Talk:Nutrient density

what does nutrient dense mean?

Actually, IMO, that's a very good question.

Per the article:

The term nutrient density has several meanings:
 * 1 Nutrient/energy ratio definition: ratio of nutrient content to the total energy content.
 * Under this definition, nutrient-dense foods such as fruits and vegetables are the opposite of energy-dense food (also called "empty calorie" food) such as alcohol and foods high in added sugar or processed cereals.


 * 2 Energy types definition: ratio of food energy from carbohydrate, protein, or fat to the total food energy
 * 3 Holistic definition: ratio of the nutrient composition of a given food to the nutrient requirements of the human body

Again, study the article. If it needs to be more clearly written, that point should be made in terms of what SPECIFICALLY is unclear. If the general SET of differing definitions is not clear in terms of why there are three different ways of using the term 'nutrient dense', perhaps some point about the degree of congruence and the lack of overall congruence in the definitions in that set could be clarified.

MaynardClark (talk) 04:10, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Opposition to deleting article
The article is significant because it is an important concept in nutrition. User:TheRedPenOfDoom has a vendetta against Joel Fuhrman and is hell-bent to remove anything which has been or ever might be used to support the work of Joel Fuhrman. MaynardClark (talk) 01:36, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * If it is "important" you should be able to easily supply the required reliably published sources specifically discussing the topic. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  01:40, 15 October 2014 (UTC)


 * That's what we're doing. Another editor is also responded to TRPoD's unfounded 'challenges'! MaynardClark (talk) 03:17, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

There's nothing 'unreliable' about the published refereed article on nutrient density. MaynardClark (talk) 01:42, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

In the United States, the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics (formerly the American Dietetic Association) is the largest organization of food and nutrition professionals in the United States. Its professional membership is about 72,000 at present. The Academy publishes articles on nutrient profiling, nutrient density, and nutritional comparisons. MaynardClark (talk) 03:16, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

History of Nutrient Density
I haven't researched the LONG history, which Dr. T. Colin Campbell of Cornell asserts (personal conversation, October 25, 2014, Boston), "goes back to at least the 1930s and was controversial even then." But I suspect that Dr. Campbell's 'lead' is at least enough of a clue that a quality Wikipedia article ought to include the earliest published source(s) which developed or at least led to the development of such a concept.

Curiously, Dr. Campbell commented that the notion of nutrient density presents both theoretical and practical problems. The concept attempts to rank vegetables, fruits, grains, nuts, and other foods according to their presumed biological values. However, all foods vary considerably in their nutrient content, even plants of the same genus and cultivar. That doesn't mean that ranking them makes no sense; to rank all foods is at best inexact. But that's only the beginning, as it were, since food handling, the age and exposure of the plant after cultivation, whether it's cooked - and how, and for how long - or uncooked, and then other variables all affect how much nourishment could be delivered to the point of consumption - typically the mouth. But then, let's say that we get the nutrient-rich vegetables suitably into our bodies. Then, it goes through various points of the digestive process: mouth - chewing and grinding, saliva, swallowing, the stomach does its work, and so on. The nutrients are carried by the blood to the cells, and there, where it confronts the cell, what happens in the cell varies "by the nanosecond" according to what is happening in and around the cell. What is absorbed, and how much - or whether it's absorbed at all by the cell - is such a variable that no teams of reseaarchers could ever make an 'exact science' with this kind of data because the datasets are based upon averages, and conjecture may figure in there, also. So, scholars and researchers in the fields of human nutrition and anatomy and physiology could debate how useful any concept of nutrient density might be. So, if earlier scholars and researchers have done this, we'd like to recover the history of the scholarly debate, at least to synopsize what precedes our time.

We may not doubt that the broccoli and spinach are more nourishing than refined flour and pastries, but the concept is still imprecise and not a critically refined concept. Whatever concept we have might point toward further research and analysis. However, to begin doing serious historical research on the topic, Dr. Campbell's beginning comment was that the concept of nutrient density "goes back to at least the 1930s and was controversial even then." What refereed publications help us see the earliest flow of studied opinion on the then emerging scientific concept? MaynardClark (talk) 08:55, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Future of nutrient density
Analysts from New Nutrition Business say that ideas about 'nutrient density' will exert a ‘growing influence’ on food marketing and product development over the next five years, according to food and nutrition consultancy New Nutrition Business.

request for article giving actual densities of food
It would be nice to have an article giving a table of actual densities of food (in grams/cm^3). I often make soup and such a chart would be useful when shopping to figure out when I have bought so much food that it will overflow the pot.

I searched for this on the web and didn't find it at all. Most densities given are BULK DENSITIES, which include the volume of air contained in a large container of the loosely-packed vegetables. This is of no use when cooking. 173.79.1.186 (talk) 14:46, 9 September 2016 (UTC)