5 ms·

>Nutrient density per calorie is the magic formula. High nutrient density, high ANDI scores. The "magic formula" is the problem. There are many approaches to

by alexpw 10y ago

>Nutrient density per calorie is the magic formula. High nutrient density, high ANDI scores. The "magic formula" is the problem. There are many approaches to nutrient density scoring and ANDI is among those horribly flawed. Why? I'll defer to someone credible: > According to the explanation of this ranking system posted on Fuhrman’s web site, he also excludes a number of other important nutrients. The B vitamins biotin and pantothenic acid, preformed vitamin A, and vitamins K1 and K2 are among those absent. Major minerals such as sodium, chloride, potassium, sulfur, and phosphorus are excluded. Essential trace minerals such as copper, manganese, boron, molybdenum, and chromium are nowhere to be found in Fuhrman’s list. Essential fatty acids like EPA, DHA and arachidonic acid are likewise absent. Finally, none of the eight essential amino acids is included in his ranking system. - Chris Masterjohn, PhD Nutritional Sciences [1] A bit suspect to exclude essential nutrients from a nutrient score. He also doubles the ORAC (antioxidant) importance, when including ORAC at all is very controversial. Please read [1] for the rest. A more objective formula [2] will always include organ meats, like liver, at the top. A serving of liver is practically a multi-vitamin and if consumed daily will cause an overdose of vitamin A very quickly. [1] http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:WLAXWpGUX3YJ:www.westonaprice.org/book-reviews/eat-to-live-by-joel-fuhrman/&num=1&hl=en&gl=us&strip=1&vwsrc=0 http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:WLAXWpG... [2] http://ketopia.com/nutrient-density-sticking-to-the-essentials-mathieu-lalonde-ahs12/ http://ketopia.com/nutrient-density-sticking-to-the-essentia...

szemet 10y ago
That's my experience too. When I was a student I have made a linear programming excercise just for fun: to find foodsets with all the required daily nutritions at cheapest price Basically chicken liver was IT, just a few hundred gramms per day and nearly all requirements are fulfilled. When I've disabled liver, then came some diets much harder to realize: with elements such as 4 kg of oranges a day :)
- DeBraid 10y ago
  Organ meats are under-appreciated in terms of their nutrient value. When wild animals kill prey they eat the organs first, then move on to the less nutritious muscle meat.
  - antisthenes 10y ago
    Humans did that too in the hunter-gatherer days. Especially when killing bigger prey, some organs were consumed by the hunters on the spot to compensate for calories lost hunting(liver/brains/heart?) and the rest of the meat was brought back to the tribe.
DeBraid 10y ago
Appreciate the critical evaluation of ANDI, as no 1 metric is perfect. I find it a useful guide for plants since it ranks leafy greens and vegetables above fruits (most people who go plant-based are prone to over-eat fruits, under-eat veges, because sweet is preferred to bitter). You point out there are many other options -- like organ meats -- which have robust nutrient profiles but do not score high on ANDI.
oceanghost 10y ago
I did the Fuhrman diet for the better part of the year. It was so labor intensive-- cooking+shopping was essentially a full-time job. I will admit to feeling much much better on the diet and losing weight, but there are intractable problems with the diet. It got to the point that I hated the food so much that I simply skipped meals when I prepared food and threw away anything my wife made. I remember crying-- and Im not kidding-- at work over some soggy lettuce wrapped bullshit that, I just couldn't stand anymore. I didn't cry when I snapped my ankle in half or when my grandparents passed. I didn't cry when my wife left me or my father was diagnosed with terminal cancer... but Furhman's diet-- wore me down to nothing. It's a one size fits all solution, with no allowances for individual tastes or nutritional needs. Ultimately the advice is driven by an ideology rather than science. Small changes to the diet would make the food vastly more palatable (namely more oils) and not comprise its integrity... but ideology is inflexible.

by alexpw 10y ago

szemet 10y ago

That's my experience too. When I was a student I have made a linear programming excercise just for fun: to find foodsets with all the required daily nutritions at cheapest price Basically chicken liver was IT, just a few hundred gramms per day and nearly all requirements are fulfilled. When I've disabled liver, then came some diets much harder to realize: with elements such as 4 kg of oranges a day :)

DeBraid 10y ago
Organ meats are under-appreciated in terms of their nutrient value. When wild animals kill prey they eat the organs first, then move on to the less nutritious muscle meat.
- antisthenes 10y ago
  Humans did that too in the hunter-gatherer days. Especially when killing bigger prey, some organs were consumed by the hunters on the spot to compensate for calories lost hunting(liver/brains/heart?) and the rest of the meat was brought back to the tribe.

DeBraid 10y ago

Appreciate the critical evaluation of ANDI, as no 1 metric is perfect. I find it a useful guide for plants since it ranks leafy greens and vegetables above fruits (most people who go plant-based are prone to over-eat fruits, under-eat veges, because sweet is preferred to bitter). You point out there are many other options -- like organ meats -- which have robust nutrient profiles but do not score high on ANDI.

oceanghost 10y ago

I did the Fuhrman diet for the better part of the year. It was so labor intensive-- cooking+shopping was essentially a full-time job. I will admit to feeling much much better on the diet and losing weight, but there are intractable problems with the diet. It got to the point that I hated the food so much that I simply skipped meals when I prepared food and threw away anything my wife made. I remember crying-- and Im not kidding-- at work over some soggy lettuce wrapped bullshit that, I just couldn't stand anymore. I didn't cry when I snapped my ankle in half or when my grandparents passed. I didn't cry when my wife left me or my father was diagnosed with terminal cancer... but Furhman's diet-- wore me down to nothing. It's a one size fits all solution, with no allowances for individual tastes or nutritional needs. Ultimately the advice is driven by an ideology rather than science. Small changes to the diet would make the food vastly more palatable (namely more oils) and not comprise its integrity... but ideology is inflexible.