Advanced Nutrition Computational Methodology. (Currently inaccurate)

  1. Home
  2. NUTRITION + EATING HABITS
  3. Advanced Nutrition Computational Methodology. (Currently inaccurate)

Glycemic and insulin indices and calorie intake calculations are inaccurate as they do not reflect interactions between foods (we usually eat varied food simultaneously) and disregard food sources. (Natural vs. processed)

Advanced Nutrition Computational Methodology.

The nutrition sciences do not have a directive philosophy; therefore, there is a lot of confusion, including in the various calculations.

All existing calculation methods regarding calorie intake, the glycemic index, and the insulin index are inaccurate and sometimes misleading because they do not emulate the body's activity. Therefore the current methodology of nutrition computations must be changed.

The seeming advantage of existing calculation methods in nutrition manifest in their relative simplicity. But these methods are not suitable for the 21st century when everyone has a smartphone. Unsurprisingly, doctors, nutritionists, and the general public are confused by contradictory nutrition information.

 

What Is The Glycemic Index - What Is Glycemic Load - Glycemic Index Explained - Glycemic Index Diet.

Some simple examples to illustrate the potential misunderstandings regarding nutrition computations:

The measurement methods available today in nutrition are too simplistic and systematically misleading to many. Their only advantage is their simplicity, which is nothing more than a rule of thumb! (Very rough)

The tautology "Calorie is a calorie - no matter where it comes from" is wrong!

  • All caloric calculations are inaccurate. (You will find a detailed explanation in the article at the attached link) The caloric value of different foods can not be lost (laws of conservation of matter and energy). Still, the routing of another designation completely changes the energetic contribution of the food to the weight and available energy.
  • Thus, the current practice of summarizing caloric values is neither methodologically correct nor accurate. 

Natural sugars and carbohydrates are not the cause of diabetes!

  • The conclusion of sugars and carbohydrates are a cause of diabetes! It does not consider whether the sugar comes from fruit from natural sugar or a cake. (For example)
  • Conclusion It is not advisable to eat starches (such as rice) fundamentally wrong. Starches have a glycemic index value and a high insulin index. See an instructive example of terrible diabetes (type 2) outbreak in 21st-century China.

Animal foods have relatively low glycemic index and insulin index values. The conclusion that these are healthier diets (ketogenic, paleo, etc.) is fundamentally wrong.

  • Meat, poultry, and cheeses have low glycemic and insulin index values. The conclusion that they are healthy and recommended (especially for diabetics) is fundamentally wrong!

Natural oils and fats are an essential component of our health, even though it contains a lot of energy. (Caloric calculation is incorrect)

  • People are afraid to gain weight and do not consume natural oils and fats because of their high caloric value. However, calculating caloric values is entirely incorrect, especially concerning various fats and emulsifiers. There is no distinction between industrialized oils (such as margarine), most of which are highly toxic and harmful, and natural oils and fats.

 

Advanced Nutrition Computational Methodology - Introduction.

All nutrition and nutritional value calculations must move to a method that simulates how our body acts "and thinks." Existing caloric values, insulin index, and glycemic index calculations are inaccurate and may even be misleading.

  • Since we usually eat and drink a variety of foods and beverages together, the proper analysis that simulates the activity performed by the digestive system is not simplistic. Since not all calories are the same, laboratory caloric values cannot be summarized as if they also exist in the human body. (Energy, of course, is not lost, the laws of conservation of matter and energy are always observed.)
  • The amount of explanatory variables is high when examining all the indices. The explanation for this lies in the fact that different food and beverage compositions must be taken into account; there is a (huge) difference between fresh and natural food and processed and industrialized food. There is significance to the time we eat and chew (eating habits), the time we eat, and other variables.

Because of the high complexity of the calculation (which exists), nutrition science has moved to relatively simple measures that can be quantified in simple tables. But these are incorrect and may even be misleading.

 

Insulin index and Glycemic index brainstorming.

Cheeses and meats are prime examples of hard-to-digest foods with high intestinal acidity but low insulin levels and a glycemic index. Take, for example, a possible conclusion that fruit is less healthy than meat! Because it has a higher glycemic and a higher insulin index. The conclusion is entirely wrong!

Link: | Insulin index (Wikipedia) | Glycemic index (Wikipedia) |

  • These two metrics help with nutritional decisions at the level of thumb rules and thus their contribution. Still, it is desirable to understand the limitations and inaccuracies in these two crucial metrics.
  • Proper nutrition optimizes the glycemic index and the insulin index at the same time while understanding the interactions between different foods, Especially with industrialized and processed foods. Natural oils, fats, and emulsifiers are essential; they may lower both indices together! (The tables can be found at the link above.)

