One to a hundred.
I think it was made up by Vegans For Life and the British Fish Board.

http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20180126-the-100-most-nutritious-foods

I’ll stand corrected but I don’t think eggs, milk or meat made it into the top 100
It’s an insult to our intelligence.

Peak Warming Man said:

One to a hundred.
I think it was made up by Vegans For Life and the British Fish Board.

http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20180126-the-100-most-nutritious-foods

I’ll stand corrected but I don’t think eggs, milk or meat made it into the top 100
It’s an insult to our intelligence.

tons of fish – white meat

Arts said:

Peak Warming Man said:

One to a hundred.
I think it was made up by Vegans For Life and the British Fish Board.

http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20180126-the-100-most-nutritious-foods

I’ll stand corrected but I don’t think eggs, milk or meat made it into the top 100
It’s an insult to our intelligence.

tons of fish – white meat

and roe – technically an egg :)

Arts said:

Arts said:

Peak Warming Man said:

One to a hundred.
I think it was made up by Vegans For Life and the British Fish Board.

http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20180126-the-100-most-nutritious-foods

I’ll stand corrected but I don’t think eggs, milk or meat made it into the top 100
It’s an insult to our intelligence.

tons of fish – white meat

and roe – technically an egg :)

and pork fat is there too…

I’m going to read the paper to see what the nutritional score actually means. Spinach is on there twice but then I read the disclaimer –

Clarification: Spinach appears twice in the list (45 and 24) because the way it is prepared affects its nutritional value. Raw spinach can lose some nutritional value if stored at room temperature, and ranks lower than eating spinach that has been frozen, for instance.

Arts said:

Arts said:

Arts said:

tons of fish – white meat

and roe – technically an egg :)

and pork fat is there too…

I’m going to read the paper to see what the nutritional score actually means. Spinach is on there twice but then I read the disclaimer –

Clarification: Spinach appears twice in the list (45 and 24) because the way it is prepared affects its nutritional value. Raw spinach can lose some nutritional value if stored at room temperature, and ranks lower than eating spinach that has been frozen, for instance.

Next to Scallops there’s a photo of a vegetable, it’s African cucumber.
I know this because it’s growing on vines down at the river and it tastes like crap.

Peak Warming Man said:

Arts said:

Arts said:

and roe – technically an egg :)

and pork fat is there too…

I’m going to read the paper to see what the nutritional score actually means. Spinach is on there twice but then I read the disclaimer –

Clarification: Spinach appears twice in the list (45 and 24) because the way it is prepared affects its nutritional value. Raw spinach can lose some nutritional value if stored at room temperature, and ranks lower than eating spinach that has been frozen, for instance.

Next to Scallops there’s a photo of a vegetable, it’s African cucumber.
I know this because it’s growing on vines down at the river and it tastes like crap.

yes, I noticed the infographic just seemed to find some random pictures, except for the almonds atnumber one (sorry spoiler)

Peak Warming Man said:

One to a hundred.
I think it was made up by Vegans For Life and the British Fish Board.

http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20180126-the-100-most-nutritious-foods

This really is a pointless exercise, and seemingly one based in ignorance.

They say “Imagine the ideal food. One that contains all the nutrients necessary to meet, but not exceed, our daily nutrient demands. … Such a food does not exist, but we can do the next best thing, and eat a small number of foods that are best able to meet our nutritional needs.”

This is seriously flawed thinking and betrays a lack of understanding of combinations. We can design a diet that meets, but does not exceed, all requirements but it will involve items outside the top ten of this list, and and will not necessarily involve a “small number of foods”.

I’ll stand corrected but I don’t think eggs, milk or meat made it into the top 100 It’s an insult to our intelligence.

There’s no dairy or eggs in there. There are several kinds of seafood as well as “pork fat”.

“At the end, we assign NF = log(f+1)/log(N+1) to each food, where f is the number of irreducible food sets that include the food, and N is the number of all irreducible food sets. An irreducible food set is defined as a set of different foods that satisfies the following two conditions: it meets our daily nutrient demands in its entirety, and no set is a superset of another set. We limit the number of different foods in each irreducible food set and the total weight of foods therein (Materials and Methods section). A large NF suggests that the food is nutritionally favorable. “

dv said:

Peak Warming Man said:

One to a hundred.
I think it was made up by Vegans For Life and the British Fish Board.

http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20180126-the-100-most-nutritious-foods

This really is a pointless exercise, and seemingly one based in ignorance.

