Food nutrition chart

[WelcometoReality]

2 hours ago, undeather said:

I guess it depends on the country/university you go to - but yes, in general it's really bad.
I can't even remember learning anything about nutrition in med school.

 

You might want to look into this
https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1161/STROKEAHA.120.033214#:~:text=The Mediterranean diet produced a,the number of carotid plaques.

Thank you! 🙂

 

 

[MarkKol]

Waste!

You go to a supermarket, buy 2 bags of frozen fruit mixes, 1 berry mix and 1 tropical fruit mix

go home, put the fruit in the blender from both bags + 1 banana, blendy blendy blendy...

boom, 13-15 different fruits and 13-15 different types of fiber in one day

you drink

feel healthy

add chia, flaxseed, goji berries, and feel even healthier

[WelcometoReality]

7 hours ago, Sugarcoat said:

Stockholm

Ok, lidköping here. 🙂

[Sugarcoat]

26 minutes ago, WelcometoReality said:

Ok, lidköping here. 🙂

Cool 👍🏻

[Michael569]

19 hours ago, undeather said:

However, his brilliance is overshadowed by an unmistakable arrogance, a propensity for harsh judgment (vegan), and an immaturity that makes him, frankly, one of the most insufferable individuals I've had the misfortune of encountering.

Yes, well said! His arrogance became a reason why he alienated a lot of people. Also generally his use of complicated terminology meant his content was behind an imaginary access wall

[Michael569]

On 12/01/2025 at 0:11 PM, WelcometoReality said:

Which foods are ranked poorly do you think?

Since their rank is calculated by micronutrient per calorie it's not a surprise that the calorie dense foods get a poor score.

Yeah, exactly. The chart doesn't make sense. I do understand the rational behind putting dark leafy greens up to. Per calories they do contain most calories but this is impractical way to approach this, almost deliberately skewed towards ostracising foods which are more calorically dense and basically stand no chance to achieve better rating. 

Take the example of beef. I think most of us would agree that beef is a nutritious food (whether you eat it or not or whether you like the taste of it or not is a completely different question). If you count per calory per nutrient complexityu , beef scores poorly. But then, people don't eat 20 calories of beef the way they eat 20 calories of kale. It just isn't comparing like for like. What we need is portion to portion comparison. Compare average portion of kale to an average portion of steak someone eats. This way you are now looking at 120g fat free steak vs 1/2 cup of cooked kale (most people don't even eat that much in a portion). You do this and all of a sudden the nutritional content changes. Look below at the pictures 

1. 120g of beef without visible fat (average portion size) 

2. 0.5 cup of curly kale (average amount of kale consumed in a meal that includes kale) 

Now you're properly comparing like for like. You could make an argument that beef is more harmful than kale and I would agree with you, too much red meat is not great but once again, this calculator compares average nutritional value not the foods relation to all cause mortality. That would be a different calculator. 

Most people would see Joel's chart, look at green as "good" look at red as "bad" and become even more confused about nutrition. And this is just one example. It is self serving, irresponsible and completely pseudoscientific . 

Btw I have nothing in stake here. I'm not vegan but I don't eat beef at all, I don't think I need to but at the same time I am not under delusion that beef is a food with low level of nutrients, its not. In poor countries like Thailand, Vietnam, Laos, beef is associated with reduced all cause mortality because it helps poor people who would otherwise be malnourished to achieve basic protein levels. 

I think we need to be looking at nutrition more objectively, by taking ourselves away form the equation,. You take your likes, dislikes and biases away (to the extend you can) and objectively look at the situation comparing things as they are not as you want them to be. 

As of today 99% of the health channels and influencers are unable to do this. There is  a very tiny portion of people on internet who have been able to do that and most of them have low subs count so you'll never hear about them. 

What would objective standpoints look like: 

