How Does My Breakfast Score?
How would you rate my breakfast?
The reason I ask is because a Boston-area company actually does this for you!
(The company is not compensating me in any way to write this blog post; I just think their system is really cool and beneficial to consumers.)
NuVal is a nutritional scoring system that rates foods on a scale of 1-100, based on how nutritious they are. NuVal is being implemented in grocery stores around the country. It may not be in your area yet, but it’s an interesting concept to help you make better decisions about what you eat and feed to your family.
Melissa, one of the folks at NuVal, checked out my breakfast this morning and sent me the following scores for it:
- Chobani Plain Non-fat: 94
- Banana: 91
- Peanut Butter Puffins: 24
I expected the Chobani and banana to score pretty high, but I was surprised by the score that my beloved Peanut Butter Puffins received. Melissa helped me understand what the scores mean on the NuVal scale.
It’s important for NuVal users to understand that you can’t get a 100 in every category. Many fruits and vegetables score in the 90 – 100 range, but you also need to eat protein, grains, and, of course, treats. You’re not going to find a cookie that scores a 100– nor would you want to eat one if you did! When talking about crackers, for instance, the scores range from 2 – 87. So, a 24 is pretty decent when you’re talking about crackers, but not as good when you are talking about cereal, which is why NuVal talks about medians and ranges for every category. Melissa further explains these ranges in her blog post: Goldfish Vs. Bunnies. Definitely check out her post– you might be surprised about NuVal’s score for Annie’s Cheddar Bunnies. I was rather shocked!
Okay, so back to the Peanut Butter Puffins. First, check out NuVal’s scores for cereal: Cereal Scores.
As you can see, there are some cereals that come close to 100, but are you really going to eat Hodgson Mill Unprocessed Wheat Bran for breakfast every morning? Probably not. The median score for cereal is a 25, so my Peanut Butter Puffins actually fall below that number.
A lot of people think that because they find their cereal in the grocery store’s organic/healthy section, it must be really nutritious. However, this is not always the case. Perfect example: Kashi’s Strawberry Fields cereal scores an 11 while Cap’n Crunch scores a 10. I’m not saying all Kashi cereals score that low– their 7 Whole Grain Cereal Puffs actually score a 91– but you may think you’re doing a really healthy thing by eating “organic” cereal, but you could actually be eating one in the Cap’n Crunch range. Melissa talks more about this in her “Adult Rated Cereal” post.
Questions of the Day
What do you think of nutrition rating systems like NuVal? Would it take some of the confusion out of food shopping? What was the most surprising NuVal score to you?
Tags: NuVal
Kirsten — September 8, 2009 @ 7:01 am
Yikes, looks like cereals with good ratings are few and far between! Interesting system though, I suppose it is easier for some people just to look at the one number than all of the nutritionals separately.
Leianna — September 8, 2009 @ 7:10 am
Wow I love that cereal and eat it almost every morning with a banana, so might have to switch to Kashi. The points system is interesting, very good info. I would like to rate lunches or dinners though, more important in my day!
Britt — September 8, 2009 @ 7:11 am
Very interesting. I know when I’m not in the mood for reading labels, I go by the Guiding Stars rating….
http://www.hannaford.com/Contents/Healthy_Living/Guiding_Stars/index.shtml
Not the most perfect system, but its better than nothing. Some of the items that have 3 stars are…. Larabars, greek yogurt, Kashi Heart to Heart, etc.
Joanna — September 8, 2009 @ 7:12 am
I am a fan of the NuVal system as it is in one of my grocery stores, too. Since it is an independent scoring system, I find it to be extremely trustworthy. It has helped me to confirm my beliefs that some of my food choices are spot on, question some of my food choices, and open my eyes to foods that I might not normally put in my cart (or carriage since you are in the Boston area
)
Shannon — September 8, 2009 @ 7:43 am
Very interesting! I think it’s a great jumping off point for discussion and for rethinking some of the “healthy” choices we think we are making. I also would have thought Puffins would score higher, but I guess that goes to show that you can’t assume that because something is labeled organic or made by a certain company, that it is automatically the healthiest choice.