They say “Imagine the ideal food. One that contains all the nutrients necessary to meet, but not exceed, our daily nutrient demands. … Such a food does not exist, but we can do the next best thing, and eat a small number of foods that are best able to meet our nutritional needs.”

This is seriously flawed thinking and betrays a lack of understanding of combinations. We can design a diet that meets, but does not exceed, all requirements but it will involve items outside the top ten of this list, and and will not necessarily involve a “small number of foods”.

I’ll stand corrected but I don’t think eggs, milk or meat made it into the top 100 It’s an insult to our intelligence.

There’s no dairy or eggs in there. There are several kinds of seafood as well as “pork fat”.

pointless? tell that to any producer that is on the list.. people are going to flock to their products…

Also: note that except for the enthalpy providers (protein, fat, carbohydrates), there’s usually no problem with receiving an excess of nutrients. No one ever died from receiving twice their daily requirement of zinc or vitamin C.

anyway.. the paper is here for anyone wanting to read it… I skimmed it only

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0118697#sec001

dv said:

Also: note that except for the enthalpy providers (protein, fat, carbohydrates), there’s usually no problem with receiving an excess of nutrients. No one ever died from receiving twice their daily requirement of zinc or vitamin C.

You’re just shitty because pears aren’t in there.

Arts said:

“At the end, we assign NF = log(f+1)/log(N+1) to each food, where f is the number of irreducible food sets that include the food, and N is the number of all irreducible food sets. An irreducible food set is defined as a set of different foods that satisfies the following two conditions: it meets our daily nutrient demands in its entirety, and no set is a superset of another set. We limit the number of different foods in each irreducible food set and the total weight of foods therein (Materials and Methods section). A large NF suggests that the food is nutritionally favorable. “

Reading that gave me a nosebleed.

Peak Warming Man said:

dv said:

Also: note that except for the enthalpy providers (protein, fat, carbohydrates), there’s usually no problem with receiving an excess of nutrients. No one ever died from receiving twice their daily requirement of zinc or vitamin C.

You’re just shitty because pears aren’t in there.

I’m shitty because I eat so many pears … honestly, it’s like pulp wrapped in sandpaper.

Nah.

Number 1 should be raw liver, eg. Liverworst.
High up the list should be fungi and fungi products (eg. Vegmite).

Witty Rejoinder said:

Arts said:

“At the end, we assign NF = log(f+1)/log(N+1) to each food, where f is the number of irreducible food sets that include the food, and N is the number of all irreducible food sets. An irreducible food set is defined as a set of different foods that satisfies the following two conditions: it meets our daily nutrient demands in its entirety, and no set is a superset of another set. We limit the number of different foods in each irreducible food set and the total weight of foods therein (Materials and Methods section). A large NF suggests that the food is nutritionally favorable. “

Reading that gave me a nosebleed.

Me too…and I see it was published in March 2015. It would seem it has had a huge influence of food science since then…

buffy said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

Arts said:

“At the end, we assign NF = log(f+1)/log(N+1) to each food, where f is the number of irreducible food sets that include the food, and N is the number of all irreducible food sets. An irreducible food set is defined as a set of different foods that satisfies the following two conditions: it meets our daily nutrient demands in its entirety, and no set is a superset of another set. We limit the number of different foods in each irreducible food set and the total weight of foods therein (Materials and Methods section). A large NF suggests that the food is nutritionally favorable. “

Reading that gave me a nosebleed.

Me too…and I see it was published in March 2015. It would seem it has had a huge influence of food science since then…

The concept is straightforward, and interesting I suppose but not actually useful in the way that the BBC article is presenting it.

I was just interested in how they came to the nutritional score.

Rather than being negative, let me propose some more meaningful questions to ask …

What is the smallest number of foods that can meet but not exceed daily energy, protein and fat requirements, and also meet OR exceed other nutritional requirements?

What is the cheapest set of foods that can meet but not exceed daily energy, protein and fat requirements, and also meet OR exceed other nutritional requirements?

dv said:

Rather than being negative, let me propose some more meaningful questions to ask …

What is the smallest number of foods that can meet but not exceed daily energy, protein and fat requirements, and also meet OR exceed other nutritional requirements?

What is the cheapest set of foods that can meet but not exceed daily energy, protein and fat requirements, and also meet OR exceed other nutritional requirements?

Too broad. There are far too many foodstuffs in the world to do anything meaningful with that.

buffy said:

dv said:

Rather than being negative, let me propose some more meaningful questions to ask …

What is the smallest number of foods that can meet but not exceed daily energy, protein and fat requirements, and also meet OR exceed other nutritional requirements?

What is the cheapest set of foods that can meet but not exceed daily energy, protein and fat requirements, and also meet OR exceed other nutritional requirements?

Too broad. There are far too many foodstuffs in the world to do anything meaningful with that.

Although there are many foodstuffs in the world, in any particular location, only a few thousand will be cheap and readily available.

This bit of the paper actually makes sense.

“Suppose a hypothetical scenario wherein an ideal food contains all necessary nutrients to meet, but not exceed, our daily nutrient demands. In this case, consuming only this food, without any other food, will provide the optimal nutritional balance for our body. In the absence of such a prime, ideal food, a realistic alternative would be to consume a set of foods, small in number, that still satisfies nutritional recommendations (in fact, we find that the minimum set consists of four different raw foods.)”

However, they randomly assign each essential nutrient a value of good or bad, when they’re all good.

In addition, I notice that all fish must be eaten raw.

dv said:

buffy said:

dv said:

Rather than being negative, let me propose some more meaningful questions to ask …

What is the smallest number of foods that can meet but not exceed daily energy, protein and fat requirements, and also meet OR exceed other nutritional requirements?

What is the cheapest set of foods that can meet but not exceed daily energy, protein and fat requirements, and also meet OR exceed other nutritional requirements?

Too broad. There are far too many foodstuffs in the world to do anything meaningful with that.

Although there are many foodstuffs in the world, in any particular location, only a few thousand will be cheap and readily available.

potatoes…

poikilotherm said:

dv said:

buffy said:

Too broad. There are far too many foodstuffs in the world to do anything meaningful with that.

Although there are many foodstuffs in the world, in any particular location, only a few thousand will be cheap and readily available.

potatoes…

The tilapia and sweet potato plan was in response to a different question: what diet would require the smallest land area per person.

Have just scrolled through really quickly and a few things appear twice. Parsley and dried parsley. Chillis and dried chillis for example. So many similar things too, like paprika and cayenne pepper.

What, no Spam?

poikilotherm said:

dv said:

buffy said:

Too broad. There are far too many foodstuffs in the world to do anything meaningful with that.

Although there are many foodstuffs in the world, in any particular location, only a few thousand will be cheap and readily available.

potatoes…

And you can survive on spuds. Try surviving on parsely.

sarahs mum said:

poikilotherm said:

dv said:

Although there are many foodstuffs in the world, in any particular location, only a few thousand will be cheap and readily available.

potatoes…

And you can survive on spuds. Try surviving on parsely.

lol

Peak Warming Man said:

sarahs mum said:

poikilotherm said:

potatoes…

And you can survive on spuds. Try surviving on parsely.

lol

sage

sarahs mum said:

poikilotherm said:

dv said:

Although there are many foodstuffs in the world, in any particular location, only a few thousand will be cheap and readily available.

potatoes…

And you can survive on spuds. Try surviving on parsely.

But you wouldn’t be all that healthy on either.

buffy said:

sarahs mum said:

poikilotherm said:

potatoes…

And you can survive on spuds. Try surviving on parsely.

But you wouldn’t be all that healthy on either.

There was that bit in history where the English bought the cheapest food available for those imprisoned at Fort William. Potatoes and herrings. After a few months they discovered the people on the inside of the gaol were healthier than the townsfolk.

sarahs mum said:

buffy said:

sarahs mum said:

And you can survive on spuds. Try surviving on parsely.

