Food Compass is a nutrient profiling system (2022) | Hacker News Reader

Food Compass is a nutrient profiling system (2022)

nature.com

29 pointsmiobrien47 comments

Incredible, I've always hoped for something like this to be mandated.

Here's one reason that should be convincing enough:

Protein is not made equal. The composition of amino acids in protein decides how much of it can be used (bioavailability) by your body.

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)

You read the label on your "healthy" whole grain "protein packed" <whatever> where it states it has 10g protein per serving.

Boy, that's more than an egg or a cup of milk, you think!

Wrong, think again, the adjusted value is closer to ~2g. But how many consumers know this?

Taking a single food alone is bad. You should look at a full diet. For example, wheat/grain paired with beans, lentils, and other foods that provide a variety of needed proteins.

You also need to look at the downside. Eggs have a lot of saturated fat and cholesterol. This have been reproducibly tied to high cholesterol in people. Eggs have also been tied to colon cancer.

Pulling out a single nutrient in a single food is dangers because it doesn't give us a complete picture of a healthy diet.

High cholesterol is a good thing in the absence of obesity or any other negative health indicators. You want to have a lot of saturated fat and cholesterol in your diet, frankly. And eggs have not been tied to colon cancer in any meaningful sense. A person could eat a dozen eggs a day for years and be in perfect health.

High cholesterol is directly linked to heart disease. The negative side effects take years (decades really) to become an issue. Doctors know enough about it now to describe what's biologically happening.

High cholesterol (and what causes it) being normalized is one of the reasons heart disease is the leading cause of death in the US[1]. High cholesterol has such an impact on health that the American Heart Association has a section dedicated to it[2]. So do many other health organizations around the world.

The parents comments should not be taken seriously.

[1] https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/leading-causes-of-death.htm

[2] https://www.heart.org/en/health-topics/cholesterol

Your first link is to the leading causes of death, which means nothing since high cholesterol lowers all cause mortality. And in elderly people it is protective against dementia. Your second link goes to a site that directly says that cholesterol is not bad. In fact, cholesterol is the foundation of the human hormone system -- it is likely the dearth of animal fats and red meat in our western diet over the last few decades that has led to the explosion in depression, ADHD, bi-polar disorder, and so forth.

A healthy amount of cholesterol is good for you. Too much LDL is bad for you. Your body makes the amount you need. Too much more of it leads to health issues like heart disease [1]. This is why doctors put people on LDL lowering medications when they get high (e.g., statins).

To quote the link, "But too much cholesterol can pose a problem." If you click through, "Learn more about cholesterol"[2] there are things in it like, "Cholesterol can join with other substances to form a thick, hard deposit on the inside of the arteries. This can narrow the arteries and make them less flexible – a condition known as atherosclerosis. If a blood clot forms and blocks one of these narrowed arteries, a heart attack or stroke can result."

[1] https://www.cdc.gov/cholesterol/ldl_hdl.htm

[2] https://www.heart.org/en/health-topics/cholesterol/about-cho...

Frankly I don't believe that statins are necessary in 99.9% of cases and I think that people focus far too simplistically on cholesterol.

I can remember that days before the HDL/LDL distinction. Now it turns out that moderately high LDL is not necessarily bad if it not accompanied by other negative risk factors (obese, pre-diabetic, etc).

The fact of the matter is that there is a single diet that is ideal for all humans, just as is the case with every other animal species on the planet.

Homo Sapiens are obligate carnivores and we do best when eliminating all plant-based material from our diet. And we certainly don't find heart disease in the indigenous populations that follow an entirely carnivorous diet, such as the Maasai and the Inuit, unless they have adopted a more plant-heavy, processed-food Western-style diet. (Note that we have to "process" plant-based food, but we can just eat meat and eggs raw -- another sign that we are obligate carnivores).

I agree that high cholesterol may be a problem is you're obese, as almost all Americans are, and if you don't follow a 100% carnivorous diet focusing on red meat.

