Beyond Counting Calories: A Food Nutrition Score

May 10, 17 6:11

Post #1 of 17 (1839 views)

Just thinking out loud a bit, I would really like to see a tool/system/application that scores food by its composite nutritional content.

Thinking beyond the athlete, but more in line for a malnourished, increasingly obese society hooked on fast food and high calorie drinks, it would be cool to devise a system that provides a "food quality" score based on the macro- and micronutrients in the food. We need to move beyond counting calories. If it's low in the bad stuff and high in the good stuff, it's a low score. Low in the good stuff but high in the bad stuff, it's a high score. 1000 calories of fast food <> 1000 calories of fresh organic produce. The closer to zero you stay in your daily eating habits, the better you ate.

I envision the score as a weighted composite, where grams of saturated fat, mg of iron, mg of sodium, grams of protein, grams of sugar, etc. are all multiplied by some factor and added/subtracted from the composite. Pretty simple in theory, but difficult in practice - defining how good or bad something is would be challenging, especially when you factor in interactions or the individual consumer (sodium intake for an endurance athlete versus someone who is morbidly obese with diabetes and high blood pressure). It's maybe something similar to the Weight Watchers point system, but open and probably factoring in a lot more nutritional detail.

Is there anything like this available?

Similarly, and maybe a little simpler, I would love to see a way to see the cost of nutrition - how can I get my desired grams of protein the cheapest? What is the most affordable way to fuel my triathlon? How much does it cost for me to eat 2,000 calories a day by eating out versus cooking at home? I often hear how it's "too expensive to eat healthy", but can we quantify that? I would think that something like MyFitnessPal could incorporate food costs into the system (based on averages of reported purchase prices) and add the output. Is there anything like that available?

I think something like this could revolutionize how we think about what we eat and how we go about eating better.

Travis Rassat
Vector Cycle Works
Noblesville, IN
BikeFit Instructor | FMS | F.I.S.T. | IBFI
Toughman Triathlon Series Ambassador

Re: Beyond Counting Calories: A Food Nutrition Score [Travis R] [ In reply to ]

May 10, 17 6:28

Post #2 of 17 (1806 views)

Dr. Furhman has a system called ANDI which ranks food this way, except the more the good stuff per calorie, the higher the number.

Re: Beyond Counting Calories: A Food Nutrition Score [Travis R] [ In reply to ]

May 10, 17 6:31

Post #3 of 17 (1795 views)

I mean, its probably not the tool that most would expect on this board, but weight watchers points are somewhat similar to this (with higher numbers being worse)... the exception is probably that it may not handle the case of "healthy fats" very well (a fat is a fat)... but a calorie is not a calorie

Re: Beyond Counting Calories: A Food Nutrition Score [Travis R] [ In reply to ]

May 10, 17 6:36

Post #4 of 17 (1786 views)

Travis R wrote:

Just thinking out loud a bit, I would really like to see a tool/system/application that scores food by its composite nutritional content.

Thinking beyond the athlete, but more in line for a malnourished, increasingly obese society hooked on fast food and high calorie drinks, it would be cool to devise a system that provides a "food quality" score based on the macro- and micronutrients in the food. We need to move beyond counting calories. If it's low in the bad stuff and high in the good stuff, it's a low score. Low in the good stuff but high in the bad stuff, it's a high score. 1000 calories of fast food <> 1000 calories of fresh organic produce. The closer to zero you stay in your daily eating habits, the better you ate.

I envision the score as a weighted composite, where grams of saturated fat, mg of iron, mg of sodium, grams of protein, grams of sugar, etc. are all multiplied by some factor and added/subtracted from the composite. Pretty simple in theory, but difficult in practice - defining how good or bad something is would be challenging, especially when you factor in interactions or the individual consumer (sodium intake for an endurance athlete versus someone who is morbidly obese with diabetes and high blood pressure). It's maybe something similar to the Weight Watchers point system, but open and probably factoring in a lot more nutritional detail.

Is there anything like this available?

Similarly, and maybe a little simpler, I would love to see a way to see the cost of nutrition - how can I get my desired grams of protein the cheapest? What is the most affordable way to fuel my triathlon? How much does it cost for me to eat 2,000 calories a day by eating out versus cooking at home? I often hear how it's "too expensive to eat healthy", but can we quantify that? I would think that something like MyFitnessPal could incorporate food costs into the system (based on averages of reported purchase prices) and add the output. Is there anything like that available?

I think something like this could revolutionize how we think about what we eat and how we go about eating better.

Any number of many food tracker web and mobile apps track nutritional value, count calories, and scores food/diet. Notwithstanding such a score for food - which isn't medically or scientifically proven, does not have much value as you need a variety of many different foods to get all the nutrients your body requires, and is based on subjective algorithms - You can track all specifics of every nutrient and see whether you have consumed too much or too little of every nutrient. In short, a scoring system isn't really needed. At the end of the day, obesity is caused by eating too many calories relative to energy expenditure. Not specifically what you eat. A healthy diet, on the other hand, where you get the proper nutrients you body needs - and independent of weight gain or loss - requires wise choices.

