Incredible, I've always hoped for something like this to be mandated.<p>Here's one reason that should be convincing enough:<p>Protein is not made equal. The composition of amino acids in protein decides how much of it can be used (bioavailability) by your body.<p>With eggs having a "perfect" score and setting the standard at 100, you have things like wheat/grain proteins which are some ~20% bioavailable (let's ignore pairing foods to make complete proteins for arguments sake)<p>You read the label on your "healthy" whole grain "protein packed" <whatever> where it states it has 10g protein per serving.<p>Boy, that's more than an egg or a cup of milk, you think!<p>Wrong, think again, the adjusted value is closer to ~2g. But how many consumers know this?
This is a really interesting and unique approach to building an NPS. The model factors in a wide variety of research about what is and isn't healthy. So instead of being based on a model that, say, low carb diets are what really matter, they rank foods based on a variety of evidence based models (e.g., low carbs matter, lipid hypothesis, seed oil hypothesis, etc.) and foods that score well across many models or "factors" get a good Compass score.<p>This seems totally useful given that there is so much controversy right now about what is and isn't healthy to eat. It's an "epistemically modest" approach to nutrition labels.<p>The outcome of the model is that I can know chocolate covered almonds are probably the healthiest desert and salmon is probably the healthiest animal protein without having to do too much research on my own.
So if there goal was to make a system that’s easy to use and understandable, I am failed to understand it; this after scanning research paper, website, etc.<p>For example, might be wrong, but appears they weight how nutritious item is for a single dietary goal, since to me sounds flawed; as in dietary goals and restrictions should first be picked/evaluated, then the items.<p>I have looked a few times at topic, spoken to nutritionist, etc - and as is, still find the topic unnecessarily confusing and clearly biased. Apps require massive amounts of personal information and restaurants & grocery stores to be feel like they’re designed to sell unhealthy foods.<p>__<p>Research Paper:<p><a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s43016-021-00381-y.epdf" rel="nofollow">https://www.nature.com/articles/s43016-021-00381-y.epdf</a><p>Quick Ranking on the 8000 items:<p><a href="https://sites.tufts.edu/foodcompass/research/data/" rel="nofollow">https://sites.tufts.edu/foodcompass/research/data/</a><p>Supplementary information, which list 8000 items:<p><a href="https://static-content.springer.com/esm/art%3A10.1038%2Fs43016-021-00381-y/MediaObjects/43016_2021_381_MOESM1_ESM.pdf" rel="nofollow">https://static-content.springer.com/esm/art%3A10.1038%2Fs430...</a>
Imagine two people: one who gets the majority of their calories through processes cereals, the other through red meat. If you were to ask me which person was healthier, I would be pretty confident that it would be the latter. And yet this guide would lead me to the opposite conclusion.<p>So what gives? Am I conflating other factors like lifestyle (e.g. exercise)? What about the satiation of foods, and what foods your are more likely to overconsume? Does the presence of vitamin fortification give processed cereal an unfair advantage?<p>I love me some carbs, but I think any system that puts those as a high quality source of calories deserves some strong skepticism.
This is a welcome idea. Related, has anyone ever used the Cronometer app to track all their food intake? MyFitnessPal is similar except that Cronometer has a very clear listing of where you're at with your daily micronutrient needs given the food you've eaten. It's pretty cool to see that you're not getting enough of some micronutrient and then go and consume some food, track it in the app, and see that you're now where you need to be.
This is just based on pure nutritional content of underlying ingredients. For example, a fruit and vegetable smoothie scored 98 out of 100, with 100 being the healthiest. But I don’t see that they accounted for how your body interprets a beverage vs a food. Your body understands what to do if you eat an orange. But if you drink a glass of orange juice, which contains the juice of multiple oranges, does your body really understand that context without the fiber and need for a different digestive process? And wouldn’t drinking multiple oranges spike your insulin since it will all hit your system at once due to lack of need for solids digestion compared to eating 5 oranges? Wouldn’t this be just like taking meds and supplements with food is more efficient as it provides context for your body as to what to do with the incoming molecules?
Here is a shorthand way to figure out if a food is nutritious: if it is fatty beef, eggs, or sardines, then it is nutritious and you should eat it. If it is not fatty beef, eggs, or sardines, then it is less nutritious and you should not eat it.<p>If you follow this rule religiously, then you will end up in phenomenal shape regardless of the number of calories you eat. It is impossible to eat in a more nutritious manner than I have described: fatty beef, eggs, and sardines. That's it. And drink only water. Everything else is junk.