Emily (Healthy Fit Mama) — September 8, 2009 @ 7:45 am
Interesting system. I guess it makes sense that cereals are rated so low in general since they’re so processed.
Anne P — September 8, 2009 @ 7:46 am
I wonder if they take in to account lots of processing or fake ingredients? Like on the breakfast list, Special K scores pretty high, yet that stuff is usually pretty fake (or at least I remember it being that way). Just a thought. Very interesting! I bet it would help a lot of people with zero clue nutrition-wise at the store.
foodcents — September 8, 2009 @ 7:54 am
Very cool post, Tina. I am actually not surprised that Puffins scored somewhat low, in the whole scheme of things. I feel like alot of cereals we think are healthy, are not as great as we crack them up to be. Lots of sugar, which we get too much of as a nation.
Elizabeth — September 8, 2009 @ 8:00 am
As a Registered Dietitian, let me just point out (although many of you I’m sure are aware) that the label ‘organic’ is by no means synonymous with higher quality nutrition. It’s telling you about the process that the ingredients were grown/cultivated. Sure, it’s better for the environment, but doesn’t mean it’s a health food. After all, organic sugar is still sugar.
If I choose an organic product, it’s because I’m looking out for the environment, and trying to be more eco-friendly.
Nu-val’s system is looking for levels of macro (protein, fat, carbs) and micronutrients (vitamins, minerals) so it has nothing to do with any of the processing methods.
I’m not sure I’d follow it in the store, but for those who are completely clueless about what they’re eating, it may not be a bad thing!
Kristen — September 8, 2009 @ 8:07 am
Ugh I ALMOST picked up Peanut Butter Puffins at the grocery store last night– I’ve never had them and have seen on here that they’re great. I put them down to opt for (what I thought was)a healthier option. What was te healthier option? Yep, Kashi brand. What the heck! Oh well, I’m definitely picking up the PBPs next time!
Kristin @ Iowa Girl Eats — September 8, 2009 @ 8:07 am
I think this is great and I completely agree with you. A lot of people blindly buy whatever is in the organic/health food section of their grocery stores because they think organic=healthy. However, if you look at the labels of a lot of those boxes of cereal, for example, they contain just as much sugar/fat as some regular kids cereal! It just goes to show you – always read labels!
Have a great day Tina!
Ellen (Peace In Motion) — September 8, 2009 @ 8:08 am
thats super interesting!! I would love that breakfast. I think the high rating of the chobs and banana make up for the yummy puffins
Susan — September 8, 2009 @ 8:09 am
I find this SO interesting! It’s a little hard to wrap your head around the numbers at first, but I think it could be a real eye opener for a lot of people! The cereal and cracker thing doesn’t surprise me at all. I’m one of those people who spends 20 minutes in the cereal aisle comparing nutrition labels. A lot of the “healthier” cereals have high sugar, low fibre and low protein, while more mainstream ones are actually quite good in those areas! Organic packaged goods are also a huge pet peeve of mine. They’re marketed as being a better choice, but there’s such a thing as too much organic sugar
Paige@ Running Around Normal — September 8, 2009 @ 8:14 am
What a cool concept! I’m still going to be eating my Puffins though
foodcents — September 8, 2009 @ 8:15 am
After looking over NuVal’s website, I have to agree with the person who mentioned it is odd that they do not take into account how processed items are. If I am right, which I plan to check today, I remember some of the crackers having ingredients in them, which I would imagine would be less than desirable.
I don’t know, it is hard to know who to trust anymore when it comes to food.
I get sick of the idea that organic is “good” for you and the only way to be healthy and eat well.
Great conversation piece!!!
Hayley — September 8, 2009 @ 8:30 am
This is awesome! I find it very interesting and a great idea for people who may not want to spend time reading food labels. Although I think that’s important, this gives a straightforward way of letting people know which might be the better choice when it comes down to 1, 2 or even 3 different products.
I’m actually really surprised to see Lucky Charms higher on the list than Kashi’s Strawberry Fields! For that matter, Post’s Shredded Frosted Wheat is quite high! If I let my husband see this he’ll gloat over the fact that a sugary cereal he likes is better than something organic.
