PDA

View Full Version : Nutrient quality?



nimbus456
12-16-2012, 03:45 PM
A question that's been bugging me for a while, and I'm pretty sure a little common sense could answer;

How important is nutrient quality and sourcing?
Are there any viable studies on this?

When I say quality, I mean chemical types/variations. By sourcing I mean from animals over plants or vice versa.
I've read people on this forum saying 'Just hit your macros and it'll be fine, you can bulk on McDonalds.'
This does not sit right with me.

WonderPug
12-16-2012, 03:52 PM
Are you trying to address micronutrient or macronutrient content in foods?

And are you speaking about discretionary caloric intake after micronutrient sufficiency has been met with your "McDonalds" question?


P.S. McDonalds isn't a food. Rather, it's a name of a fast food eatery.

BWC101
12-16-2012, 03:56 PM
A question that's been bugging me for a while, and I'm pretty sure a little common sense could answer;

How important is nutrient quality and sourcing?
Are there any viable studies on this?

When I say quality, I mean chemical types/variations. By sourcing I mean from animals over plants or vice versa.
I've read people on this forum saying 'Just hit your macros and it'll be fine, you can bulk on McDonalds.'
This does not sit right with me.

I agree but you will find most informed people when discussing IIFYM approaches will also emphasize the need for whole unprocessed foods to comprise the majority of your diet for hitting respective micronutrient needs as well as macronutrients.

I also get the chits with fundamental IIFYM stuff but it is finally being weeded out as crap

nimbus456
12-16-2012, 04:08 PM
Are you trying to address micronutrient or macronutrient content in foods?

And are you speaking about discretionary caloric intake after micronutrient sufficiency has been met with your "McDonalds" question?



I am addressing both micro and macronutrient values. Purely the quality of the nutrients involved, and how effectively your body utilises them.
Or even how (un)balanced the quantities of these nutrients are present in fast foods compared to wholefoods.

For example, if someone was to eat a controlled amount of fast foods for a six month period so they hit the majority of their DRI for both micro and macros, and they were compared to someone eating a controlled amount of wholefoods; would there be a vast difference in overall wellbeing/efficiency?

WonderPug
12-16-2012, 04:13 PM
I am addressing both micro and macronutrient values. Purely the quality of the nutrients involved, and how effectively your body utilises them.
Or even how (un)balanced the quantities of these nutrients are present in fast foods compared to wholefoods.
Let's look at a comparison between the protein content in a specific processed fast food, a BigMac, and compare it to the protein content contained in broccoli, a whole food.

The protein content in the BigMac, gram for gram and calorie for calorie, would provide much more essential amino acids than would the protein contained in broccoli.

In other words, you have to give very specific examples otherwise using catch phrases like "processed food" or "whole food", without nutrient dose, context, etc. is relatively meaningless.

BWC101
12-16-2012, 04:14 PM
I am addressing both micro and macronutrient values. Purely the quality of the nutrients involved, and how effectively your body utilises them.
Or even how (un)balanced the quantities of these nutrients are present in fast foods compared to wholefoods.

For example, if someone was to eat a controlled amount of fast foods for a six month period so they hit the majority of their DRI for both micro and macros, and they were compared to someone eating a controlled amount of wholefoods; would there be a vast difference in overall wellbeing/efficiency?

I could be wrong here but I think the issue is not with the quality of micronutrients but instead the fact that they are not present to the same levels in 'fast food' if you were to keep macronutrients the same

nimbus456
12-16-2012, 04:35 PM
So essentially what your saying is: levels of saturated fats/monosaturated/polyunsaturated/etc and other nutrient types with lots of variations like surgar and protein don't really play a part? Just hitting the correct amount your body needs of fat, sugar, protein and micros matters?

Correct me if I'm wrong.

WonderPug
12-16-2012, 04:37 PM
So essentially what your saying is: levels of saturated fats/monosaturated/polyunsaturated/etc and other nutrient types with lots of variations like surgar and protein don't really play a part? Just hitting the correct amount your body needs of fat, sugar, protein and micros matters?Obviously not.

What's matters is the actual nutrients consumed, not the names of the foods you consume or the names of the eateries where you buy your foods.

dylmill
12-16-2012, 05:12 PM
I like to think about it this way: whatever food you consume, you are putting the energy of that being (animal, plant, etc) into your body. It's a simple transference of energy. Eating a steak from a cow raised in open air, eating grass and living it's life the way it was intended to is going to yield the same macros as a steak from a cow raised on grain, living in it's own feces and never seeing the light of the sun. However, with the former steak, you are putting that cows energy into your body, and it is likely a stronger, healthier cow than the latter. This applies for fruits and vegetables as well. Eating life gives you life. If you become in-tune with your body and mind, you notice the subtle effects that build up in you as you eat certain foods over time. Some foods yield better results than others. Therefore the foods you eat don't really matter, it's the nutrients you get and their quality that effect you. I hope this sheds a little light upon your question.

graffiti36
12-16-2012, 05:52 PM
Let's look at a comparison between the protein content in a specific processed fast food, a BigMac, and compare it to the protein content contained in broccoli, a whole food.