But you wouldn’t be all that healthy on either.

There was that bit in history where the English bought the cheapest food available for those imprisoned at Fort William. Potatoes and herrings. After a few months they discovered the people on the inside of the gaol were healthier than the townsfolk.

Potatoes and herring aren’t quite sweet potato and tilapia but I’ll give it a tick.

As you might well know, the nutrition of millions of British people improved during the rationing of WW2, as for the first time they were guaranteed a complete healthy diet.

dv said:

sarahs mum said:

buffy said:

But you wouldn’t be all that healthy on either.

There was that bit in history where the English bought the cheapest food available for those imprisoned at Fort William. Potatoes and herrings. After a few months they discovered the people on the inside of the gaol were healthier than the townsfolk.

Potatoes and herring aren’t quite sweet potato and tilapia but I’ll give it a tick.

As you might well know, the nutrition of millions of British people improved during the rationing of WW2, as for the first time they were guaranteed a complete healthy diet.

The good side of Hilter.

It seems a shame to eat the pig skin and throw the rest of the pig away.

sarahs mum said:

It seems a shame to eat the pig skin and throw the rest of the pig away.

I wonder where pacarana flesh comes on this list.

dv said:

Also: note that except for the enthalpy providers (protein, fat, carbohydrates), there’s usually no problem with receiving an excess of nutrients. No one ever died from receiving twice their daily requirement of zinc or vitamin C.

Twice the daily requirement of zinc wouldn’t be big.
But people have died from excesses of vitamin A

Peak Warming Man said:

One to a hundred.
I think it was made up by Vegans For Life and the British Fish Board.

http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20180126-the-100-most-nutritious-foods

I’ll stand corrected but I don’t think eggs, milk or meat made it into the top 100
It’s an insult to our intelligence.

Vegemite is not on the list either.

Arts said:

“At the end, we assign NF = log(f+1)/log(N+1) to each food, where f is the number of irreducible food sets that include the food, and N is the number of all irreducible food sets. An irreducible food set is defined as a set of different foods that satisfies the following two conditions: it meets our daily nutrient demands in its entirety, and no set is a superset of another set. We limit the number of different foods in each irreducible food set and the total weight of foods therein (Materials and Methods section). A large NF suggests that the food is nutritionally favorable. “

i guess in the end they end up with NFI

Woodie said:

Peak Warming Man said:

One to a hundred.
I think it was made up by Vegans For Life and the British Fish Board.

http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20180126-the-100-most-nutritious-foods

I’ll stand corrected but I don’t think eggs, milk or meat made it into the top 100
It’s an insult to our intelligence.

Vegemite is not on the list either.

I said that, I think. It was a better product when it contained beer.

Arts said:

anyway.. the paper is here for anyone wanting to read it… I skimmed it only

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0118697#sec001

OK, time to look at the appendices to the paper, that contain all the real information.

This is what they looked at – all raw – 654 products in all

They have some weird “nutritional fitness” scores for each. I don’t see why “raw Atlantic perch” should score 0.89 when “raw yellowfin tuna” gets 0.14 and “raw skipjack tuna” gets 0.07 and “raw turkey meat” scores 0.00.

Also strange “nutritional fitness” scores include “table salt” at 0.40.

Table salt has a much higher nutritional fitness than tuna and turkey! I don’t think so.

So let’s look the second appendix and “bottleneck nutrients”. The table seems to make no sense. Somebody other than me will have to work out the meaning of “bottleneck nutrients” as described in Table C of Appendix 1.

“Niacin” seems missing from most of the high “nutritional fitness” foods on the list, especially fisk and shellfish. Low fat milk has too low a cholesterol and niacin level. Pork and many fruits are low in manganese.

Back to Appendix 1, section 4, on the calculation of “nutritional fitness”.

“To calculate the nutritional fitness (NF) of each food, we start by constructing irreducible food sets;each is aset of a small number of different foods. These foods satisfy our daily nutrient demands, and they are not a superset of any other irreducible food set.”

“In this study, we only considered food sets that each contain 4 to 6 different foods. The final collection comprises all irreducible food sets, 20,476 sets in total.”