• Vegan admits that red meat and seafood are highly nutritious foods and that, in moderate amounts red meat is not harmful. He would also admit that wholefood plant based diet is not superior to inclusion of oils and that not all processed food is harmful (where caloric control is applied). Finally vegan admits that vegan diet is not the healthiest diet but takes moral and ethical superiority only where tied to personal sense of ethics and animal harm avoidance - only from such position vegan diet is superior to Mediterranean diet. 
• Natural diet proponent admits that lot of his/her arguments around "unnatural foods" and chemicals are just pure , hearsay, echo chamber and tied to personal sense of identity ('green gal / natural guy' type of identity) rather than any serious scrutiny done on their side. They would admit that they don't understand (nor care) about the hierarchy of evidence or the research itself at all. Because it is (unnaturally) complicated and so probably unimportant. Questioned deep enough , he/she would realised that "its not natural" is not a real argument in 21st century. 
• Rigidly academic and scientifically minded person admits that science still doesn't have all answers, that there are areas in nutrition that are poorly understood, have low evidence (herbs, iridology, reiki) but that does not automatically discredit these nor does it discredit the existence of anecdotal stories of people. 
• Anti vegan admits that his/her arguments are highly emotionally charged rather than derived of serious due diligence. He also admits that vegan ethics argument ("I am vegan because I don't want to harm animal")  is the ultimate unbeatable defeater. Finally he would admit that a diet that requires a long term use of a few supplements is not an inferior diet by definition. 
• Anti-soy guy/girl admits that soy boy is a riddiculous term, that soy is not harmful and they they have been lazy and complacent with their scrutiny while the nutrition world has moved on. 
• Low carb person admits that LC diet is not the best way to achieve weight loss and that his/her position, once scrutinised enough is indefensible. He/she would also admit that carbs are not all equal, that grains are not harmful, that fruit is overwhelmingly beneficial and that fat rich diet is not superior to moderate fat diet in any way. 
• Keto proponent admits that autophagy is a poor reasoning to push keto on people and that he/she has fallen prey to mechanistic arguments. He admits that limited efficacy of keto diet in epilepsy and alzheimer's does not mean that keto is the best diet for everyone. 
• Carnivore admits that the real reason they are carnivores is because they have health issues that force them to avoid fibre and plant rich diets and if they could eat it lentil stews, bean casserole and starchy foods without diarrhoea they would. They admit that they have been biased and have been subconsciously manipulating their own reality to convince self and others that carnivore diet is superior. (some) would also admit that they associate carnivorism with a sense of masculinity, strength and physical prowess. 
• Seed oil denier admits that his position is ideological and rigidly held and that there isn't really any evidence for seed oils being harmful, that global obesity crisis is not due to seed oils and that ancestral appeal to diet is a self-defearter. On the contrary he would admit that replacing saturated fats towards pufa (calorically matched) is overwhelmingly beneficial, that epidemiology is not complete waste of time,  that not all science is paid by big pharma and that oxidative theory and lipid peroxidation cascade are inferior to the magnitude of human outcome data. 
• Fruitarian admits that he/she has an eating disorder and is scared of food through years of brainwashing 
• IF people admit they they are afraid to eat more to avoid weight gain so they excuse fasting for coming into contact with food less often and as such reducing their food anxiety. They would admit that fasting is not a real weight loss strategy and that they have fallen into a dogma. 

What this means is that you can be whatever you like but you are aware of the limitations of your own reasoning and remain aware of these when arguing with others or recommending to others. You are aware where you are biased, where you are being ideological and where you are being unnecessarily scientifically rigid. 

Edited Monday at 12:39 PM by Michael569

[Schizophonia]

2 hours ago, Michael569 said:

He also admits that vegan ethics argument ("I am vegan because I don't want to harm animal")  is the ultimate unbeatable defeater.

No, it's actually the worst, because ethics in this context is not based on anything tangible and is purely relative, even psychotic.

You can actually strongly defend veganism from a hygienist point of view for example, because even if I can accuse you of epistemiological bias etc and basically estimate that you are wrong in the end these are concrete proofs that you possibly have at your disposal (studies).

 

[Michael569]

1 hour ago, Schizophonia said:

No, it's actually the worst, because ethics in this context is not based on anything tangible and is purely relative, even psychotic.

Help me understand your position here. I don't think I'm quite following. 

[Schizophonia]

2 hours ago, Michael569 said:

Help me understand your position here. I don't think I'm quite following. 

You can't tell me that ethics is the best argument for veganism because it is a purely subjective, relative, and simply intangible fact because it is a tool of neurotic origin; Even if it is completely in denial, it is a way of diverting the libido from the reality principle to the imaginary.

"I enjoy eating x" -> "normal", "genital" pleasure principle.

(Master morality as Nietzsche would say.)

"I enjoy eating x if I have saved enough" -> pleasure principle passed through the filter of the reality principle.

"I eat y because it means that I am good" -> Libidinal regression, "slave morality" as Nietzsche would say.

Essentially as a defense mechanism against the reality principle during the Oedipus complex and the passage to the phallic stage, which would explain why idealist ideas are more present in industrialized societies.

 

On the other hand, hygiene is a totally tangible value, even if I would certainly not agree, you could try to demonstrate to me that veganism is healthier with studies or anecdotes, things that are based on reality.

