the vicar
Oct 5 2008, 1:55 pm
QUOTE
What is the ONQI?
The Overall Nutritional Quality Index (ONQI) is algorithm designed to generate a single, summative score for the “overall nutritional quality” of a food based on it's micronutrient and macronutrient composition and several other of its nutritional properties (e.g., energy density). The ONQI is further designed to stratify foods into a rank order of relative nutritiousness both universally (i.e., across all food categories) and within specific food categories (e.g., breads, cereals, frozen desserts, etc.), while avoiding the characterization of any food as “good” or “bad” in absolute terms.
Food in some American supermarkets will soon have the ONQI score on it. Seems like a good idea to me.
QUOTE
Sample Adjusted ONQI Scores, 1-100 Scale
Food Score
Mustard Greens 100
Fresh Strawberries 100
Raw Spinach 100
Raw Broccoli 100
Orange 100
Apple 96
Banana 91
Lager 90
Plain Oatmeal 88
Atlantic Salmon 87
Tilapia (fish) 82
Almonds, dry roasted 82
1% Milk 81
Barley, cooked 63
Scallops 51
Sunflower Seeds, dry roasted, salted 40
Orange Juice 39
Ground Beef, cooked at home 31
Canola Oil 24
Diet Soda 15
Pretzel Sticks 11
Pepperoni 9
Cheese Calzone 8
Regular Soda 1
Taffy 1 (I'm not sure why the Welsh are so bad for you)
Last modified 1/18/08
ONQI - website
robinson100
Oct 5 2008, 1:58 pm
er, I don´t see chocolate on the list... is this the list for men by any chance???!
the vicar
Oct 5 2008, 2:02 pm
Dark chocolate has a rating of 10. Don't have the score for girl's chocolate. Whooops, actually I do, it's 3, I'm afraid.
crusoe
Oct 5 2008, 2:09 pm
QUOTE
Lager 90
Was the list done by a Bavarian?
the vicar
Oct 5 2008, 2:11 pm
That was my little joke. The rest of the scores are kosher.
robinson100
Oct 5 2008, 2:14 pm
QUOTE (the vicar @ Oct 5 2008, 3:02 pm)
Dark chocolate has a rating of 10. Don't have the score for girl's chocolate. Whooops, actually I do, it's 3, I'm afraid.
- so if I eat ten bars of chocolate, I score thirty points...?
yippee!
the vicar
Oct 5 2008, 2:45 pm
I'm afraid it just means you've eaten lots of food with low nutritional value. Why not tuck into a nice tasty radish (99 points) or a raw green cabbage (96 points)?
QUOTE (the vicar @ Oct 5 2008, 3:45 pm)
Why not tuck into a nice tasty radish (99 points) or a raw green cabbage (96 points)?
Because I am not a rabbit or tortoise
I'm a carnivore - and ate a large slice of
Lübecker Nusstorte (bought, not self-made) a short while ago
Bell the cat
Oct 5 2008, 3:02 pm
hmm, surely the healthiest diet is one that balances a whole lot of eleents with different nutritional properties. This ONQ score is about as informative as an IQ score!
the vicar
Oct 5 2008, 3:08 pm
Yes, of course, a balanced diet is a good idea. But as a consumer you don't often know the nutritional value of the stuff you buy. For example, if you know the kids breakfast cereal has score of 2, you might look for a more nutritional cereal. Or if you know regular cut bacon has a score of 2 and oatmeal a score of 88, maybe you would buy healthier food. Seems a good idea to me. Right I'm off for some apple pie (2 points)
meckle
Oct 5 2008, 10:02 pm
marketing gimmick to sell shit. nutrition is complicated. u can't boil it down to a number for every food
mlovett
Oct 6 2008, 7:54 am
agreed. But, I do believe it helps those who are absolutely clueless about nutrition.
Nothing helps those that are absolutely clueless. They will run with the "eat 10 bars of chocolate" option as mentioned above.
the vicar
Oct 6 2008, 9:03 am
It labels crap food with a low score and nutritional food with a good score. I would find it useful.
