Nutrition websites and Twitter have been going wild over this new ranking of "healthy foods."

Tufts University’s Friedman School of Nutrition recently released their Food Compass nutrient profiling system to the prestigious journal Nature Food. The project, led by Professor Dariush Mozaffarian, aims to rank foods based on their healthfulness for front of package labelling.

One highlight: frosted mini wheats, 87. Egg white omelette, 31.

There is much, much more, and Marty Kendall has already written a data-driven analysis of the "Compass" Is Tufts University’s new Food Compass nutrient profiling system ‘broken’?

https://optimisingnutrition.com/is-...-system-broken/


DietDoctor: Are Lucky Charms and Cheerios healthier than beef and eggs?

https://www.dietdoctor.com/are-luck...n-beef-and-eggs



The Ted Naiman Twitter account is a good place to find more outrage (some copied in Marty Kendall's article above.) but only a few days ago, Dr Naiman also summarized the latest NHANES data for the US.



Frosted mini wheats and all vegetable oils get very high health ratings on the Compass!! Crazy.

This is so absurd. Do these so-called scientists switch off their brains in order to promote such nonsense? I listened to the diet doctor talk on the subject yesterday now I will hear what Marty Kendall and Ted Naiman have to say. It truly is non-sensical.

So...Chik-fil-A without the chicken and Big Mac without the beef?

Thanks for the heads-up on this new "information" about nutrition.

Painful to read this "stuff". However, these things are no longer surprising to me given the multitude of false data backing up many wild claims these days. Yes, one observation is that these foods and their respective nutrition weightings (you need a value weighting assignment to rank foods from most to least healthy) appear to be done with food manufacturers and cost of production in mind. It's much less costly to produce processed foods with carbohydrates than it is to grow/raise healthy foods with nutrient dense proteins. It's possible the WHO is involved, as this would be the way to solve world hunger by communicating these rankings to encourage people to eat this way.

The most troubling aspect of this is that Food Compass is intended to be used by the population to inform food choices, and it is marketed to be a tool for health. Glad to see several people who have good followings blowing this up. All that's left is for the high tech algorithms to revoke some FB, Twitter, and TikTok accounts due to the spreading of false information challenging settled "science." You can't make this up. Thanks for some humor this morning.

Based on that rating system, ground beef would be much healthier if it had lots of sawdust added to it.

The punchline of Marty Kendall's analysis:

Nutrient density is the icing on the cake of satiety and optimal nutrition. However, adequate protein without excess energy (from fat and carbs) is the cake.

Getting adequate protein without excess energy is the first fundamental step in optimising your nutrition and increasing satiety. If you read no further, this is the simple take-home message.

I was watching a show on Netflix called 7 Days Out that documents the last 7 days leading up to a variety of big events. One of the events they documented was the end of the Cassini spacecraft mission where the spacecraft was directed to burn up in Saturn's atmosphere to stop it from running out of fuel and landing somewhere where it could do damage to one of Saturn's moons. It has occurred to me that this was a event that demanded that the scientists be 100% right in their science. If they were not then the consequences would be immediately known. So-called nutritional science has no such immediately obvious consequences if it is wrong although the consequences are deadly. This study is not really science, but the efforts of pseudo scientists to buttress their reputations or biased assumptions or to line their pockets. People will die by following this bad advice but no negative consequences by the "scientists" will be suffered.

Reminds me that whenever diets are discussed on social media, some wit inevitably pipes up "calories in, calories out. It's not rocket science". To which, being an adherent of the carbohydrate insulin nodel, I can only agree.

Similarly, this study is definitely not rocket science.