Janice — September 8, 2009 @ 8:38 am
The New York Times did a story on Saturday about the new Smart Choices program, which many healthy experts do not agree with. “The green checkmark label that is starting to show up on store shelves will appear on hundreds of packages, including — to the surprise of many nutritionists — sugar-laden cereals like Cocoa Krispies and Froot Loops.” Artificially colored cereal with 12 grams of sugar per serving qualifies for the label. I’ll stick with the PB Puffins!
Meredith (Pursuing Balance) — September 8, 2009 @ 8:46 am
That’s such an interesting concept!
Deva (Voracious Vorilee) — September 8, 2009 @ 8:49 am
I think this system is interesting and for me, really drives home the fact that reading nutrition labels is a smart thing. I like the idea of scores, verses a check mark system.
Denise — September 8, 2009 @ 9:10 am
I am very glad to here of this program. I will be finding a way to use it… I have had a person criticizing my food choices, writing blog posts about the absolute awfulness of my food choices saying if I continue to eat as I am, I will not live to see my child graduate. I’m sorry, but I DO research about my food and I do NOT eat anything that I feel will harm me. I will be happy to find the nutritional value of my food and shout it from the roof tops! (hopefully!)
Pam — September 8, 2009 @ 9:10 am
Kashi Straw Fields really surprised me. Great info. Tina….thanks!
Sarah R — September 8, 2009 @ 9:11 am
Thanks for posting about NuVal! They just started using it in some of the grocery stores here. I think it’s a good option especially for those who don’t like to read the nutrition labels of the foods they buy. Giving them just one number to look for/digest would make it a lot simpler for a lot of people.
Ellen — September 8, 2009 @ 9:18 am
i feel like this just gives people more excuses to not understand what they’re eating or how to read a nutrition label. i don’t 100% agree with traditional nutritional guidelines– i would rather eat moderate amounts of naturally high fat foods than to eat a artificially lower fat one. for example, cheese or eggs. this is what they say about egg substitutes:
“Egg substitutes that score higher than eggs do so because they retain many of the favorable nutrients in eggs – particularly the high quality protein – while eliminating their principal nutritional liability, cholesterol.”
the “favorable nutrients” are added back in artificially. to me, this just further encourages reliance on processed food.
Madeline @ Greens and Jeans — September 8, 2009 @ 9:22 am
I think this could definitely be an eye opener for all of those people who think just because something is organic it is automatically healthy! I can also imagine that this system could become a great tool for parents to teach their kids about nutrition without talking about counting calories and fat grams.
brandi — September 8, 2009 @ 9:25 am
this is interesting; I think it would be a good way to get people to look closer at the processed things they’re eating
Julia — September 8, 2009 @ 9:25 am
To be honest: I personally don’t like the idea of Nuval. Maybe it would make things easier for people who find it hard (or don’t have time) to reed the nutritional labels and make a ‘healthy choice’. But even with Nuval, there is no such thing as a good choice/better choice/whatever. The key is variety, balance. The fact that a cookie gets a low score doesn’t mean you shouldn’t eat cookies. And you shouldn’t eat only carrots the whole day, because they are ‘healthy’: it’s about finding the right balance that suits you and your body.
Next to that, for me as a person that’s recovering from an eating disorder, things like Nuval can easily make me going the ‘wrong way’: that means obsessing about healthy foods, not eating the low-score foods, etc. I think part of healthy living is just listening to yourself and to your body. Make some healthy choices but also indulge from time to time. For me life is SO MUCH BETTER since I’m doing that again. And I think that’s what you’re doing too, in life and on this blog. And that’s inspiring:)
Love, Julia (Taste of Living)
Sarah — September 8, 2009 @ 9:26 am
Nooo, not PB Puffins! I love them! But I think paired with the other healthy items from your bfast, it’s still a healthy meal!
MelissaNibbles — September 8, 2009 @ 9:32 am
I’m not surprised by the low cereal scores either. I’ve always assumed that Puffins were just on organic version of Cap ‘n Crunch. Label reading is very important.
skinnyrunner — September 8, 2009 @ 9:34 am
thats a really interesting idea and website!