QUOTE
u can't boil it down to a number for every food
Their web-site expands on this point-
QUOTE
What factors contribute to how a food’s nutrition quality is scored?
The science behind the ONQI is as sophisticated as the tool is simple to use.
The ONQI is based on a novel, patent-pending concept which defines the nutritional quality of foods based on the influence they have on overall dietary goals.
The ONQI answers the questions:
How does the concentration of a given nutrient in a given food compare to the recommended concentration of that nutrient in the diet overall?
How, therefore, does consumption of a given food influence the recommended daily intake levels for an array of nutrients?
Factors considered in developing ONQI include: fiber; folate; vitamins A, C, D, E, B12, B6; potassium; calcium; zinc; omega 3 fatty acids; bioflavanoids; carotenoids; magnesium; iron; saturated fat; trans fat; sodium; sugar; cholesterol; fat quality; protein quality; energy density and glycemic load.
ONQI
Tiggi
Oct 6 2008, 10:00 am
For people not presently aware that raw spinach and oranges are more nutritious than pretzel sticks and soda, this system may prove very enlightening. It will mean that, like everyone else, they can go ahead and buy their pretzel sticks and soda in full awareness that they are making poor nutritional choices.
the vicar
Oct 6 2008, 10:03 am
What's the nutritional value of Sainbury's cream of mushroom soup? I don't know. How can I found that out?
Tiggi
Oct 6 2008, 10:09 am
And once you have found out that it is substantially lower than home-made soup with fresh mushrooms, will that mean you change your eating habits?
the vicar
Oct 6 2008, 10:12 am
It means I can make informed choices about what I buy. I can compare products, maybe buy another brand, choose another meal or God forbid make my own soup.
spatown
Oct 6 2008, 11:32 am
It sounds like a good idea for the clueless. Or poor students with no interest and v little money.
Does feel as though we (the consumers) are being patronised just a bit.
I wonder how much this extra activity to inform the ignorant public is going to add to the price of the food.
the vicar
Oct 6 2008, 11:39 am
The point is most consumers are clueless about the products they buy. Clever marketing will give you the impression that their product is a healthy option whereas it's actually full of sugar and salt. A simple rating which gives consumers more information is a good thing.
Eleanor Rigby
Oct 6 2008, 11:41 am
I agree that nutrition is a very complex thing and what might be more nutritious for some, may not be for others. For example, it's laughable that diet soda is higher on the scale than regular soda. Sure, if you have a weight problem and reducing sugar intake is key to your weight loss but what about chemical content? There's a lot more unpronouncable crap in diet soda.
Either way though, the more information one can find, the better. A scale like this can be useful if used in conjunction with other methods.
Genie
Oct 6 2008, 11:41 am
QUOTE (meckle @ Oct 5 2008, 11:02 pm)
marketing gimmick to sell shit. nutrition is complicated. u can't boil it down to a number for every food
All of the above.
the vicar
Oct 6 2008, 11:45 am
Is that fact or just your opinion?
Genie
Oct 6 2008, 11:58 am
I was not aware there is a difference
Seriously, think of it: if you think you can boil down nutrition to a number for each food, this means a foodstuff that has ranking 100 is always better than one that has 90, or 80, or 10. If you'd take this list seriously this means you would eat spinach, broccoli, mustard greens and oranges and nothing else. My guess is that if you engage in even the slightest physical activity you'd be suffering from shortage in proteins, carbohydrates (unless you stuff down a bag of oranges a day), omega-3 and -6 fatty acids, and many other things a nutrition expert would probably be able to point out to you.
And that's why I think the list is crap. If you want to use an index or a list to build up your alimentary input, these things exist. They're called diets.
the vicar
Oct 6 2008, 12:03 pm
Maybe you could expand on your arguments a bit, then.
meckle
Oct 6 2008, 8:54 pm
ok I'll expand.
Its bollocks.
Nutrition is a multi-dimensional entity i.e. there are aspects of nutrition that influence a multitude of different nutritional factors. Some of these factors oppose each other. You can't represent such a complicated multi-dimensional entity in one number. Therefore the ONQI is bollocks.