Last edited by: aerobike: May 10, 17 6:37

Re: Beyond Counting Calories: A Food Nutrition Score [dcohen24] [ In reply to ]

May 10, 17 6:43

Post #5 of 17 (1771 views)

dcohen24 wrote:

I mean, its probably not the tool that most would expect on this board, but weight watchers points are somewhat similar to this (with higher numbers being worse)... the exception is probably that it may not handle the case of "healthy fats" very well (a fat is a fat)... but a calorie is not a calorie

I tried WW about 10 or 12 years ago. I stopped as soon as I realized that they counted Twizzlers as having fewer points than salmon because salmon contained fat.

Re: Beyond Counting Calories: A Food Nutrition Score [happyscientist] [ In reply to ]

May 10, 17 6:48

Post #6 of 17 (1763 views)

Yeah... its changed drastically over time. (I started looking at it when I worked a company where most of the exec team came from WW)

Salmon is 1pt per ounce, twizzlers are 3.5 pts per ounce.

Re: Beyond Counting Calories: A Food Nutrition Score [hawkrunner] [ In reply to ]

May 10, 17 7:09

Post #7 of 17 (1736 views)

That's along the lines of what I was thinking - thank you for sharing that. I had failed to mention the idea of how we define a "superfood", and this helps to define that. How "super" are those "anti-oxidant rich" blueberries relative to those leafy greens?

To reply to some of the other posts, I thought Weight Watchers was similar in concept but not quite as refined, as the example of salmon versus Twizzlers indicated. It sounds like it has been refined since I had last paid any attention to it (my wife did Weight Watchers about 13 years ago).

I think that is kind of where this concept is kind of the intersection of ANDI and Weight Watchers - WW focuses on quantity with quality weighed in, while ANDI focuses on quality with no regard to quantity. That's kind of why I like the zero target (low score = high nutrition) because it would be easier for the consumer to track. If good nutrition is a high score, we would have people shooting for 10,000 or 20,000 points, with no regard for the quantity. Targeting closer to zero, with something like kale being a low score means you can eat a shitload of kale rather than a shitload of Skittles (which my wife's vegan friend lives on).

As someone else pointed out, there are already ways to do the math based on your personal needs. I guess my argument is that people are too lazy to do the math, so let's make it easy. I think we've got the tools, but we can optimize them.

Travis Rassat
Vector Cycle Works
Noblesville, IN
BikeFit Instructor | FMS | F.I.S.T. | IBFI
Toughman Triathlon Series Ambassador

Re: Beyond Counting Calories: A Food Nutrition Score [aerobike] [ In reply to ]

May 10, 17 7:21

Post #8 of 17 (1716 views)

aerobike wrote:

A healthy diet, on the other hand, where you get the proper nutrients you body needs - and independent of weight gain or loss - requires wise choices.

Where I think we can use some refinement (and maybe "evolve" is a better term than my choice of "revolutionize" in my OP) is how can we quantify those wise choices. We could eat a salad. Or ice cream. Or frozen yogurt. We might opt for frozen yogurt because "it's better than ice cream" and "I'm not really in the mood for a salad." Did we make a wise choice? Maybe wiser than ice cream, but not as wise as the salad (with 16 ounces of ranch dressing, of course!). How wise is it? It's all relative.

You and I, and many Slowtwitchers, are probably better educated and in tune with our nutritional needs than the average non-athlete currently sitting in the fast food drive-thru. Maybe we don't need a score, but maybe they do. They need the "holy shit, you mean this is 500 points?!?!" moment. Actually, I shouldn't pick on anybody and shouldn't say "they" because that certainly includes me. I'm as bad as anybody when it comes to the "oh, one little bite won't hurt" moments that turn into "oh shit, I ate the whole thing" moments...

Travis Rassat
Vector Cycle Works
Noblesville, IN
BikeFit Instructor | FMS | F.I.S.T. | IBFI
Toughman Triathlon Series Ambassador

Re: Beyond Counting Calories: A Food Nutrition Score [Travis R] [ In reply to ]

May 10, 17 7:23

Post #9 of 17 (1711 views)

Nuval, from Dr. David Katz of the Yale Griffin Prevention Research Center, may fit the bill: https://www.nuval.com/

Ale Martinez
www.amtriathlon.com

Re: Beyond Counting Calories: A Food Nutrition Score [Travis R] [ In reply to ]

May 10, 17 7:25

Post #10 of 17 (1706 views)

The most comprehensive collection of data numbers I've come across. http://nutritiondata.self.com/

