New nutritional data system

Macha

Hi guys,

Came across this article and thought some of ye might be interested:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2008/oct/22/foodanddrink-healthandwellbeing

Dr David Katz, a nutritionist and the former director of medical studies in public health at Yale University, who now runs the university's Prevention Research Centre, is the brains behind the Overall Nutritional Quality Index (ONQI), commercially known as the NuVal system. The idea is simple - the higher the score given to a foodstuff, the more nutritious it is. So, broccoli scores the highest, at 100 (as do blueberries, oranges and green beans) while ice pops and fizzy drinks get only one point. Foodstuffs score high for dense amounts of nutrients such as vitamins and protein, but lose marks if they also contain baddies including added sugar, salt, saturated or trans fats. Lobster, for example, scores lower than tinned peaches because it is fairly high in sodium and doesn't provide as much Omega 3 fats as other fish. The crackers, which score a shocking two points, are "saltine" crackers, a generic American white-flour cracker with added salt, sugar and trans fat. "Empty calories," says Katz.

The article also gives a few examples. Here are a few:

Broccoli 100
Blueberries 100
Okra 100
Orange 100
Green Beans 100
Pineapple 99
Radish 99
Summer squash 98
Apple 96
Green cabbage 96
Tomato 96
Clementine 94
Watermelon 94
Mango 93
Red onions 93
Non-fat milk 91

I might get a bit confused between this and the GI index..

rubadub

I was going to start a thread a while ago asking if there was a new system of scoring food. More for food that makes you put on fat.

The WW points system is a strange one and seems outdated to me, also the points vary in the UK & US, and prehaps others, in the way they are calculated.

This system (like WW) seems to demonise saturated fat, so one of my daily foods- coconut is way down the list at 24.

Bananas at a whopping 22% sugar and high GI are 91, while oatmeal is 88,

Diet fizzy drinks at 15, have 7.5 times more nutiritonal value than apple pie at 2, yet apples alone are 96?

Peanut butter 23, raw almonds 82, does heating really destroy so much?

hmmmm think I will look elsewhere. would like to see their forumlas though. Seems highly in favour of a high sugar diet.

Macha

Yeah, a lot of their high-scoring foods are quite high in sugar, including the fruits pinapple, watermelon, etc.

Funny, that's exactly the problem I have with WW: they obsess over fat but ignore sugar.

BTW, bought quinoa flour yesterday to make up a batch of pancakes to your recipe. I read that quinoa is the grain with the most complete protein profile. I'll let you know how I get it.

rubadub

taconnol wrote: »

BTW, bought quinoa flour yesterday to make up a batch of pancakes to your recipe. I read that quinoa is the grain with the most complete protein profile. I'll let you know how I get it.

I also use gram flour which is the traditional flour for onion bhaji. It has a GI of only 8 and high in protein.

Mine was per 100g
359kcal
protein 21.6g
carbs 54.3g
of which sugar 2.4g
fat 6.1g
of which saturates 0.9g
fibre 6.3g
sodium 0.35g

Funny, that's exactly the problem I have with WW: they obsess over fat but ignore sugar.

Yes, many people base their food selection solely on "points", in extreme cases you could have 2 meals with the exact same calorie content but one could have twice the points as the other.

Macha

rubadub wrote: »

I also use gram flour which is the traditional flour for onion bhaji. It has a GI of only 8 and high in protein.

Mine was per 100g
359kcal
protein 21.6g
carbs 54.3g
of which sugar 2.4g
fat 6.1g
of which saturates 0.9g
fibre 6.3g
sodium 0.35g

Well my bag of quinoa flour didn't have any nutritional data on it so I got it from the website..of the same name but its just for quinoa, not the flour :
100g
Calories 368
Protein 14g
Carbs 64g
of which sugar 7g
Fat 6g
of which saturates 1g
Fibre 7g
Sodium 5mg

Hmm, gram flour looks better on all fronts - but would it be OK for sweet pancakes?

christeb

It's interesting to see how low all meats score. Some fish also, but I presume that's because of toxins (scallops). Makes me happier about my pescatarian diet!

Macha

Nah, I'd say it's because oily fish tends to be high in fat...I think. There's nothing nutritionally wrong with including meat in a diet and there are plenty of lean meat options.