 

[WelcometoReality]

6 hours ago, Michael569 said:

Yeah, exactly. The chart doesn't make sense. I do understand the rational behind putting dark leafy greens up to. Per calories they do contain most calories but this is impractical way to approach this, almost deliberately skewed towards ostracising foods which are more calorically dense and basically stand no chance to achieve better rating. 

I think it makes sense from the nutritarian diet perspective. It's a plant based diet so pushing beef down the list is not a huge concern.

6 hours ago, Michael569 said:

Take the example of beef. I think most of us would agree that beef is a nutritious food (whether you eat it or not or whether you like the taste of it or not is a completely different question). If you count per calory per nutrient complexityu , beef scores poorly. But then, people don't eat 20 calories of beef the way they eat 20 calories of kale. It just isn't comparing like for like. What we need is portion to portion comparison. Compare average portion of kale to an average portion of steak someone eats. This way you are now looking at 120g fat free steak vs 1/2 cup of cooked kale (most people don't even eat that much in a portion). You do this and all of a sudden the nutritional content changes. Look below at the pictures 

1. 120g of beef without visible fat (average portion size) 

2. 0.5 cup of curly kale (average amount of kale consumed in a meal that includes kale) 

Now you're properly comparing like for like. You could make an argument that beef is more harmful than kale and I would agree with you, too much red meat is not great but once again, this calculator compares average nutritional value not the foods relation to all cause mortality. That would be a different calculator. 

I guess with the same logic you now have a list with meat on the top and greens in the red. 🙂 

I get what you're saying. A list is too one sided. No matter what list it's always skewed one way or another not giving an objective view. And i guess that's fine. If you know how the list was made, understanding which parameters was used you won't mistake it for some kind of truth.

 

6 hours ago, Michael569 said:

Most people would see Joel's chart, look at green as "good" look at red as "bad" and become even more confused about nutrition. And this is just one example. It is self serving, irresponsible and completely pseudoscientific . 

Maybe they would if they only look at the list and don't educate themselves about the nutritarian diet. I don't think most people are that stupid. This is Ad hominem. We don't really know his intents. Also I don't really think it's pseudoscience, that's pushing it. You might not agree that it's the perfect objective list, I don't either btw. 🙂

6 hours ago, Michael569 said:

Btw I have nothing in stake here. I'm not vegan but I don't eat beef at all, I don't think I need to but at the same time I am not under delusion that beef is a food with low level of nutrients, its not. In poor countries like Thailand, Vietnam, Laos, beef is associated with reduced all cause mortality because it helps poor people who would otherwise be malnourished to achieve basic protein levels. 

I think we need to be looking at nutrition more objectively, by taking ourselves away form the equation,. You take your likes, dislikes and biases away (to the extend you can) and objectively look at the situation comparing things as they are not as you want them to be. 

I eat beef. Probably to much for a healthy diet. I am not a nutritarian. 

Who's under the delusion that beef is a food with low level of nutrients? 🙂

I guess if I would be living in a poor country I'd rather have beef as a protein source than no protein source at all. Here In the west we eat to much meat in general so wouldn't hurt to cut down/replace it with beans for example.

7 hours ago, Michael569 said:

What would objective standpoints look like: 

Yeah, good points. I don't think most people are conscious enough to know that they're pushing an agenda. 🙂

[Michael569]

45 minutes ago, Schizophonia said:

You can't tell me that ethics is the best argument for veganism because it is a purely subjective, relative, and simply intangible fact because it is a tool of neurotic origin; Even if it is completely in denial, it is a way of diverting the libido from the reality principle to the imaginary.

Ah , you've gone meta on me  i see what you're doing.  

You're trying to take meta-perspective because it suits you because you know deep down that animal consumption is unapologetically unethical  (I am saying this as someone who also consumes some animal food and so everything I say applies to me like a mirror) so you're trying to weasel out  and say "morality is a human invention and there are no such things as moral principles because everything is imaginary" because it suits your perspective this time. 

See, you can't really take a lamb away from its sheep mom, slaughter it, dip it in casserole and tell me that what you just did is right because reality is imaginary. You're being a Zen devil. 

You have to operate at a level of self-delusion (and I do too, because again, I'm not vegan ) when you eat animal flash to convince yourself that there isn't really any reason why there shouldn't be a lentil stew on that plate instead. 

53 minutes ago, Schizophonia said:

"genital" pleasure

carnal

54 minutes ago, Schizophonia said:

Essentially as a defense mechanism against the reality principle during the Oedipus complex and the passage to the phallic stage, which would explain why idealist ideas are more present in industrialized societies.

