Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 22

Thread: Mathieu Lalonde PhD Nutrient Density page 2

  1. #11
    Paleobird's Avatar
    Paleobird Guest
    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.

  2. #12
    magicmerl's Avatar
    magicmerl is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    3,219
    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 at 07:30 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

  3. #13
    Gorbag's Avatar
    Gorbag is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Ecuador
    Posts
    4,348
    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...

  4. #14
    magicmerl's Avatar
    magicmerl is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    3,219
    Quote 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

  5. #15
    Gorbag's Avatar
    Gorbag is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Ecuador
    Posts
    4,348
    Quote 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...

  6. #16
    upupandaway's Avatar
    upupandaway is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    317
    A blogger wrote to Lalonde to request the spreadsheet of his results and got this response:

    "I put the data through a stress test and found some inconsistencies. It turns out that there was too much variance in the data to use a standardization method. As such, I completely revamped my approach and divided the nutrient data by the RDA in order to make the values unitless and bring them within similar orders of magnitude. I’m now working on getting the data published and cannot share the spreadsheet until this is done.

    I’m probably going to publish this data in a paleo book in the near future. Not my book but a collaboration between various paleo experts. For the record, the reformatting does not affect my conclusions and, in fact, makes grains and legumes look even worse."

    A Quick Update on Mat Lalonde&#039;s Research on Nutrient Density - Ketopia

  7. #17
    Paleobird's Avatar
    Paleobird Guest
    Thanks for the link. That's an awesome site. Lots of good info in one place.

  8. #18
    upupandaway's Avatar
    upupandaway is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    317
    You're very welcome!

  9. #19
    DavidBrennan's Avatar
    DavidBrennan is offline Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    256
    Thanks, that was hugely impressive. Probably the most informative aspect of the presentation was at the beginning, where he revealed how the current nutrient density indices (such as those at Whole Foods Market) intentionally diminish meat's scores by simply omitting Vitamin B12 and other nutrients that most meats are rich in.

    The elite vegetarians fake their figures more than ENRON's accounting team. Even the ClimateGate dudes are going, "Hey, scientists are supposed to be objective about data!"

    I greatly look forward to the next, more refined incarnation of this research. However, there is one major flaw in this, and that is at the very first step in the process: testing the different foods' chemical constitution. The report's dependance on the nutrient calculations from the FDA and other government entities throws a cloud over everything. The paleo community tends to disregard government "data" and advice (that's what I have learned to do from the paleo community, for sure). So it would be fantastic (though cost prohibitive) to re-sample all the different foods to get new values. I know that this would be a major, major undertaking. But it is something that I hope these great dudes give thought to.

  10. #20
    Neeleh's Avatar
    Neeleh is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    346
    Primal Blueprint Expert Certification
    I just watched this and my thought was that while the author took pains to distinguish raw vs cooked grains and legumes, there is arguably a third category that he did not include, which is sprouted.

    Sprouted legumes are eaten widely raw as well as cooked, ditto grains; sprouted dehydrated bread Essene style, technically *raw* and cooked sprouted grain loaves.

    The general view point is that sprouting increases nutrients scores and digestibility, significantly. I do not favour these food types, for me they are not health-promoting; but I would be interested to see the data nonetheless.

    Edit: Hope it's OK to comment on an 'old' thread, just noticed date!
    Live in the sunshine, swim the sea, drink the wild air
    Ralph Waldo Emerson

    Journal: Vibrant Life

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •