious
nutre más – it nourishes more

But “alimenta más” is perfectly natural and common.

Could you say “pero alimenta más que el durazno o la uva”? Would that sound better?

Yes, you can say:

“…pero alimenta más que el durazno o la uva.”

That would be a bit clearer and more explicit, because you’re stating the comparison fully:

alimenta más que X = nourishes more than X

In the original, “alimenta más” relies on context: it’s understood that we’re comparing broccoli with the other fruits mentioned earlier. Both versions are correct; adding “que el durazno o la uva” just makes the comparison explicit.

Why use “pero” here and not “aunque”?

Both express contrast, but they work differently.

pero = “but”, introduces a simple contrast between two statements.
- No es tan dulce, pero alimenta más.
aunque = “although / even though”, usually introduces a concession (we accept something but then say something that partially “cancels” it).

You could say:

Aunque el brócoli no es tan dulce como el durazno o la uva, alimenta más.

This basically means: Even though broccoli isn’t as sweet, it nourishes more. It sounds a bit more formal and slightly shifts the structure; the original with “pero” is more direct and conversational:

Statement A: Puede que el brócoli no sea tan dulce…
Contrast B: pero alimenta más.

Can I change it to “Aunque el brócoli no es tan dulce…” instead of “no sea” there?

Yes, with “aunque” you can use either indicative or subjunctive, depending on the nuance:

Aunque el brócoli no es tan dulce, alimenta más.
- Treats it as a known fact: Even though broccoli isn’t as sweet…
Aunque el brócoli no sea tan dulce, alimenta más.
- More hypothetical / less focused on factual truth: common in more abstract, concessive statements.

In your original sentence, though, the structure starts with “Puede que”, so it must be subjunctive:

Puede que el brócoli no sea… ✅
Puede que el brócoli no es… ❌ (ungrammatical)

What’s the difference between “puede que”, “puede ser que”, “tal vez”, and “a lo mejor”?

All express possibility / uncertainty, but with small differences:

Puede que + subjunctive
- Very common, neutral:
- Puede que el brócoli no sea tan dulce…
Puede ser que + subjunctive
- Very similar to “puede que”, maybe a bit more explicit:
- Puede ser que el brócoli no sea tan dulce…
Tal vez / Quizás + subjunctive or indicative
- With subjunctive: more doubt or formality.
- With indicative: more like a guess, often in speech.
- Tal vez el brócoli no es tan dulce… / Tal vez no sea tan dulce…
A lo mejor + indicative (in practice)
- Very colloquial and frequent in everyday Latin American Spanish:
- A lo mejor el brócoli no es tan dulce…

So, for a learner: “Puede que + subjunctive” is a good, standard pattern to master first.

Why is it “como” without an accent, not “cómo”?

cómo (with accent) is used in questions and exclamations:
- ¿Cómo estás? – How are you?
- ¡Cómo me duele! – How it hurts!
como (without accent) is used as:
- a comparison: tan dulce como – as sweet as
- “like / as”: come como un niño – he eats like a child
- “since / because” in some contexts: Como llueve, no salimos.

Here it’s part of the structure tan … como = as … as, so it never takes an accent.

Is “brócoli” always masculine? Why “el brócoli” if it doesn’t end in -o?

Yes, “brócoli” is treated as a masculine noun:

el brócoli
un brócoli
mucho brócoli

Nouns that refer to non-living things (like vegetables) don’t have a “logical” gender, so you simply learn them with their article. The fact that it ends in -i doesn’t change that; many loanwords or less typical endings just have an assigned gender:

el sushi
el kiwi
el brócoli

So you should memorize it as a single unit: el brócoli.