Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Mathieu Lalonde PhD Nutrient Density

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Mathieu Lalonde PhD Nutrient Density

    He gave this talk at the 2012 AHS. I have heard it referenced on several occasion, but this is the first time I've seen it out on the interwebs for free:


  • #2
    Great stuff!
    Ancestral Nutrition Coaching
    Pregnancy Nutrition Coaching
    Primal Pregnancy Nutrition Article

    Comment


    • #3
      Not sure whether Legume agiriculure is sustaintable? Legumes are powerhouses that are great for the environment.

      Comment


      • #4
        That's a great lecture. I hope he (or someone) does more work on that database so that in the future we can use it.
        "When the search for truth is confused with political advocacy, the pursuit of knowledge is reduced to the quest for power." - Alston Chase

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Neckhammer View Post
          He gave this talk at the 2012 AHS. I have heard it referenced on several occasion, but this is the first time I've seen it ...
          To be frank I think Jack Kruse pretty much holed this presentation under the waterline.

          Jack can be abrasive and is certainly a maverick, but I think this he was right here:

          When someone uses the FDA and USDA massive databases to look at foods with the highest nutrient densities to make large assumptions what is best and what is not, you might be smart to begin to question if that is a wise assumption to begin with. ...
          BRAIN GUT 12: DARE TO DISAGREE? | Living an Optimized Life

          The point being that you have understand the species in question and what its specific needs are. With humans that means what the brain needs. This isn't something Jack himself has dreamed up, but is coming out of some very solid and interesting work by people who specialize in brain chemistry and in the evolution of the human brain. Here's one of the key texts -- for those who can afford it:

          Survival of the Fattest: The Key to Human Brain Evolution: Stephen C. Cunnane: 9789812561916: Amazon.com: Books

          Comment


          • #6
            LaLonde wasn't saying the RDA was correct, he was just using it as a basis for comparison. E.g. if one food gives you 54% of the RDA for some nutrient and another gives you 24%, then you know where you stand in comparing the two.

            It would be great to have a real, comprehensive and correct list of "RDAs" (Primal style) but, until that happens, you work with what you have.

            I think LaLondes presentations was excellent

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Paleobird View Post
              I think LaLondes presentations was excellent
              Agreed. Although, I think that the 'per calorie' factor for nutrient density is superior, since 'per 100g' penalises foods with water weight. It does a great job of showing how nutritious organ meats and herbs are.

              Originally posted by Lewis View Post
              TThe point being that you have understand the species in question and what its specific needs are. With humans that means what the brain needs. This isn't something Jack himself has dreamed up, but is coming out of some very solid and interesting work by people who specialize in brain chemistry and in the evolution of the human brain.
              I think you're wrong here. Most mammals have a surprisingly similar overall nutrient requirement, whether carnivore, herbivore or omnivore. The key point of difference is how our digestion works to turn what we ingest into nutrients for our body.
              Disclaimer: I eat 'meat and vegetables' ala Primal, although I don't agree with the carb curve. I like Perfect Health Diet and WAPF Lactofermentation a lot.

              Griff's cholesterol primer
              5,000 Cal Fat <> 5,000 Cal Carbs
              Winterbike: What I eat every day is what other people eat to treat themselves.
              TQP: I find for me that nutrition is much more important than what I do in the gym.
              bloodorchid is always right

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by magicmerl View Post
                Agreed. Although, I think that the 'per calorie' factor for nutrient density is superior, since 'per 100g' penalises foods with water weight. It does a great job of showing how nutritious organ meats and herbs are.
                Actually he does take into account water weight at the end of the lecture and the only significant change is that legumes make a pretty good jump up the list. The rest keep same order as far as whole category placement is concerned.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Neckhammer View Post
                  Actually he does take into account water weight at the end of the lecture and the only significant change is that legumes make a pretty good jump up the list. The rest keep same order as far as whole category placement is concerned.
                  Yes, I thought that was interesting too. Still not eating beans though.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Paleobird View Post
                    Yes, I thought that was interesting too. Still not eating beans though.
                    I think I'm definitely a little more agnostic now on them than I was before seeing that.

                    Properly prepared beans (i.e. soaked for a day or more) should still be fine, and they did score pretty highly in terms of nutrients.

                    And 'nachos' without the chips (chilli, mince, kidney beans, sour cream and cheese) still taste pretty damn awesome.
                    Disclaimer: I eat 'meat and vegetables' ala Primal, although I don't agree with the carb curve. I like Perfect Health Diet and WAPF Lactofermentation a lot.

                    Griff's cholesterol primer
                    5,000 Cal Fat <> 5,000 Cal Carbs
                    Winterbike: What I eat every day is what other people eat to treat themselves.
                    TQP: I find for me that nutrition is much more important than what I do in the gym.
                    bloodorchid is always right

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Nah, the beans just take up space where you could be having more nutrient dense and better tasting things, IMO, such as more meat and shredded cheese. Plus all that gassiness is your body's way of telling you something.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        I don't have the 'Nutrient Density' presentation in front of me, but didn't the legumes section have a nutrient density score *better* than muscle meats and cheese?
                        Last edited by magicmerl; 03-24-2013, 06:30 PM.
                        Disclaimer: I eat 'meat and vegetables' ala Primal, although I don't agree with the carb curve. I like Perfect Health Diet and WAPF Lactofermentation a lot.

                        Griff's cholesterol primer
                        5,000 Cal Fat <> 5,000 Cal Carbs
                        Winterbike: What I eat every day is what other people eat to treat themselves.
                        TQP: I find for me that nutrition is much more important than what I do in the gym.
                        bloodorchid is always right

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          I am not sure that I am ready to buy the concept of 'Nutrient density' in whatever version it may come! What pragmatic use does this have, is it supposed that we should objectively chose from the food groups based on a general concept of Ěnutrient density' - when the real issue is to chose what people need on an individual basis? If I have problems with too much iron in my blood, then I will not get very good information knowning that a certain food in general terms is very 'nutrious dense'. The same if I need more copper etc., more spesific information is needed since 'nutrient density' can be irrelvant for the need of the individual...
                          "All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident."

                          - Schopenhauer

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Gorbag View Post
                            I am not sure that I am ready to buy the concept of 'Nutrient density' in whatever version it may come! What pragmatic use does this have, is it supposed that we should objectively chose from the food groups based on a general concept of Ěnutrient density' - when the real issue is to chose what people need on an individual basis? If I have problems with too much iron in my blood, then I will not get very good information knowning that a certain food in general terms is very 'nutrious dense'. The same if I need more copper etc., more spesific information is needed since 'nutrient density' can be irrelvant for the need of the individual...
                            It's the complement to the term 'empty calories'. People know that empty calories are bad, so what they need to do is eat more nutritionally dense foods. Such as what? Here's a magic number!
                            Disclaimer: I eat 'meat and vegetables' ala Primal, although I don't agree with the carb curve. I like Perfect Health Diet and WAPF Lactofermentation a lot.

                            Griff's cholesterol primer
                            5,000 Cal Fat <> 5,000 Cal Carbs
                            Winterbike: What I eat every day is what other people eat to treat themselves.
                            TQP: I find for me that nutrition is much more important than what I do in the gym.
                            bloodorchid is always right

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by magicmerl View Post
                              It's the complement to the term 'empty calories'. People know that empty calories are bad, so what they need to do is eat more nutritionally dense foods. Such as what? Here's a magic number!
                              Interesting to see that Sunflower oil is much more 'nutrient dense' than Coconut oil though, but I need much more information in what aspect this may help my individual needs...
                              "All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident."

                              - Schopenhauer

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X