@floathammerholdon | @partners_in_tri

Re: Beyond Counting Calories: A Food Nutrition Score [Travis R] [ In reply to ]

May 10, 17 8:09

Post #11 of 17 (1653 views)

Cool ideas and something similar to what I often think about. However, what I believe "we" as a modern and progressive society need is a shift in attitude from the notion that there is somehow an average or general amount of nutrients, or exercise or healthcare or whatever that is good for all of us. Working in a genetics research institute has taught me how uniquely individual most of this is, and how to truly find what is right for YOU requires a different journey than the one our traditional dieticians, coaches or doctors can provide. It also entails a lot of education on the personal side which makes the process more difficult for some. The nutrition field specifically is on the verge of some breakthroughs and paradigm shifts judging by how much interest I've seen with the companies that have approached us for genetic guidance. The fat in salmon could be very beneficial for one person and not so beneficial (or possibly deleterious) for another depending on the proteins your body makes (or doesn't make). Knowing this for yourself is where we need to be. Then we can deliver wiser nutritional advice to people.

Re: Beyond Counting Calories: A Food Nutrition Score [clogs] [ In reply to ]

May 10, 17 8:30

Post #12 of 17 (1614 views)

clogs wrote:

The most comprehensive collection of data numbers I've come across.http://nutritiondata.self.com/[/quote[/url]]

I was looking for that, but I couldn't remember exactly where I found it. Nicely done. When I realized WW was BS, I found that site. I plugged in a few things that I eat regularly, and it helped me focus on foods that were nutrionally dense and lose weight.

Re: Beyond Counting Calories: A Food Nutrition Score [Travis R] [ In reply to ]

May 10, 17 9:07

Post #13 of 17 (1564 views)

If you're thinking beyond the athlete, you're way overcomplicating things for the average joe, in my opinion. The average joe knows they're eating crap. Sometimes they fool themselves into believing it's not that crappy but deep down they know. Sure you could get a simple number to follow each day but how is this different than myfitnesspal's nutrition data tab on your diary which has it's recommended daily allowances for protein, sodium, sugar, etc. It may not be perfect but it's a good guideline for most people. I think counting calorie is a good start and the next step is really looking at nutrition. But I don't think it needs to be complicated. You risk losing people if it's too hard to comprehend. Honestly, if we're not talking athletes it's pretty straightforward and easy to follow if the person is willing to listen. way more fruits and vegetables. fish and chicken. obviously a little more complex than that but not much. even for myself being sensitive to gluten, lactose intolerant, and mild (compared to many) IBS just simplifying my diet helps tremendously. Maybe I'm underthinking it since when something like nutrition becomes too complicated that's when I know it won't work for me. I need to keep it simple and not have to think about it too much.

Re: Beyond Counting Calories: A Food Nutrition Score [clogs] [ In reply to ]

May 10, 17 9:16

Post #14 of 17 (1546 views)

clogs wrote:

The most comprehensive collection of data numbers I've come across. http://nutritiondata.self.com/

Oooh, I like this... I like the food search function.

Travis Rassat
Vector Cycle Works
Noblesville, IN
BikeFit Instructor | FMS | F.I.S.T. | IBFI
Toughman Triathlon Series Ambassador

Re: Beyond Counting Calories: A Food Nutrition Score [Russ Brandt] [ In reply to ]

May 10, 17 9:29

Post #15 of 17 (1528 views)

Russ Brandt wrote:

Cool ideas and something similar to what I often think about. However, what I believe "we" as a modern and progressive society need is a shift in attitude from the notion that there is somehow an average or general amount of nutrients, or exercise or healthcare or whatever that is good for all of us. Working in a genetics research institute has taught me how uniquely individual most of this is, and how to truly find what is right for YOU requires a different journey than the one our traditional dieticians, coaches or doctors can provide. It also entails a lot of education on the personal side which makes the process more difficult for some. The nutrition field specifically is on the verge of some breakthroughs and paradigm shifts judging by how much interest I've seen with the companies that have approached us for genetic guidance. The fat in salmon could be very beneficial for one person and not so beneficial (or possibly deleterious) for another depending on the proteins your body makes (or doesn't make). Knowing this for yourself is where we need to be. Then we can deliver wiser nutritional advice to people.

Really great thoughts, and thank you for speaking from your experience. I'm thinking this shows that there are two sides to this: Scoring the food, and then scoring the person. Those both have their pitfalls and incompatibilities, which may be why we are where we are today. For example, if you are a 160 pound 80-year-old otherwise healthy American Eskimo female whose target score is 1,000, and I am a 300 pound diabetic 35-year-old European American male whose target is also 1,000, your 1,000 points of food might still be wrong for me. But, it's potentially better than what I've been doing, but not exact. Using myself as an example, I have celiac. So, food with gluten should automatically have a score of 10,000,000 or something for me because it's essentially off limits. Without my limit, that food could very well have a score of 100 or 650 for someone who can tolerate it.