Translate this gibberish into something tangible for me please. This reads too GPT-ish. 

 

56 minutes ago, Schizophonia said:

On the other hand, hygiene is a totally tangible value, even if I would certainly not agree, you could try to demonstrate to me that veganism is healthier with studies or anecdotes, things that are based on reality.

hygiene? 

[Schizophonia]

3 hours ago, Michael569 said:

Ah , you've gone meta on me  i see what you're doing.  

You're trying to take meta-perspective because it suits you because you know deep down that animal consumption is unapologetically unethical  (I am saying this as someone who also consumes some animal food and so everything I say applies to me like a mirror) so you're trying to weasel out  and say "morality is a human invention and there are no such things as moral principles because everything is imaginary" because it suits your perspective this time. 

Okay fine, so where is this moral? It has to be somewhere. 

In the Bible maybe? 

 

Once again you begging the question, and that's normal because it's the only thing you can do with something drawn solely from the imagination.

 

Quote

See, you can't really take a lamb away from its sheep mom, slaughter it,

I can i've already killed several chicken (for eat ofc).

It's disturbing for the ego at first, but not being able to kill an animal to eat it is also disturbing in the other direction for someone who is used to it.
Do you think that a few million people, generally western/white or of marginal religious tendencies here and there in the world are normal, and the tens of billions of humans who have done this throughout history are not normal?
I don't care in itself, having to do something because "nature" would be as imaginary as your ethic, that's not what i oppose veganism on (for me).

Quote

dip it in casserole and tell me that what you just did is right because reality is imaginary. You're being a Zen devil. 

No, it's the opposite, it would be to declare that there is an objective world that would legitimize my point of view the most, in absolute terms.
Because if everything is imaginary, it leaves room for maneuver to slide towards a maya where eating lentils is super good and holy etc.
But right now, you can imagine your ethics as much as you want, you imagine above all a maya where meat tastes good etc. That's what your being wants to imagine the most.

Don't know if i'm clear. 

Quote

You have to operate at a level of self-delusion (and I do too, because again, I'm not vegan ) when you eat animal flash

Begging the question + as a Lacanian pain in the ass i direcly see the mark of libidinal regression in the "animal flesh". 

For me it's just a piece of protein that tastes good, yum, then my empathy will eventually push me to avoid killing an animal in a way that is too cruel.
Again, not because I'm "good" (regression) but because as an empathetic person I feel good about not hurting it too much.
In fine the result is a trade-off between the two libidinal forces, that is to say that I will savor this freshness and, at the same time, make sure that the animal has not suffered too excessively (or that I have not seen it suffer, because ultimately it is essentially a question of perception).

I don't see any problem with someone becoming vegan because they are hypersensitive and have a fixation on eating animals, it would be rational.
But when you talk about "good", "animal flesh" it is not the same phenomenon that is hidden behind it.

Quote

to convince yourself that there isn't really any reason why there shouldn't be a lentil stew on that plate instead. 

It doesn't tastes good and it's not nutritive 

Quote

carnal

Ahah

Quote

Translate this gibberish into something tangible for me please. This reads too GPT-ish. 

We are all just selfish, only our survival matters; Idealistic ideas, which are far from the body, are a way to survive in a social context where you are weak, even if it's totally denied by the conscious . 

Freud and Nietzsche described this same phenomenon from two different points of view, if you're interested.

Quote

hygiene? 

Health*

Edited Monday at 09:51 PM by Schizophonia

[Michael569]

@Schizophonia thanks for the elaboration. I guess we'll leave it as multiple disagreements as usual 😉 hope you're well

[Schizophonia]

3 hours ago, Michael569 said:

@Schizophonia thanks for the elaboration. I guess we'll leave it as multiple disagreements as usual 😉 hope you're well

Thanks, ditto Michael. 

Edited Tuesday at 11:40 AM by Schizophonia

[RendHeaven]

21 hours ago, Michael569 said:

This reads too GPT-ish. 