Courtney — September 8, 2009 @ 9:39 am
I think this could be good because it could help show people the reality about what they eat. Many people think if they buy it at Whole Foods or Trader Joe’s that it is automatically “healthy” Many of these foods still contain lots of calories and fat and are not necessarily good for you.
Courtney
Adventures in Tri-ing
Semi-Sweet Sarah — September 8, 2009 @ 9:41 am
I hadn’t heard of these guys, thanks for the post! Overall, I guess it’s a good idea – it can help people who are otherwise eating a lot of junk to select more nutritious foods for themselves and their families. But I do agree w/the other commenters – the system isn’t 100% great – there are a lot of additives/preservatives/artificial things that won’t get taken into account w/the system. And yes – empty calories are empty calories, whether they’re from Whole Foods or Stop ‘n’ Shop! One just might not be artificially colored/flavored empty calories . . . .
zestycook — September 8, 2009 @ 9:43 am
That is still not bad Tina, when paired with the other things. Still a decent score as far as I can see. ANd you are happy when you are done eating it… that is the key!
kay (eating machine) — September 8, 2009 @ 9:45 am
i like this… i’m totally going to be checking their site out!
)
i always am amused when people eat annie’s like it’s all health food. their mac and cheese is still mac and cheese… powdered cheese and usually white pasta. just because it’s “all natural” isn’t a magic bullet that makes it good for you.
(although i do buy vegan cookies and pretend those are good for me
Semi-Sweet Sarah — September 8, 2009 @ 9:47 am
You might also be interested in this blog post by Marion Nestle re the “Smart Choices” program: http://www.foodpolitics.com/2009/09/kelloggs-asks-for-a-froot-loops-correction-more-on-smart-choices/
Amanda@lessonsinmoderation — September 8, 2009 @ 9:48 am
In theory I like what NuVal is doing, but I don’t think people should follow a score/number blindly. It’s a helpful guide though for people learning about nutrition.
Kristen @ Simply Savor — September 8, 2009 @ 9:55 am
I think the NuVal system is a really interesting concept! I wouldn’t necessary rely completely on the scores they provide while making certain food choices (great points people made about what these scores are based on–processing, ingredient list etc.) but for people who feel clueless as to what they should be looking for at the grocery store, this would be a great learning resource to start off with! i’m interested to learn more about it, along with how some other programs compare! thanks for bringing this up Tina!
Amanda @ Cakes and Ale — September 8, 2009 @ 10:14 am
It’s an interesting system, but I’m not sure I would use it every time I shop. I’m pretty aware of the fact that some “healthy/organic” items can still be nutritionally poor (i.e. too much sugar, no fiber/protein, etc.), but I think it would be helpful for other people who are less in-the-know when it comes to eating right.
Jess — September 8, 2009 @ 10:37 am
This is an interesting system and I think it’s a great way to guide people that maybe don’t pick the healthiest option in the grocery store, but for me personally there is no way that I would use a system that places Kellog’s Special K protein Plus (not whole grain), Kellogg’s All Bran (high fructose corn syrup), and Frosted Shredded Wheat (loaded with sugar) above Kashi 7 Grain Flakes that are whole grain and all natural.
Kim — September 8, 2009 @ 10:37 am
puffins are the best! i think they get rated so low because really who can just have one serving!! i can go through a box in like a day….so good
thats my fav yogurt tho
love it
Lindsay @ bananaandchocolate — September 8, 2009 @ 10:52 am
Very interesting! It seems like a scoring system like that would be helpful as someone was trying to learn about better choices. I’m still gonna eat puffins regardless of their score!
Cynthia (It All Changes) — September 8, 2009 @ 10:52 am
I love the concept of this. I fell into the trap of thinking organic necessarily meant better. So I gave myself license to eat organic cookies, chocolate, ice cream, etc thinking it was all good for me. I had to do a lot of reading to understand that not all organic=healthy.
It might take an adjustment to learn the system but I would love it so I don’t fall into the trap of buying the wrong stuff.