But if we can get something that works for 80% of the population, it's a step in the right direction. I guess that's Weight Watchers. I've overthunk Weight Watchers. lol!

Travis Rassat
Vector Cycle Works
Noblesville, IN
BikeFit Instructor | FMS | F.I.S.T. | IBFI
Toughman Triathlon Series Ambassador

Re: Beyond Counting Calories: A Food Nutrition Score [mickison] [ In reply to ]

May 10, 17 9:34

Post #16 of 17 (1523 views)

mickison wrote:

If you're thinking beyond the athlete, you're way overcomplicating things for the average joe, in my opinion. The average joe knows they're eating crap. Sometimes they fool themselves into believing it's not that crappy but deep down they know. Sure you could get a simple number to follow each day but how is this different than myfitnesspal's nutrition data tab on your diary which has it's recommended daily allowances for protein, sodium, sugar, etc. It may not be perfect but it's a good guideline for most people. I think counting calorie is a good start and the next step is really looking at nutrition. But I don't think it needs to be complicated. You risk losing people if it's too hard to comprehend. Honestly, if we're not talking athletes it's pretty straightforward and easy to follow if the person is willing to listen. way more fruits and vegetables. fish and chicken. obviously a little more complex than that but not much. even for myself being sensitive to gluten, lactose intolerant, and mild (compared to many) IBS just simplifying my diet helps tremendously. Maybe I'm underthinking it since when something like nutrition becomes too complicated that's when I know it won't work for me. I need to keep it simple and not have to think about it too much.

I think we're on the same page, but you're doing a better job of explaining it than I am. I might be trying for unrealistic oversimplification - I want just one number. I don't think that number can be universal, but it can be individualized to me, today. Kind of like knowing my base metabolic rate, but accounting for all the other little things in the food and specific to me.

Travis Rassat
Vector Cycle Works
Noblesville, IN
BikeFit Instructor | FMS | F.I.S.T. | IBFI
Toughman Triathlon Series Ambassador

Re: Beyond Counting Calories: A Food Nutrition Score [Travis R] [ In reply to ]

May 10, 17 10:29

Post #17 of 17 (1482 views)

Travis R wrote:

mickison wrote:

If you're thinking beyond the athlete, you're way overcomplicating things for the average joe, in my opinion. The average joe knows they're eating crap. Sometimes they fool themselves into believing it's not that crappy but deep down they know. Sure you could get a simple number to follow each day but how is this different than myfitnesspal's nutrition data tab on your diary which has it's recommended daily allowances for protein, sodium, sugar, etc. It may not be perfect but it's a good guideline for most people. I think counting calorie is a good start and the next step is really looking at nutrition. But I don't think it needs to be complicated. You risk losing people if it's too hard to comprehend. Honestly, if we're not talking athletes it's pretty straightforward and easy to follow if the person is willing to listen. way more fruits and vegetables. fish and chicken. obviously a little more complex than that but not much. even for myself being sensitive to gluten, lactose intolerant, and mild (compared to many) IBS just simplifying my diet helps tremendously. Maybe I'm underthinking it since when something like nutrition becomes too complicated that's when I know it won't work for me. I need to keep it simple and not have to think about it too much.

I think we're on the same page, but you're doing a better job of explaining it than I am. I might be trying for unrealistic oversimplification - I want just one number. I don't think that number can be universal, but it can be individualized to me, today. Kind of like knowing my base metabolic rate, but accounting for all the other little things in the food and specific to me.

I think I see what you're saying. And the one number idea is good. I have a friend who has long had this idea of some "life balance" app (probably already exists at this point) where it ends in something like what you're saying, just some number to aim for. The complexity behind that seems crazy to me. There are so many variables to consider just for the individual. I haven't even looked at myfitnesspal to see if it has the features to adjust recommended calories. It does at a basic level (active vs sedentary) but certainly not very detailed. I've been using myfitnesspal, and obviously they're just working off general guidelines but I'm mainly concerned, at this point, with getting enough calories for my training (I think that was a failure on my part last year), drinking enough water, getting enough fiber, getting enough protein. Just doing this helps reduce my IBS. During that process when I look at the nutrition page for each day's food diary things will start to stand out. RIght now it's stuff like too much sodium and too sugar (at least according to myfitnesspal). But right now, I'm focused on smaller changes and developing those eating habits over time rather than focus on it all at once. For the average person, it's hard for me to figure out what will work.

Our Partners

transition-DOT-area-AT-slowtwitch-DOT-com

Advertise with us

©1999-2024 Slowtwitch, Inc., and Slowtwitch.com
Reproduction of material from any Slowtwitch.com page
without written permission is strictly prohibited.