The protein content in the BigMac, gram for gram and calorie for calorie, would provide much more essential amino acids than would the protein contained in broccoli.

In other words, you have to give very specific examples otherwise using catch phrases like "processed food" or "whole food", without nutrient dose, context, etc. is relatively meaningless.

You are comparing protein quality ( quantity of eaa) between meat and a vegetable. I wouldn't exactly call it a sound argument...
Interesting enough you should compare the amino acid profile of both:

http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/vegetables-and-vegetable-products/2356/2
http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/vegetables-and-vegetable-products/2357/2

http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/beef-products/6206/2


Macro and micro nutrient sources are somewhat important, they might not reflect on your overall macro and micro balance but on the other hand bioavailability will depend largely on the source.
Having a multivitaminic and then eating fast food is not the same as having a diversified diet. It's not exactly because fast food is less micronutrient dense but because having large doses of vitamins and minerals in one dose will affect their absorption.

Having that said, I still take my multivitaminic, as to this day, I'm not yet sure how affected biovailability is.

nimbus456
12-16-2012, 11:40 PM
http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/beef-products/6206/2


Macro and micro nutrient sources are somewhat important, they might not reflect on your overall macro and micro balance but on the other hand bioavailability will depend largely on the source.
Having a multivitaminic and then eating fast food is not the same as having a diversified diet. It's not exactly because fast food is less micronutrient dense but because having large doses of vitamins and minerals in one dose will affect their absorption.

Having that said, I still take my multivitaminic, as to this day, I'm not yet sure how affected biovailability is.

Thanks! You've brought up an interesting point, regarding bioavailability.
I must research this further.

WonderPug
12-17-2012, 03:52 AM
You are comparing protein quality ( quantity of eaa) between meat and a vegetable. I wouldn't exactly call it a sound argument...You're missing the point, which is that context and total diet have to be considered, not the names of individual foods or categories of foods, as it's the total composite of nutrient intake that matters.

Thus, questions that ask, without context and specificity, if plant-based foods offer more nutrients than animal based foods can't be answered accurately.

graffiti36
12-17-2012, 07:51 AM
You're missing the point, which is that context and total diet have to be considered, not the names of individual foods or categories of foods, as it's the total composite of nutrient intake that matters.

Thus, questions that ask, without context and specificity, if plant-based foods offer more nutrients than animal based foods can't be answered accurately.

I am not.
The point of my post was to show that while the big picture can be more relevant both in short and long run , smaller facts such as protein quality , gi, digestibility, bioavailability, etc, can be taken into consideration for each individual.
I cannot say for certain how these smaller facts will affect OP, nor if they would be relevant but , if he would like to do so, he can search for more information about this topic.

Saying that only macros and micros count leads to a flawed point of view, as nutrition is more than just macro and micronutrients.
Are they the most relevant for a healthy , diversified population? Most definitely , but not when you can analyze each individual case.

This is my point of view, and as such you are allowed to disagree

nimbus456
12-17-2012, 12:22 PM
Thus, questions that ask, without context and specificity, if plant-based foods offer more nutrients than animal based foods can't be answered accurately.

But that wasn't the question.

WonderPug
12-17-2012, 12:49 PM
I am not.
The point of my post was to show that while the big picture can be more relevant both in short and long run , smaller facts such as protein quality , gi, digestibility, bioavailability, etc, can be taken into consideration for each individual.So you're saying it might pay to look at individual foods in isolation of total diet for factors that are either entirely irrelevant to healthy individuals (GI, for example) or entirely irrelevant outside the context of total daily nutrition (protein bioavailability, for example).

graffiti36
12-17-2012, 01:09 PM
So you're saying it might pay to look at individual foods in isolation of total diet for factors that are either entirely irrelevant to healthy individuals (GI, for example) or entirely irrelevant outside the context of total daily nutrition (protein bioavailability, for example).

OP questioned about this topic and i replied him with some further information that he might or might not research about. Whether this is relevant to op or not is not up to me as I do not know his health history. (does he suffer from anemia? diabetes? is he a vegan? etc - These are some cases where macro/micro sources might be relevant)

"Saying that only macros and micros count leads to a flawed point of view, as nutrition is more than just macro and micronutrients.
Are they the most relevant for a healthy , diversified population? Most definitely , but not when you can analyze each individual case."

As you can see from my previous reply, I did agree that for the general healthy population macros and micros quantity are the most relevant, but when you analyze each person and address their problems (if they have any) it might come in handy to "juggle" with macro and micronutrient sources

WonderPug
12-17-2012, 01:39 PM
^^^ You're missing the point: evaluating individual foods, outside the context of total nutrition, is fallacious.