Discussion Board

I liked someone's explanation that you also need to think about what may be detrimental about a given food. If nonfat skim milk (ANDI score 36) has a protein that promotes cancer, and tofu (ANDI score 37) doesn't, maybe the two foods are not as equivalent as the ANDI scores would suggest. Maybe there could be some kind of score for the detrimental aspects of food. But I doubt Whole Foods (or any market) would display "cancer scores" or "poison index" for foods that they are trying to sell!

Thanks for your comments. You raise an important point that I continually harp on in my work.

NEVER evaluate any food on any one aspect as it does not tell you the total picture. ANDI is just one aspect of a food (and maybe not even a good one) and does not tell us the total picture.

As some of the ANDI scores are showing, there are many foods that may be highly nutrient dense but are not healthy. So, if ANDI is a good system, and it is supposed to help us make better choices, it is clearly not adequate in and of itself.

There are other systems out there that actually do incorportate more "aspects" into their score, such as the NuVal system, but again, it has its faults.

Here is an article from the MAYO Clinic that I think has value...

"Some grocery stores and food manufacturers are creating their own nutrition rating systems and labels to highlight what they say are healthy options for consumers. These nutrition rating systems — which appear on the grocery shelf or on food packages themselves — use symbols, scores or colors to indicate how a product rates in terms of calories, fiber, fat, sodium and other nutrients. Each nutrition rating system uses different criteria, which may include federal dietary guidelines or input from dietitians.

But these labeling systems have become controversial. Sometimes called front of package labels, shelf labels or shelf tags, they are raising the eyebrows of consumer groups and agencies that contend they may be misleading — for instance, a high-sugar cereal was rated healthy. Some of the companies behind the labels have become the subject of lawsuits and state investigations.

These voluntary nutrition rating systems are different from the Nutrition Facts label required by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on most prepared foods. While the FDA Nutrition Facts label lists amounts of certain nutrients for an item, the grocery store nutrition rating systems judge the nutritional value of products.

The FDA doesn't currently regulate grocery store nutrition rating systems. These rating systems aren't standardized, and it's not always clear how their health ratings are determined. But because of the growing controversy, the FDA may set standards for this kind of labeling.

What can you do in the meantime? Don't rely solely on grocery store nutrition rating systems for your nutrition information. Read the Nutrition Facts label and other nutrition information to help you make wise choices.

Some of the new nutrition rating systems and labels include:

* Guiding Stars. This system, developed by Hannaford Supermarkets, uses one, two or three stars to represent good, better and best nutritional value.

* Healthy Ideas. This system, developed by Giant Food and Stop & Shop, uses the Healthy Ideas logo on products they deem healthy.

* Nutrition iQ. This system, developed for the SuperValu chain of stores, uses colored bars to highlight an item's main nutritional benefits.

* NuVal. This system, developed for Price Chopper and Hy-Vee stores, rates products from 1 to 100, with higher scores signaling greater nutritional value.

* Smart Choices. This system, developed by a coalition of food companies and health professionals, was available for use by any food manufacturer or retailer for a fee. The program has been suspended because of the ratings controversy.

If all these nutrition rating systems and labels leave you confused, talk to your dietitian or doctor for guidance.

I agree!

My system, while not perfect is based on the only standardized and most accurate information available. It is much more valuable than the ANDI system and I tell you exactly how I arrive at it, how it applies to food and how you can modify it, based on whether you agree with me or not.

In Health
Jeff

If anyone has seen the movie Idiocracy this will be super funny This crappy drawing sums up my feelings on ANDI scores...

I find the entire Whole Foods program to be very confusing and so far entirely ineffective at least as far as my local store goes. They have all the books displayed at the new "healthy" counter, and there are a few oil free salads now, but I think it's having very little effect, and much of the information displayed is confusing and certainly doesn't follow even what John Mackey said when they started the program.

There is for instance a placard on the healthy bar extolling the virtues of olive oil in lower bad cholesterol. Every soup still has either animal products or oil, and the vast majority of the salad bar offerings are still drenched in oil. The offerings still don't compare to the "normal" prepared food bar across the aisle that has all kinds of tasty looking dishes all covered in oil or animal products based.

I'm there a lot because they do have lots of other things I need to buy, but I've never seen anyone buy any of the books, and virtually every person at the healthy bar loads up on chicken, eggs, and pours some oily dressing on their salad anyway. I have a suspicion that the atkins crowd actually uses the healthy bar more than others because I've seen many people load up a huge pile of chicken with a little bit of spinach and call it a day.

