Beef and Pork rank higher than vegetables

What to eat wrote:

Scientists evaluate the nutrient content of certain foods per gram (or ounce) and the results are surprising, to say the least:

- Nuts and seeds rank very high, with Brazil nuts, hazel nuts, and coconuts leading the charge.

- Fruits rank surprisingly low, with apples and watermelons bringing up the rear.

- Pork ranks really high, with bacon approaching superstar status.

- Eggs are high, but for God's sake, eat the yolks, too.

- Legumes are low on the list.

- Grains are low (raw grains, according to Lalonde, rank higher, but they're indigestible in that form).

- Beef and pork rank higher than vegetables.

Thoughts?

Link to the (I hope) peer-reviewed article?

Why is that surprising? Of course meat is more nutrient dense than fruit and vegetables.

One of the major benefits of fruits and vegetables is that they provide fiber (i.e. undigestible bulk). A food that consists largely of fiber is obviously not going to be as nutrient dense as a food that is nearly entirely digestible.

pretty obvious wrote:

One of the major benefits of fruits and vegetables is that they provide fiber (i.e. undigestible bulk).

And the major benefit of indigestible bulk is what exactly (remember, runners typically don't have a bathroom problem)?

Yes, by all means eat that "superstar bacon" every day. Enjoy your superstar heart disease and esophageal cancer from all that cured meat.

I eat bacon primarily for the taste and the way it aids in my digestion. glad to hear it's also 'superstar status' on top of that.

Looks like he is probably referring to work by Mat Lalonde.

http://ketopia.com/nutrient-density-sticking-to-the-essentials-mathieu-lalonde-ahs12/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwbY12qZcF4

(Apologies for linking to a silly low-carb site but it was just one of the first google hits)

His ranking system is one of many and it has its pros and cons like all the rest. The results however are not particularly surprising at all to anyone who knows anything about evolutionary anthropology/human biology.

Before this thread turns into the usual sh*tstorm I should probably point out that his nutrient density formula simply tells you which foods allow you to get the most essential nutrients with the lowest mass. It does not indicate that a food is "good" or "bad", it simply indicates its nutrient to mass ratio.

Stupid parameter by a troll idiot. Support meat all you like, but just try eliminating produce from your diet completely. Do it for five years. You're going to be miserable, impotent, sick all the time, grouchy, while making up other excuses. The fact is, fresh produce is essential to healing the human body and lubricating the natural process of cellular vitalization, repair and waste removal and recovery . Take note! And train and live well. Good sex, good moods, headache remedies, happiness, sleep, effectiveness, good running.

Right UK runner. Long distance runners should stay away from Pritikin and R. C. Atkins type diets. Avoid nuts, fruit and vegetables and eat bacon, beef and pork and you could end up lying in a gutter like Jim Fixx or Arne Richards.

The other guy! wrote:

pretty obvious wrote:

One of the major benefits of fruits and vegetables is that they provide fiber (i.e. undigestible bulk).

And the major benefit of indigestible bulk is what exactly (remember, runners typically don't have a bathroom problem)?

Whether you consider fiber to be beneficial or not isn't really relevant to the discussion. My point was simply that vegetables are full of fiber, so the obviously aren't as nutrient dense.

Glad someone posted the results of the analysis but this is no news to anyone within the PALEO community.

Remember what I told you from the beginning:

meat, veggies, nuts, limited (!) amounts of fruits, fish, ...

NO GRAINS

NO LEGUMES

NO DAIRY

win/win/win situation

HumpFreeBogart wrote:

Stupid parameter by a troll idiot. Support meat all you like, but just try eliminating produce from your diet completely. Do it for five years. You're going to be miserable, impotent, sick all the time, grouchy, while making up other excuses. The fact is, fresh produce is essential to healing the human body and lubricating the natural process of cellular vitalization, repair and waste removal and recovery . Take note! And train and live well. Good sex, good moods, headache remedies, happiness, sleep, effectiveness, good running.

Lol please tell me this is a joke post.

more interesting tidbits of the above linked study:

When it comes to measuring nutrient density, there's no shortage of food scoring systems that presumably help consumers figure out what's good to eat and what's not-so good to eat. The trouble is, a lot of them reflect the biases of the people who came up with the system.

Some, like the ANDI (Aggregate Nutrient Density Index) system that you can see on signs hanging in some Whole Foods grocery stores next to the organic Leapin' Lemurs cereal, were designed by pale-skinned vegetarians who wear underwear made out of organic, undyed hemp.

In addition to leaving out an alarming number of vitamins and minerals, these lists, including the ANDI list, give short shrift to protein in general, but especially animal protein.

So basically, be aware of the folks that are pushing an agenda:

e.g. Wholefoods wants to sell you soy and grain products, because they have huge margins on those.

What to eat wrote:

Scientists evaluate the nutrient content of certain foods per gram (or ounce) and the results are surprising, to say the least

And what exactly is significant about "nutrient content per gram"?

Those are the least surprising results imaginable. OBVIOUSLY watermelon has very low nutrient content per gram, is that one hard to figure out? And OBVIOUSLY greasy bacon is going to be extremely calorie dense. This should only surprise you if you're a moron.

What to eat wrote:

Scientists evaluate the nutrient content of certain foods per gram (or ounce) and the results are surprising, to say the least:

If all you want is the most essential nutrients per the fewest calories, do the following:

Drink a glass of water with Essential amino acid powder mixed in.

Take a multi-vitamin

Take a fish oil capsule.

Right? Right.

(there is lot more stuff in food than JUST essential nutrients [things your body needs but can't make] that can greatly effect your health in a positive way, or negative way)

Xfit_guy_the_real_1 wrote:

NO GRAINS

NO LEGUMES

NO DAIRY

win/win/win situation

Except....many of the healthiest peoples on earth eat some or all of those things regularly.

As usual, you LOSE, LOSE, LOOOOOOSE.

Tyrannosaurus Rexing wrote:

Except....many of the healthiest peoples on earth eat some or all of those things regularly.

Haha, you mean those SCRAAAAAAWNY Kenyans. Lol. They need to BUFF up, fer sure.

Xfit_guy_the_real_1 wrote:

Tyrannosaurus Rexing wrote:

Except....many of the healthiest peoples on earth eat some or all of those things regularly.

Haha, you mean those SCRAAAAAAWNY Kenyans. Lol. They need to BUFF up, fer sure.

You told him off. Good point. Glad you brought it up.

John Clendon wrote:

Xfit_guy_the_real_1 wrote:

Haha, you mean those SCRAAAAAAWNY Kenyans. Lol. They need to BUFF up, fer sure.

You told him off. Good point. Glad you brought it up.

"good point" ? please tell me you are trolling. Please restore my faith in humanity.

( I didn't mean the Kenyans, and we are not talking about bulking up. If you want to build muscle, yes, you need protein and carbs and calories)