If you don't buy that just look at the website - it even says the word marketplace in writing along with the word POWER in big red writing -if you can't clearly see that its marketing bollocks then fine go ahead and use it what do i care. Yes, yes the supermarkets are using it because its good for you. Not because it might make them money. Ha what woudl supermarkets care about making money - don't you know they are only there for the good of hour health.
the vicar
Oct 7 2008, 1:59 pm
QUOTE
ok I'll expand.
Its bollocks.
Nutrition is a multi-dimensional entity i.e. there are aspects of nutrition that influence a multitude of different nutritional factors. Some of these factors oppose each other. You can't represent such a complicated multi-dimensional entity in one number. Therefore the ONQI is bollocks.
I'm no expert. But it doesn't seem to be bollocks to me.
I don't know why you're so hostile towards ONQI. It simply tells consumers whether a product is healthy for you or not.
Interview with the creator of ONQIQUOTE
If you don't buy that just look at the website - it even says the word marketplace in writing along with the word POWER in big red writing -if you can't clearly see that its marketing bollocks then fine go ahead and use it what do i care. Yes, yes the supermarkets are using it because its good for you. Not because it might make them money. Ha what woudl supermarkets care about making money - don't you know they are only there for the good of hour health.
It's called customer satisfaction, giving the consumer what he wants. The customers want to know how healthy are the products they're buying. They want to be able to compare products and make informed choices. A good business will respond to customer demands and not ignore them.
Is ONQI a marketing ploy? Quoting their web-site :
QUOTE
The ONQI differentiates itself by being a product of pure science, developed by a panel of leading health and nutrition experts – so commercial considerations did not in any way color its development. The ONQI was simply designed to be the best nutritional measurement system modern science could support and provides one robust score for each food, recipe, etc. The ONQI can be used on any food product, no matter who manufactures or sells that product.
William
Oct 7 2008, 2:40 pm
It sounds too good, looks too good because it is too good - apparently this ONQI was put together by the Topco Association an umbrella organization for American food retailers.
http://healthtodayshow.blogspot.com/2007/1...lity-index.html
Shock. Horror. We have been raped of our nutritional innocence by a GM corn on the cob the size of the Chrysler building.
the vicar
Oct 7 2008, 2:52 pm
QUOTE
It sounds too good, looks too good because it is too good - apparently this ONQI was put together by the Topco Association an umbrella organization for American food retailers.
To quote their web-site :
QUOTE
What is Topco Associates?
Topco Associates is a $7.3 billion, privately held company that provides innovative solutions for its food industry member-owners and customers.
Topco leverages the collective volume of its member companies and customers to help them maintain a competitive advantage in the marketplace by reducing costs and providing access to business-building opportunities – such as the ONQI.
Together, Topco members represent more than $111 billion in consumer sales annually through thousands of affiliated stores.
Topco brands include: Food Club, Shurfine/Shurfresh, Full Circle, World Classics Trading Company, ValuTime and others.
A full list of Topco members and brands can be found at www.Topco.com.
What is Topco’s role in the launch of ONQI?
Topco is a partner with Griffin Hospital in the release of the ONQI. Topco will work with Griffin Hospital to introduce the ONQI to consumers starting in the second half of 2008 – through product packaging, point of purchase and on the Web.
Was the ONQI commissioned by Topco?
No, the ONQI was developed by an independent group of leading experts in health and nutrition. Topco had no role in the development of the ONQI.
You're right to be cynical. It would be nice if the Governments actually came up with a decent food labelling system.
WinerDiner
Oct 7 2008, 3:08 pm
Any ONQI looks irresponsible to me. No single food is sufficiently well balanced to sustain human life. So giving certain any food a perfect score of 100% is misleading - implying that it has no deficiencies.
Just how are these scores calculated? I bet more on wishful thinking than scientific data.
Eleanor Rigby
Oct 7 2008, 3:12 pm
I remember reading somewhere that if you had to survive on just a single food, the potato would be the one.
Or maybe it was the banana
Showem
Oct 7 2008, 3:14 pm
I thought it was Guinness.
the vicar
Oct 7 2008, 3:18 pm
QUOTE
does consumption of a given food influence the recommended daily intake levels for an array of nutrients?