I guess I'm happy that there's one new wheatberry and kale salad that they didn't have before, and they do have one oil free dressing there, but the entire thing seems to be ignored by everyone including the staff who as far as they've told me, have no understanding of why anyone would care if there's oil in something or not.

Where do you live, VMan? I'm in Maryland and we have 2 WFM in our proximity. The one I frequent has to restock the books written by Dr. Fuhrman, Dr. Esselstyn, Rip Esselstyn, as well as Dr. McDougall's quite often.

I agree about the hot and salad bars. I do enjoy the convenience of the plain quinoa, wheatberries, and kamut. But I, too, have stopped purchasing the prepared foods because of the oil and salt in the vegan dishes.

I never look at the ANDI scores or the BRIX. But, these days I usually just pick up organic fruits and veggies there.

Maybe they are taking baby steps and one day may be more geared toward our way of eating. Meanwhile, though, the store is usually crowded so people are at least starting to be clued in to healthier choices.

Help keep the books exposed to a broader audience. Buy one from Whole Foods, soon!

It costs a little more, but any sales success may help to justify keeping them on display.

I have bought two from Whole Foods, recently. One of Dr. Barnard's and I needed another copy of Dr. Esselsyn's.

Be well,
-dog

Report of the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee (DGAC) on the Dietary Guidelines for Americans, 2010

The DGAC advocates the consumption of nutrient-dense forms of foods by all Americans to provide the maximum nutrition intake within calorie needs. Nutrient-dense foods were defined in the 2005 Dietary Guidelines for Americans as those “that provide substantial amounts of vitamins and minerals (micronutrients) and relatively few calories” (HHS and USDA, 2005a, p. 7). The DGAC accepts this definition, with the following clarification. Nutrient-dense foods are forms of foods that are lean or low in solid fats and without added solid fats, sugars, starches, or sodium and that retain naturally-occurring components such as fiber. For example, all vegetables, fruits, whole grains, fish, eggs, and nuts prepared without added solid fats or sugars are considered nutrient-dense, as are lean or low-fat forms of fluid milk, meat, and poultry prepared without added solid fats or sugars. While a variety of equations are available with which to calculate the nutrient density of specific foods (Drewnowski, 2005; Drewnowski, 2008; Kennedy, 2008), the DGAC does not advocate the use of any particular equation over the others because all foods in nutrient-dense forms within a total dietary pattern are more likely to confer health benefits compared to non-nutrient-dense forms of foods.

In Health
Jeff

More on ORAC

Testing Antioxidant Power of Foods

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... 26610.html

Some highlights

- "Many scientists, however, urge caution in using ORAC scores to judge a food's healthfulness. "It's a pretty crude measure and should not be used to say 'eat this or eat that,' " says Bruce Ames, professor emeritus at the University of California in Berkeley."

- "The test gained credibility in 2007 when the USDA first published a list of the ORAC values of common foods, which it updated in 2010. An ORAC unit represents the antioxidant activity of a micromole of a specific type of vitamin E. In February, the USDA removed the database from its website because use of ORAC values to sell products had gotten "completely out of hand," says John Finley, national program leader for human nutrition at the USDA's Agricultural Research Service. "The values have nothing to do with whether a food is healthy for you or not."

- "The problem with ORAC, says Dr. Ames of UC Berkeley, is that a substance that looks like an excellent antioxidant in a test tube may not be well-absorbed by the body."

- "Companies use ORAC "as if it's the final authority and the second coming of antioxidant activity in the body, which it isn't," says David Bell, a spokesman for Brunswick Labs, which is used by many food and supplement companies. "Brunswick never, ever promoted it that way."

Bottom line...

ORAC is a flawed measurement of a foods value and any system based on ORAC Is a flawed system.

In Health
Jeff

Except there are thousands of nutrients in foods most of which we don't know about. Also, the Orac score and the other three whose names escape me now, were determined by chemical reactions in test tubes and not in vivo. There is another test in which the various foods were tested with real cells and according to doctor Greger, beets came out highest. And who knows what each food does in combination with other foods when a real meal is eaten by a particular person who may or may not derive the same benefit from that meal as another person for a variety of reasons. It is easier to remember--vegetables good, twinkies bad.

Didi

Hey Jeff,

If we don't know about thousands of nutrients, how do we know that they number in the thousands? ...and why don't we know about them?

Thanks,
-dog

Good question.

The reason is, they know the chemicals are there, they just haven't identified and classified them all yet.

Think how often we hear of a new one just identified and/or classified, in the news.

In Health
Jeff