OK, so the NF is the log of the number of irreducible food sets containing that food.

I think their calculator slipped a cog.

mollwollfumble said:

Woodie said:

Peak Warming Man said:

One to a hundred.
I think it was made up by Vegans For Life and the British Fish Board.

http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20180126-the-100-most-nutritious-foods

I’ll stand corrected but I don’t think eggs, milk or meat made it into the top 100
It’s an insult to our intelligence.

Vegemite is not on the list either.

I said that, I think. It was a better product when it contained beer.

Arts said:

anyway.. the paper is here for anyone wanting to read it… I skimmed it only

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0118697#sec001

OK, time to look at the appendices to the paper, that contain all the real information.

This is what they looked at – all raw – 654 products in all

They have some weird “nutritional fitness” scores for each. I don’t see why “raw Atlantic perch” should score 0.89 when “raw yellowfin tuna” gets 0.14 and “raw skipjack tuna” gets 0.07 and “raw turkey meat” scores 0.00.

Also strange “nutritional fitness” scores include “table salt” at 0.40.

Table salt has a much higher nutritional fitness than tuna and turkey! I don’t think so.

So let’s look the second appendix and “bottleneck nutrients”. The table seems to make no sense. Somebody other than me will have to work out the meaning of “bottleneck nutrients” as described in Table C of Appendix 1.

“Niacin” seems missing from most of the high “nutritional fitness” foods on the list, especially fisk and shellfish. Low fat milk has too low a cholesterol and niacin level. Pork and many fruits are low in manganese.

Back to Appendix 1, section 4, on the calculation of “nutritional fitness”.

“To calculate the nutritional fitness (NF) of each food, we start by constructing irreducible food sets;each is aset of a small number of different foods. These foods satisfy our daily nutrient demands, and they are not a superset of any other irreducible food set.”

“In this study, we only considered food sets that each contain 4 to 6 different foods. The final collection comprises all irreducible food sets, 20,476 sets in total.”

OK, so the NF is the log of the number of irreducible food sets containing that food.

I think their calculator slipped a cog.

All raw fish has negative nutritional value for me. Eat the fish, throw up, lose entire previous meal.

mollwollfumble said:

Woodie said:

Peak Warming Man said:

One to a hundred.
I think it was made up by Vegans For Life and the British Fish Board.

http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20180126-the-100-most-nutritious-foods

I’ll stand corrected but I don’t think eggs, milk or meat made it into the top 100
It’s an insult to our intelligence.

Vegemite is not on the list either.

I said that, I think. It was a better product when it contained beer.

Arts said:

anyway.. the paper is here for anyone wanting to read it… I skimmed it only

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0118697#sec001

They have some weird “nutritional fitness” scores for each. I don’t see why “raw Atlantic perch” should score 0.89 when “raw yellowfin tuna” gets 0.14 and “raw skipjack tuna” gets 0.07 and “raw turkey meat” scores 0.00.

See how long you last eating raw turkey meat…

like raw fish. gotta be really fresh and with nice sauces. and numus is pretty nice too.

Also note that this study was not looking at forum nutrient demands…

“In this study, we consider the nutrient demands for a physically active 20-year-old male with standard height and weight”

standard height and weight

For which ethnic group?

buffy said:

standard height and weight

For which ethnic group?

Cockneys.

poikilotherm said:

Also note that this study was not looking at forum nutrient demands…

“In this study, we consider the nutrient demands for a physically active 20-year-old male with standard height and weight”

a spherical physically active 20-year old of SHW.

It’s a bit ludicrous including something like ginger – which is usually used as a flavouring, in amounts too small to be of any nutritional consequence – while leaving out highly nutritious foods like lean red meat.

buffy said:

standard height and weight

For which ethnic group?

The only important one…

Published: March 13, 2015

seems in the age of the twit everyone’s a bit slow on the uptake…

poikilotherm said:

Published: March 13, 2015

seems in the age of the twit everyone’s a bit slow on the uptake…

I did point out the publication date yesterday or the day before…in this thread.

(Can you tell I haven’t logged off yet?)