Hosted by Peak Human Podcast, this is a good one. I often find those who try to evaluate foods by getting into the subtleties of proposing a scoring system have a long road to travel. Mainly, it's because while humans generally can identify certain food types that are safer from a metabolic standpoint, our unique ways of responding to food prevent this scoring system from being a "one size fits all" plug-in advisor. Recent (over the past 3 years) attempts to discredit the carbohydrate/insulin hypothesis, then the ketogenic approach, and now the attempts at creating a satiety scorecard are certainly helpful for some, but not everyone. The worst of these, after the Food Pyramid of course, is the Food Compass from Tufts, but that fails on the health values assigned to various foods that likely involve an agenda. It's also why I found chasing my blood glucose level before eating wasn't really better than what I'd already been doing for the last 4-6 years since I increased my protein consumption. Okay, I'm down from my soapbox, and here's the debate, which, as I mentioned, is a good one:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NhnzlZew-Yw

No one makes enough money if they offer real food. And I'm thinking restaurants really suffered during lockdown, which is the only reasonable way to charge more for the same food.

While I'm sure the very rich of the world are on the same drugs with the same doctors, they aren't eating the same food. Or getting it served on a jet and a yacht, for people who are very influential in letting rich people get richer.

And on the other side, the increasing size of the giant finger pointing at ultra-processed foods as the worst possible choices. But people making decisions about what we eat don't raid the couch for change so they can hit Taco Bell. Who once proudly claimed 35% of our meat is actually meat.

Funny thing how high they ranked in the Tufts Compass, she said with pretend puzzlement.

This post lingered for me because I keep seeing people so incredibly confused about food. Because only 20% of the supermarket is actual food.

Who would even use such "helps" even though they are not at all helpful? Because most people, (and their doctors!) have ZERO (with a capital "Z") understanding how how food works once it passes the taste buds. This makes them used to being told what to eat instead of making their own informed decisions. Ah, that "informed part" carries a lot of confusion too, because every place they turn contradicts the last one. I've come to loathe the whole ranking concept, where only one can be the best.

When, on a place like Diet Doctor, they make the effort. BUT -- and I don't know how we get past this -- that only works with people who are comfortable not conforming with everyone else. And that is several bridges too far for many people. Who, to be fair, are overworked and under-thinking because they are already suffering from stress.

It's part of our general attitude, at least in the US, that a "calorie is a calorie." Which is ridiculously untrue, but people never think about it and so, it never leaves their brains. This is exactly the attitude which trapped me in ill health and overweight for so long.

Our body never expected our brain to continually override its best instincts. Unless we want to spend centuries adapting to this Frankenfood, while they make profitable food ever more capable of working its sick-making magic.

What is truly bizarre is that people are hooked on the sugar and taste overloads, and that is why they leap upon the calorie concept. And keep on eating their junk, only in smaller portions. I know my eating disorder started that way. Did not work for me...

If they only knew the best plate of food I ever tasted was my favorite hamburger, cooked with salt. It was when my digestive energy was up to OMAD, and I had a pound of hamburger a day I will try it again, when I can do that and live off the energy all day. I want to get there again!

Good observations. Attempting to evaluate things to find "the best" often clouds the issues. Yes, many have appetites and eating behaviors distorted by food and chemical combinations engineered to produce the effect of wanting to eat more resulting in overeating. It's very hard to break away from that and train ourselves to eat the way our ancestors ate and how the human species should eat to achieve optimum health. Even for those ways of eating that I believe are healthier, we get distortions and belief systems that don't work for everyone, but are proposed by those who believe their way is better.

While the linked debate is between two people who I believe are really in touch with healthy ways of eating, sometimes it can go beyond common sense, particularly when attempting to apply ratings or scoring. Better than what? Better for whom? I applaud the attempts to do this, as I believe those involved are truly trying to make things easier for everyone to understand and follow simpler guidelines for healthy eating, but sometimes it just doesn't work. As long as people can see these limitations and acknowledge them, then we continue to have an open dialog. Naiman, when confronted by Norwitz with some probing, difficult questions, did a good job of this. That's why I believe this debate is so valuable to hear.