Meg — September 8, 2009 @ 10:54 am
I do think Nuval would really open people’s eyes about what’s “healthy” and would help those that may not read labels. I was surprised to see that Stonyfield yogurt had a somewhat low score. I am definitely interested to go check out some of the other scores!
~carolyn~ — September 8, 2009 @ 10:54 am
Wow, Tina this is fantastic. I went over to the site to check out some other numbers. I may actually consider shredded wheat!
Heather — September 8, 2009 @ 11:01 am
Interesting to read how this was based! Our local Meijer’s store has been listing the NuVal numbers in it’s ad lately & I had no idea where it came from. I think it’s a GREAT idea to get people more focused on healthier living! Nice to see that my shredded wheat is a good one
lol
Jenna P — September 8, 2009 @ 11:13 am
Hey Tina,
I think this is a great resource. I think a lot of people get suckered into products by their favorite health food companies, thinking that because a ‘health food’ company made it, it must be good for you.
Maybe this will make the health food companies look a little deeper, and awaken the eyes of consumers, realizing that the cheaper, ‘non-healthy’ foods are maybe not as bad as we thought. Of course, relatively speaking.
Love this resource. Thanks Tina!
Meghan — September 8, 2009 @ 11:38 am
I think this would be really helpful for some people who might be misled by things that they think are really healthy.
Shion (Shi's Eating) — September 8, 2009 @ 11:46 am
Good to know Peanut Butter Puffins do not score very high. I love them!!!
Sometimes it’s a good thing to reassess what you’re eating.
Thanks for the info!
Sara — September 8, 2009 @ 11:53 am
This sounds like an interesting concept, but I would fear it may make people obsessive about their “score” — the same perfectionists, perhaps, that ‘need’ to get 100% on every test. Then again, it may be a quick, handy reference for those with little education about proper diet and reading nutrition labels. Rather than making an ‘idiot-proof’ system, if you will (like cars that have cameras showing you what’s behind you, etc.), people should probably take it upon themselves to become educated. Having a skill is so much more valuable in the long run than having a “machine”(-like) system tell you if you’re “good” or “bad” — it’s a little oversimplified.
Angharad (Eating for England) — September 8, 2009 @ 11:58 am
Very interesting! I think it could act as a good guide to those who are uneducated about food nutrition but I would not personally base any purchases on it. I would love to know more about the system and hear some constructive criticism on it by experts – Is the system biased towards some food groups etc.? Would be interesting to know.
Evan Thomas — September 8, 2009 @ 12:04 pm
That looks like an interesting system. I’ve seen it at Price Chopper but never knew how it worked. I hope to learn more
BroccoliHut — September 8, 2009 @ 12:23 pm
Oh man, I could have so much fun with this site. I am always interested to see how healthful my meal choices are according to perspective other than my own–I like to think that I make nutritious choices, but it would be interesting to see how others rate my diet.
Lizzy — September 8, 2009 @ 12:24 pm
I havent had a chance to check out most of the scoring yet, but from the looks of it i think this is really kinda cool. Gives you sort of an idea of what your eating and how well it ranks in the nutrients…i’d def give this a try!
Marla — September 8, 2009 @ 12:25 pm
Wow, I am happy that good ol Shredded Wheat is so darn good for you…I’ll be bringing that(the unfrosted kind of course!)back to my life-yum!
Not really surprised Puffins and Kashi were low scoring-lots of sugar etc.Also I find we tend to get roped in thinking if it is from the organic(pricey!)section that it must be superior healthwise.This is a good WAKE UP CALL for breakfast cereals.Thanks for the post!!
Kate — September 8, 2009 @ 12:33 pm
The NuVal system is very interesting! I question, though, how they can establish a system that rates what is “healthy” for everyone. As peoples’ requirements vary, I do not think there is a one-size-fits-all rating that will work. However, any system to make choosing healthy food easier is a good one! Since I’m in Boston, I’m going to do some more research.