ChatGPT is way more clear and concise than schizo lol

On 1/13/2025 at 7:39 PM, Michael569 said:

• Vegan admits that red meat and seafood are highly nutritious foods and that, in moderate amounts red meat is not harmful. He would also admit that wholefood plant based diet is not superior to inclusion of oils and that not all processed food is harmful (where caloric control is applied). Finally vegan admits that vegan diet is not the healthiest diet but takes moral and ethical superiority only where tied to personal sense of ethics and animal harm avoidance - only from such position vegan diet is superior to Mediterranean diet. 
• Natural diet proponent admits that lot of his/her arguments around "unnatural foods" and chemicals are just pure , hearsay, echo chamber and tied to personal sense of identity ('green gal / natural guy' type of identity) rather than any serious scrutiny done on their side. They would admit that they don't understand (nor care) about the hierarchy of evidence or the research itself at all. Because it is (unnaturally) complicated and so probably unimportant. Questioned deep enough , he/she would realised that "its not natural" is not a real argument in 21st century. 
• Rigidly academic and scientifically minded person admits that science still doesn't have all answers, that there are areas in nutrition that are poorly understood, have low evidence (herbs, iridology, reiki) but that does not automatically discredit these nor does it discredit the existence of anecdotal stories of people. 
• Anti vegan admits that his/her arguments are highly emotionally charged rather than derived of serious due diligence. He also admits that vegan ethics argument ("I am vegan because I don't want to harm animal")  is the ultimate unbeatable defeater. Finally he would admit that a diet that requires a long term use of a few supplements is not an inferior diet by definition. 
• Anti-soy guy/girl admits that soy boy is a riddiculous term, that soy is not harmful and they they have been lazy and complacent with their scrutiny while the nutrition world has moved on. 
• Low carb person admits that LC diet is not the best way to achieve weight loss and that his/her position, once scrutinised enough is indefensible. He/she would also admit that carbs are not all equal, that grains are not harmful, that fruit is overwhelmingly beneficial and that fat rich diet is not superior to moderate fat diet in any way. 
• Keto proponent admits that autophagy is a poor reasoning to push keto on people and that he/she has fallen prey to mechanistic arguments. He admits that limited efficacy of keto diet in epilepsy and alzheimer's does not mean that keto is the best diet for everyone. 
• Carnivore admits that the real reason they are carnivores is because they have health issues that force them to avoid fibre and plant rich diets and if they could eat it lentil stews, bean casserole and starchy foods without diarrhoea they would. They admit that they have been biased and have been subconsciously manipulating their own reality to convince self and others that carnivore diet is superior. (some) would also admit that they associate carnivorism with a sense of masculinity, strength and physical prowess. 
• Seed oil denier admits that his position is ideological and rigidly held and that there isn't really any evidence for seed oils being harmful, that global obesity crisis is not due to seed oils and that ancestral appeal to diet is a self-defearter. On the contrary he would admit that replacing saturated fats towards pufa (calorically matched) is overwhelmingly beneficial, that epidemiology is not complete waste of time,  that not all science is paid by big pharma and that oxidative theory and lipid peroxidation cascade are inferior to the magnitude of human outcome data. 
• Fruitarian admits that he/she has an eating disorder and is scared of food through years of brainwashing 
• IF people admit they they are afraid to eat more to avoid weight gain so they excuse fasting for coming into contact with food less often and as such reducing their food anxiety. They would admit that fasting is not a real weight loss strategy and that they have fallen into a dogma. 

Great list. Would like to see a steelman of seed oil denier/a critique of the seed oil defender to avoid begging the question.

It's odd to me that we get pro vegan critique, anti vegan critique, but only anti seed oil critique (without pro seed oil critique).

[Michael569]

6 hours ago, RendHeaven said:

Would like to see a steelman of seed oil denier/a critique of the seed oil defender to avoid begging the question.

I can't speak for the wider community so will selfishly say what would be a starting point for me: 

New emergence of human evidence from sufficiently controlled randomized trials that suggests harmful effects of PUFA -rich oil consumption in any domain associated with chronic health disease (heart disease, diabetes, cancer, musculoskeletal disease , autoimmunity, mental health, neurodegenerative disease etc) 

Pre-requisites

• reasonably controlled environment (challenging but not impossible) 
• healthy population and population with ongoing health condition both (separate trials) 
• controlled for total calories (all groups consume roughly similar calories to avoid) 
• reasonable participant blinding (people wouldn't know what's being tested and who's consuming what oils - this would be hard to do but not impossible) 
• controlled for weight loss / weight gain 
• decent randomisation to allow mix of different genotypes, bodytypes, etc 
• properly assessed at day 0 (whatever you're measuring, you measure before and after 
• (would be cool) all oils used derived from mechanical means vs from non-mechanical means (potential ethical consideration if this presumed harmful effect of refined oils) 

Multiple such trials would be sufficient reason for me to start reconsidering my position especially if someone could meta analyse them into existing data and notice the "needle" of risk ratios moving now. 

6 hours ago, RendHeaven said:

It's odd to me that we get pro vegan critique, anti vegan critique, but only anti seed oil critique (without pro seed oil critique).

fair point! how does the above sound? 

Edited Tuesday at 11:04 PM by Michael569