FYI, the scientific studies have shown that the people who live the healthiest and longest (with good health in old age) primarily eat plant based. Read up on the blue zones to learn more. This is even in places in the US where they have carried out detailed studies.

The carnivore's we most relate to biologically (i.e. primates) eat a predominately plant based diet getting few of their calories from other things.

The carnivore's we talk about relating to have different teeth and GI tracks. For example when comparing for size, humans have a far longer GI track than something like a lion. Biologically we are different.

There's a lot of data on this now. Primarily from researches focused on health and aging. There are many studies showing causation and some of this they can explain how it functions in a fair amount of detail.

While I have not seen any credible study tying eggs to cancer, there are some studies which claim to have found a significant statistical correlation between a diet including many eggs and some cardiovascular diseases, independent of any influence on cholesterol.

Agreed, this is reductionist and nothing is ever so simple but compared to current nutrition "labels" we have it's miles better.

I'm waiting for augmented reality to get far enough I can wear glasses that can scan the food I eat, estimate the composition + macros, and log it for me. That'll be the day.

Glad to validate my 2-3 whole egg per day lifestyle. Since starting eating a high protein, mostly unprocessed food based diet(without regard for fat or cholesterol consumption ), I have lowered my body fat percentage by 8% and lowered my LDL cholesterol by 50 points. Just by eating meat, eggs, cheese, whole milk, lots of fruit, non leafy/non stem vegetables (fruits botanically speaking), and protein shakes. My doctor was so impressed…at least until I told her how I did it:)

Quietly hoping over here that 3 eggs per day won't be invalidated by a new study. Been doing it for 5-6 years

I've been trying to actually read the source material for all this "bio availability" scoring like DIAAS and I keep finding weird things. For example, for DIAAS they took current food production, averaged the total protein ratios, and assumes that's ideal protein ratio for humans. It makes me think they're overstating the score of things like whey because of the severe amounts of cheese people eat.

Do you have any source studies with test methodology described? I don't buy that humans should be devouring milk all day when dairy as a nutrition source is so wildly varied across the globe.

I think DIAAS is trying to calculate scores for average meals, since it accounts for missing amino acids in individual components. Meals that complement missing amino acids should yield good scores. AFAIK the DIAAS for individual protein sources are ultimately based on experimental pig models and nitrogen absorption by the pig gut.

I remember reading the nutrition label of a bag of chicarrones and seeing a remark about how despite having 7g of proteins, it isn’t a significant source of protein (e.g. [0]). Reading up about it, it turned out to be for the exact reason you mentioned, namely the low bio-availability.

[0] http://www.osm-us.com/index.php?main_page=popup_image&pID=12...

That is crazy! I had some yesterday thinking it was a good protein snack. I’m glad I read this comment, thank you!

> you have things like wheat/grain proteins which are some ~20% bioavailable

Do you have a source for this claim? It seems very low. It seems to be different ways of measuring, but one source [1] claims 65% postprandial retention (not 100% sure what it means). Another claims "The real ileal digestibility of dietary wheat nitrogen amounted to 90.3 ± 4.3%." [2]

EDIT: So the 20% number somehow account for the low lysine content (seems strange to call that bioavailability, but I'm not a biologist)

[1] https://hal-agroparistech.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01569102

[2] https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/81/1/87/4607685

You aren’t going to be happy with where eggs score on Food Compass (hint: it’s not 100, and it’s below Lucky Charms)

Confirmed whole-egg-cooked got a score of 52 and Lucky-Charms got a 56; possible score is per food type, for example grain, protein, etc — but unclear.

Got the numbers from this document:

https://static-content.springer.com/esm/art%3A10.1038%2Fs430...

This model does not actually look at specific amino acids.

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.

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.

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.

The Food Compass in this study was widely panned in viral social media for misranking foods like Cheerios as healthier than eggs, and Lucky Charms as better than cheddar cheese: https://metro.co.uk/2022/08/15/cheerios-better-than-coffee-f...