Tamara — September 8, 2009 @ 12:55 pm
Looking through the cereal ratings, it seems that fiber content is weighted very heavily, followed by vitamin/mineral content, followed by sugar (inversely). I would guess the formula is something like: grams fiber * X + number nutrients >Y% daily intake * Z – grams sugar * Z’ (this is just pulled out of my hat, of course). Or, it may be based on percent mass by each component…in any case I’m not surprised the puffins fare poorly because they don’t have much fiber and aren’t pumped full of supplements like General Mills Cinnamon Toast Crunch is.
Morgan (lifeafterbagels) — September 8, 2009 @ 1:02 pm
Super interesting! . . . I quit eating cereal a few years ago. Although I have many other indulgences that I’m sure would score low too.
Sassy Molassy — September 8, 2009 @ 1:02 pm
Yes, very interesting to see how high some cereals are rated over others. It just shows that inspecting the labels, no matter how “natural” or “organic” a product is, is still important!
Elisabeth — September 8, 2009 @ 1:05 pm
I’ve never heard of anything like this before, so it took me a few minutes to consider my true opinion. My initial reaction is to fault anything that resembles a new way to “diet”, so at first I started thinking negatively about NuVal. However, the more I looked at their website, the more I realized how helpful the scores can be for someone who is just learning about how to find a healthy balance with food.
Many people are not comfortable with food labels, and tend to focus on only one or two aspects of the entire label. This seems like a good way to decipher the label in a very plain and simple way, and to determine if a food is really as good as it seems.
Joelle (The Pancake Girl) — September 8, 2009 @ 1:14 pm
That’s really interesting! I’m a little bummed because I love Strawberry Fields haha but nevertheless I’ll still be eating it.
Jenn — September 8, 2009 @ 1:43 pm
I think this system is a great start for people who are just learning or becoming interested in a healthier lifestyle but I would not personally use NuVal. Yes, organic does not equal healthy, but at least you know you are not eating high fructose corn syrup, hydrogenated oils (=trans fat), etc. Any system that ranks General Mills Cinnamon Toast Crunch with 75% reduced sugar as one of the best cereal to eat does not earn my trust.
Elina — September 8, 2009 @ 1:43 pm
Very interesting! I guess it’s a little too much math for me. I already know that bananas and greek yogurt is good for me. It could be a better tool for people that are a little more clueless
Lynn (The Actors Diet) — September 8, 2009 @ 1:44 pm
i am so so so sad about the low PB puffins score.
loreejo — September 8, 2009 @ 2:03 pm
Thanks for sharing this info; interesting concept and I’ll check it out further. It seems like an interesting way to compare the few foods we buy “in the middle” of the market. I live in OK and haven’t seen/heard of anything like this yet.
JavaChick — September 8, 2009 @ 2:21 pm
I’ve tried out a variety of online calorie counters and there was one that would give you a grade for your choices (like A- or B+, etc). I found it interesting and it did make me think. Can’t remember for sure which one it was though – maybe caloriescount.com?
Biz — September 8, 2009 @ 2:32 pm
Wow, that surprises me too on the cereal!
I’ll have to check out that site – thanks for the info!
emily — September 8, 2009 @ 2:35 pm
They can pry my Puffins from my cold dead hands!
Beth @ CrossBorderCravings — September 8, 2009 @ 2:42 pm
I think the system is a good idea for someone who is looking to reach a health goal and not very educated about healthy habits. It does provide some valuable info, but it seems a bit like common sense in many cases!
Tay — September 8, 2009 @ 2:50 pm
Wow that’s actually a really interesting thing. And I completely agree with your part about “healthy” looking cereals. Many people think that because it’s ‘organic’, or ‘made with whole grains’ or part of a ‘healthy brand’ (like Kashi), that it’s automatically good for you. But then look at the amount of sugar! Kashi go lean crunch as more sugar than some of those “dessert cereals”! And while puffins are delicious, they barely have any fiber.
While it’s interesting, I took a look at the list and there are still a little iffy part to it. Cinnamon toast crunch reduced sugar earned pretty high. Because it has less sugar? I’m sure there are some no-so-pretty ingredients in that box. It’s hard to give foods a certain number score because there are so many factors to look at – not just the sugar, protein, fiber etc. But also the type of ingredients that go into making it!
