Nutrient Dense Foods: Nutritious Foods

The standard American diet, by default has become the standard diet of the world. The standard American diet is said to be energy-rich, meaning full of calories, and nutrient-poor, meaning lacking essential amino-acids, vitamins and minerals, and being deficient in omega-3 fatty acids. The first official recognition of this fact was in the 2005 Dietary Guidelines for Americans, which recommended that people seek to eat nutrient-dense foods. But exactly what those foods were was not defined.

In the Banting world, there is a very clear concept of what nutritious foods are. More on that later.

When I search online for guidance, I discover wildly different ideas of what nutrient-dense means, and which foods should be included is not well defined. Most of those expressing an opinion are keen the EXCLUDE some foods. Most obvious are the "authorities" that exclude all meat, and those that exclude red meats. Some are clear that all dairy foods are inflammatory in the diet of adult humans. More recently, by promoting a "healthy gut" the idea of being gluten free, has been expanded to being wheat free, and then grain free.

Banting Foods

This takes me back to the McGovern Senate Committee and the debates they had in 1977. Many Senators had been influenced by Nathan Pritikin or Dean Ornish and were keen on promoting a vegetarian diet. McGovern sought help from science, but the science was confused, and unreliable. Eventually market pressures prevailed. The committee supported the American farmer. Whatever the American farmer produced must be good. So we have for the first time strong promotion of wheat and corn, crops in surplus. The suggestion that red meat should be excluded from the diet was dropped, in favour of the cattlemen.

In a paper called, "Concept of a nutritious food; toward a nutrient density score" (American Society for Clinical Nutrition, 2005) Dr Adam Drewnowski, finds there is no agreement. In the literature, this point had already been argued for 30 years. Many dietitians adopt the view that there are no good or bad foods, only bad diets. This supports the idea that "a little bit of everything" is likely to be good.

If you look at food marketing, foods that are sugar free, or fat free, and sometimes salt free, are described as "healthy" and given ticks or stars of approval, by the heart association or the diabetes association, when there is zero science backing that assessment. Those ticks and stars are recognition of the payment of money from industry to the association, and acknowledge that some sort of "partnership" agreement exists. It's a financial transaction, with marketing objectives.

Energy dense foods are easier. Dried fruits and sugar by any of it's 40+ names and potato crisps and whole grains and cereals, are all energy dense. In terms of cost per calorie, the calories supplied by sugar and grains are very cheap indeed. When any government or the United Nations, or a relief agency is purchasing food for a refugee camp, or for poverty stricken tribal peoples on a "reservation" this is what they buy. 2200 calories a day per person, 70% carbohydrate (energy dense foods), 20% protein (very little meat or fish, beans and lentils are cheapest), and 10% oils (Vegetable oils are cheapest.) The effect of this sort of diet over the long term is well understood.

John Stephen Veitch