Factors considered in developing ONQI include: fiber; folate; vitamins A, C, D, E, B12, B6; potassium; calcium; zinc; omega 3 fatty acids; bioflavanoids; carotenoids; magnesium; iron; saturated fat; trans fat; sodium; sugar; cholesterol; fat quality; protein quality; energy density and glycemic load.
Presumably strawberries and Guinness influence the recommended daily intake levels for the above.
mlovett
Oct 7 2008, 3:24 pm
QUOTE (Eleanor Rigby @ Oct 7 2008, 4:12 pm)
I remember reading somewhere that if you had to survive on just a single food, the potato would be the one.
Or maybe it was the banana
I've read avocado.
the vicar
Oct 7 2008, 3:32 pm
QUOTE
avocado
100 points and gets the Vicar's personal recommendation as a quality vegetable (or is it a fruit?)
mlovett
Oct 7 2008, 3:38 pm
Avocado is a fruit. I was SO happy to find it here (although they aren't quite as good as they are in CA, where my friends have an avo farm). I'm not surprised it ranks 100.
the vicar
Oct 7 2008, 3:42 pm
While in the States I got into the habit of mashing avocados up and putting them in my sandwiches. Top nosh.
mlovett
Oct 7 2008, 3:46 pm
Much healthier than mayonnaise (which I cannot stand)!
Guacamole *almost* makes eating chips OK.
Eleanor Rigby
Oct 7 2008, 4:29 pm
Unfortunately, healthy as they may be, avocados are fat bombs so not recommended (in larger quantities) for those watching their weight.
poor people arn't interested in 'nutrition', they are interested in obtaining the maximum amount of calories for the lowest cost. Only the middle class and above can afford to really care about 'nutrition'
the vicar
Oct 7 2008, 7:36 pm
QUOTE
poor people arn't interested in 'nutrition', they are interested in obtaining the maximum amount of calories for the lowest cost.
Common people also like to dance and drink and screw.
QUOTE
Unfortunately, healthy as they may be, avocados are fat bombs so not recommended (in larger quantities) for those watching their weight.
In the defence of the mighty avocado. The bishop told me it's full of
good fats. It helps lower your cholesterol. Avocados also have 60% more potassium than bananas. They are rich in B vitamins, as well as vitamin E and vitamin K. They have the highest fiber content of any fruit. In fact, God's gift to lard arses*
*dodgy info
mlovett
Oct 7 2008, 7:51 pm
exactly right on the good fat of avocados, vicar!
Genie
Oct 8 2008, 3:36 pm
Avocados are fantastic. If you eat too much of them, you gain weight.
Strawberries are fantastic. If you eat too much of them, you gain weight.
Mustard greens are fantastic. If you eat too much of them, you gain weight.
...getting the picture?
the vicar
Oct 8 2008, 10:53 pm
QUOTE
...getting the picture?
You're going round the twist?
meckle
Oct 8 2008, 10:58 pm
its bollox
u want ppl to eat healthier its simple - u make good food cheap and shit food expensive. u do that two ways a) tax the shit food to disincentivise consumers to buy it and b ) tax any profits made from the shit food by the food companies to disincentivise the companies from making it in the first place.
No need for stupid oversimplified marketing tools
Genie
Oct 9 2008, 7:39 am
Taxes are the easiest solution always, but really there are better ways. Regulation of food production (e.g. regulate the amount of HCFS in a product, the amount of trans fatty acids, balance of vitamins etc.), raise awareness by advertisement which seemed to work just fine with cigarettes, support dietary consulting for people without them needing to see a doctor.
the vicar
Oct 9 2008, 12:48 pm
You need simple, universal labelling system so people can see what's in the food they're buying. I want to know how much salt, sugar and fat is actually in the product, for example. I want to able compare products and make imformed choices about what I buy.
worm
Oct 9 2008, 12:51 pm
exactly! I want to know how easily a foodstuff will get me laid
You are viewing a low fidelity version of this page. Click to view
the full page.