Ali (food, fitness, fashion) — September 8, 2009 @ 2:52 pm
This is so interesting! I would love for this to be in my local stores. I think that it would help people make more informed decisions. I would think Puffins would score higher. I wonder if the different flavors would score differently.
MR — September 8, 2009 @ 2:52 pm
It’s not surprising that a lot of packaged foods touted as healthy turn out not to be so. It depends on your definition of healthy of course. But if you’re looking to eat mostly whole grains, less sugar, salt, additives and preservatives, I find the best information is in the ingredient list. Since ingredients are listed in order of percentage weight (highest first), it’s easy to determine what your product is mostly made out of. If a box of crackers is marketed as “healthy whole grain”, but the first few ingredients read “Enriched Wheat Flour, Vegetable Oil, Sugar…”, then you’re not getting what you think you are.
Jenn Eats Nutritiously Now — September 8, 2009 @ 3:28 pm
That is really interesting! Thanks so much for sharing this system.
Sarah — September 8, 2009 @ 3:58 pm
I think it is an interesting system that will definitely make consumers more aware of the foods that they are eating. I personally believe a lot of labels out there “fool” people so it is good that they are taking that into account (like the cereal — just because it’s Kashi doesn’t mean its the best for you). But like you said, we can’t eat foods that score 100 all the time but having those numbers would show us if we have a potentially dangerous trend growing in our daily diets. Thanks!
Whitney — September 8, 2009 @ 5:59 pm
Thats a pretty cool system. I think it would be a good idea to start implementing it into grocery stores as well as with health related fields. My father for example thinks he knows how to eat healthy but will go to the store and buy the totally wrong foods. He does not understand reading the ingredients and I feel many people are in such a hurry all the time they see “organic” or ” reduced sugar” or “made with whole grains” and just buy it without realizing it may carry as much sugar as a snickers. Good find!! I am very interesting to read more about the program
faith in food — September 8, 2009 @ 6:02 pm
This system has it’s pros and cons as some have already pointed out. The thing I’m worried about is once again just labeling a food, and people still not understanding what they are eating. They still won’t get that it’s portion size, calories in and calories out, and now they won’t be reading the nutrition label and understanding what they are putting into their bodies and at least gaining a bit of nutrition knowledge in the process if they are just looking at a number. Plus, people with all or nothing mindsets might go into the mode of thinking “oh my gosh, i can only eat foods that are 80 or above” or some crazy rule. I’m not sure if I actually like this idea. I wish we could put whatever financing this system is taking and market education on the good old exchange system which is already all over packaging and although takes some educating, is very adaptable and easy to understand.
Lynna — September 8, 2009 @ 7:43 pm
Although this system has some benefits, overall, I don’t think it’s very helpful. As people have already pointed out, it could lead to obsessing and does not seem to take certain things into consideration (i.e.- processed foods v.s. simple/ natural ingredients). I saw many highly rated products that I know contain high fructose corn syrup and/ or lots of sugar.
Furthermore, I think the system could be confusing for people who ARE knowledgeable about nutrition because it may lead them to wonder why something they thought was healthy by their personal criteria is not highly rated. I know not everything labeled orgainc is healthy, but foods that are more natural and have recognizable ingredients are better than those that don’t. The system will only make it easier for people who don’t read labels and aren’t knowledgeable about nutrition/health to be LESS knowledgeable about their own specific needs. Nutrition needs to be individualized based on ones age, health history, etc., it’s not a one size fits all system.
Thanks, Tina, for bringing this to people’s attention!
Steak Salad – Carrots ‘N’ Cake — September 9, 2009 @ 8:25 pm
[...] How Does My Breakfast Score? [...]
The Challenge Begins! – Carrots ‘N’ Cake — September 10, 2009 @ 7:17 am
[...] How Does My Breakfast Score? [...]
The Challenge Begins! – Carrots ‘N’ Cake — September 10, 2009 @ 7:17 am
[...] How Does My Breakfast Score? [...]
My New Gig – Carrots ‘N’ Cake — October 7, 2009 @ 9:06 pm
[...] Remember this post? [...]