4 ms·
So if there goal was to make a system that’s easy to use and understandable, I am failed to understand it; this after scanning research paper, website, etc. Fo
by O__________O 4y ago
So if there goal was to make a system that’s easy to use and understandable, I am failed to understand it; this after scanning research paper, website, etc.
For example, might be wrong, but appears they weight how nutritious item is for a single dietary goal, since to me sounds flawed; as in dietary goals and restrictions should first be picked/evaluated, then the items.
I have looked a few times at topic, spoken to nutritionist, etc - and as is, still find the topic unnecessarily confusing and clearly biased. Apps require massive amounts of personal information and restaurants & grocery stores to be feel like they’re designed to sell unhealthy foods.
__
Research Paper:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s43016-021-00381-y.epdf https://www.nature.com/articles/s43016-021-00381-y.epdf
Quick Ranking on the 8000 items:
https://sites.tufts.edu/foodcompass/research/data/ https://sites.tufts.edu/foodcompass/research/data/
Supplementary information, which list 8000 items:
https://static-content.springer.com/esm/art%3A10.1038%2Fs43016-021-00381-y/MediaObjects/43016_2021_381_MOESM1_ESM.pdf https://static-content.springer.com/esm/art%3A10.1038%2Fs430...
- O__________O 4y agoConfirmed whole-chicken-egg-cooked got a score of 52 and Lucky-Charms (American kids sugar cereal) got a 56; possible score is per food type, for example grain, protein, etc — but unclear. Got the numbers from this document: https://static-content.springer.com/esm/art%3A10.1038%2Fs43016-021-00381-y/MediaObjects/43016_2021_381_MOESM1_ESM.pdf https://static-content.springer.com/esm/art%3A10.1038%2Fs430... Sorry, but regardless of author’s intent, that makes no sense to me without explanation.