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.

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.

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.

Research Paper:

https://www.nature.com/articles/s43016-021-00381-y.epdf

Quick Ranking on the 8000 items:

https://sites.tufts.edu/foodcompass/research/data/

Supplementary information, which list 8000 items:

https://static-content.springer.com/esm/art%3A10.1038%2Fs430...

Confirmed whole-chicken-egg-cooked got a score of 52 and Lucky-Charms (American kids sugar cereal) got a 56; possible score is per food type, for example grain, protein, etc — but unclear.

Got the numbers from this document:

https://static-content.springer.com/esm/art%3A10.1038%2Fs430...

Sorry, but regardless of author’s intent, that makes no sense to me without explanation.

It would be great to be able to read the actual paper.

Yeah, what is there even to talk about without seeing the ranking? Couldn't find it on Sci-hub.

Available from the proj homepage:

https://sites.tufts.edu/foodcompass/

Click on "Read the Article via SharedIt"

And here are the foods ordered by score:

https://sites.tufts.edu/foodcompass/research/data/

Thanks for providing those links.

Thanks.

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.

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?

I love me some carbs, but I think any system that puts those as a high quality source of calories deserves some strong skepticism.

Do you know any person in your circle of acquaintances who follows this "majority of calories through red meat" diet?

> Does the presence of vitamin fortification give processed cereal an unfair advantage?

I'd guess so.

> I love me some carbs, but I think any system that puts those as a high quality source of calories deserves some strong skepticism.

I'd say carbs are totally fine (except for lots of sugar) if your lifestyle comes with burning all the associated calories. Thing is, only a fraction of people in the global west actually live such lifestyles.

So for them it's quite easy overeat on carbs and take in too many calories to get enough (high quality) protein. Vegetarians/vegans have it even harder.

IMO, that is.

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?

A smoothie should have all the fiber (unless you use juice), assuming its just blended. Isn't it just basically pre-chewed? Although chewing does do stuff as you have enzymes in your mouth.

The model does look at the "context." It looks at things like NOVA class, specific lipid composition, fiber:carb ratio, etc.

They only difference between eating and drinking our foods (assuming nutritionally equal) is that chewing stimulates the enzymes in the stomach for digestion.

Some meds and supplements need to be eaten with food because they are fat soluble.

Afaik the stomach don’t need ‘context’ it take all the nutrients it can and excretes the rest.

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.

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.

The whole point of the paper is that there are many factors which are believed to influence whether a food is healthy. The model takes into account these factors and recommends foods that many different bodies of evidence agree are healthy. That way you aren't putting all your eggs in one health science basket, so to speak.

That's a funny way to spell "delicious carrots and hummus"! :)

I've recently (for about 3 months) adopted a low sodium diet and, frankly, the taste of _everything_ has changed after a few weeks. Vegetables are downright delicious in a way I could never put my finger on before.

Pedantic, and I know what you mean, but the taste hasn't changed! You've encouraged the growth of the gut stuff (microbiome) that eats veggies, and they've outnumbered the gut stuff that doesn't, so you desire them more. Your taste has changed, and that's a good thing.

Indeed. I appreciate the correction :)

And the volume of your poop has certainly increased, since vegetable matter contains undigestible fiber, which animal-based foods do not contain. Enjoy pooping and farting more!

Surprisingly, no! But let's not dwell any more on that.

If you're eating plant matter then you're eating indigestible fiber that you have to poop out -- this is a problem that no one eating only animal-based foods has.

Everyone thinks their favorite/pet diet is a panacea.

Yes, but in my case I believe the carnivore diet is a literal panacea -- not only do I think it would cure all human chronic disease, but I think it would be a boon for the environment as well as curing most mental health disorders. Eating mostly red meat is the only intelligent way forward for humanity.

Seemed to work well for the Mongols.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com