tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9437268.post7944817937160029579..comments2024-02-03T07:12:06.620-05:00Comments on U.S. Food Policy: Principles for front of pack scoring systemsusfoodpolicyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17098394318544229984noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9437268.post-3389616725101113572010-02-15T08:27:23.441-05:002010-02-15T08:27:23.441-05:00Dear Parke-
1) NuVal scores do NOT depend on serv...Dear Parke-<br /><br />1) NuVal scores do NOT depend on serving size. Broccoli is highly nutritious, and scores 100. That is true of one florette, or three...<br /><br />That said, since portion certainly does matter, the scores include all of the nutrient properties known to influence satiety and the number of calories it takes to feel full. Thus, as a general rule, eating higher up the NuVal scale means eating foods that lead to fullness on fewer calories. Evidence from such sources as the National Weight Control Registry suggest that this, in fact, is the only sustainable approach to portion control "Just eat les" has never proven particularly useful, as you doubtless know.<br /><br />2) NuVal rates mixed foods in a consistent way. The score of a ham and cheese sandwich will be based on the proportional contributions of each of its ingredients to the calories in the total 'recipe.' Thus, the system can and does score any food, any recipe, or any meal in a consistent fashion. There is a more subtle conversation to have about the relative merits of 'weighting' by calories or number of servings, but this is probably not the place for that. In a derivative of the original NuVal algorithm designed for scoring total diet quality (and now in the testing phase), there is a clear advantage of weighting by number of servings. <br /><br />3) NuVal rates each good and bad nutrient independently. That said, if you vary a single nutrient- say sodium- the impact on the final score will depend somewhat on what is in the algorithm for that to begin with. If, for example, you take an item like guacamole, which has many nutrient in its algorithm, and vary its salt content- the net effect on final score is apt to be different than if you added comparable salt to something much less nutritious, say a cheese doodle. The score is adjusted independently, but there is a simple mathematical and mechanical reality here: adding a single gallon of gasoline to an empty tank makes a more significant proportional difference than adding the final gallon to a tank that is nearly full.<br /><br />I note, in addition, that each nutrient in NuVal is weighted based on the epidemiology literature based on the health conditions with which it is linked (were nutrients not associated with health outcomes, there would be no reason to care about them in the first place!), and specifically for the prevalence of the condition(s); the severity of the condition(s); and for the strength of association between the nutrient and the condition(s). Thus, trans fat gets a greater penalty than dietary cholesterol, for example. This principle is just as important as rating nutrients independently- rating them based on their actual, relative importance to health.<br /><br />Happy to engage in further discussion, or refer you to more detailed print materials.<br /><br />All best,<br />David L. Katz, MD, MPH, FACPM, FACP<br />Director, Prevention Research Center<br />Yale University School of Medicine<br />Principal Inventor, NuVal algorithm<br />www.nuval.comDr. David Katzhttp://www.davidkatzmd.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9437268.post-72536176107212324982010-02-03T05:22:01.525-05:002010-02-03T05:22:01.525-05:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Term Papershttp://www.flashpapers.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9437268.post-2975405474059513072010-02-01T12:33:49.524-05:002010-02-01T12:33:49.524-05:00Yes, perhaps some interactions across nutrients in...Yes, perhaps some interactions across nutrients in the algorithm could be justified by real scientific understanding of nutritional interactions. But, that seems like a long-shot without known -- again -- the amount that people consume.usfoodpolicyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17098394318544229984noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9437268.post-55317397869304566882010-02-01T12:21:00.285-05:002010-02-01T12:21:00.285-05:00I have two concerns about your solutions. I talk a...I have two concerns about your solutions. I talk about them more on my website, but basically I think the third point is just an implication of the second. If everything goes in linearly, then it's going in independently.<br /><br />However, there is research that shows some nutrients interact to block absorption of each other. That would negate the linearity and independence assumptions. Also, cooking processes can affect ingredients differently, again confounding linearity so the final product would have different (usually less) nutrition than the ingredients.<br /><br />We do need more consistency, and your proposals would be a step in the right direction. I'm not sure it's the ideal system, though.Derrill Watsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08996812965100062495noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9437268.post-53589682509568215392010-01-27T07:48:51.650-05:002010-01-27T07:48:51.650-05:00Am I being myopic or old-fashioned by thinking tha...Am I being myopic or old-fashioned by thinking that these various score algorithms are a giant waste of time?<br /><br />I used to joke with my friends counting calories that "the human body is not a bomb calorimeter" -- and likewise, diet choice can vary (with reason) from person to person for innumerable reasons.<br /><br />Dumbing everything down to some sort of master "score" seems woefully misguided, at the expense of what really needs to happen -- education. If we can't take the (fairly minimal) time to educate ourselves about what to eat and why, it seems the cause is lost, whether or not everything is conveniently labelled with a cryptic number.Chris Wagehttp://chris.quietlife.net/noreply@blogger.com