Increased animal protein consumption has known health side effects, although both indices' product is relatively mild. The conclusion that animal food is healthy food - fundamentally wrong!

 

A practical example illustrates the drawbacks of using the glycemic and insulin indexes. Due to processed foods & beverages, Type 2 diabetes has become an epidemic in China.

Due to processed foods & beverages, Type 2 diabetes has become an epidemic in China. The Chinese diet, even today, is not very rich in sugars.

Link: Many patients (also healthy people) use the Glycemic index and Insulin index without knowing their drawbacks. 

A combination of an industrialized diet, an unhealthy, leisure-free lifestyle, and constant stress is devastating to the body and mind.

  • The number of diabetes type 2 patients rose from about 20 million in 2000 to about 110 million in 2015, and a forecast of 150 million in 2040. By 1980, type 2 diabetes in China was an uncommon disease.

The leading cause of T2D is transitioning from a plant-based diet to a highly processed and industrialized animal protein diet combined with a stressful lifestyle.

  • The most notable dietary change in the period under consideration is a dramatic consumption increase in meat, dairy, pastries, and fast food. Chinese cuisine is based mainly on frying; switching to cheaply refined oils has turned them into trans fats.
  • China's meteoric development has put heavy pressure on its population.

A similar phenomenon (but less acute than that of China) exists in Japan and Korea.

  • The cultures of the Asian peoples are very competitive and disciplined, with complex work values that leave almost no leisure.

Is rice the cause of diabetes? (The answer is no)

  • The diet of Asian people is based on rice as the main carbohydrate. But rice is not to blame! Until 40 years ago, diabetes was a marginal disease in Asian nations, while rice is an ancient food.

The countries with the lowest diabetes rates are Lithuania, Estonia, Ireland, Sweden, Luxembourg, England, and Australia.

  • These countries consume no fewer carbohydrates and sugars than exist in Asian nations. The British Fish & Chips are no better than the Japanese diet! The main differences are the leisure cultures.

Until 100 years ago, diabetes was a rare disease; until the mid-50s of the 20th century, it was a marginal disease.

  • About 50 years ago, the fast-paced and industrialized food revolution erupted in full force. The combination with a demanding and leisure-free lifestyle has created a record-breaking chronic illness, not just diabetes!

Diabetes is a symptom (of an unhealthy diet and lifestyle). It is worth noting that diabetes has a noticeable mental-energetic dimension. Obesity is another symptom of an unhealthy diet and lifestyle. It is not the cause of diabetes!

 

Many patients (also healthy people) use the Glycemic index and Insulin index without knowing their drawbacks. 

Link: | Insulin index (Wikipedia) | Glycemic index (Wikipedia) |

Creating new tables of glycemic index and insulin index metrics requires a different methodology! 

  • Since most people consume different foods at once, there is a need for a methodology that reflects the interactions between food ingredients and their effect on the two metrics: glycemic index and insulin with marginal value matrices. (Positive and negative) Such a methodology does not exist, so it is essential to understand the principles.
  • The indices reflect a rise in blood glucose and insulin values after two hours of taking a fixed amount of calories. In reality, people eat mixed foods. The food composition and origin (natural vs. processed) are very significant!
  • As calories cannot be summarized reasonably, neither glycemic nor insulin index can be compiled without examining its composition and source.
  • A few notable examples: (The current calculators are based on the simple model. More in-depth analysis is based on the principles and not just the numbers.)
    • Consuming meat with carbohydrates will give high values in both indices beyond the summation of the two individual values. If you fry the meat with trans fat, you will get much higher values than the sum of the 3 ingredients.
      • Enough to replace trans fat with natural fat with precisely the same calorific values (such as coconut oil), and you will get both indexes with much lower values.
    • Even with the same calorific value, there is a fundamental difference between values (in both metrics) of organic natural eggs and industrialized eggs. The natural egg will always reflect lower values in both metrics.
    • Nutritional fiber and fermented natural products moderate both values, especially when different foods are in an emulsion state.

Nutrients that can raise both marginal (*) indexes. (Unhealthy foods.)

  • Industrialized foods.
  • Animal Foods: Meat, fish, poultry, dairy products, and eggs that the animals are fed in an unnatural diet, with supplements, hormones, and antibiotics.
  • Processed, preserved, and smoked foods.
  • Foods containing non-natural substances or artificial supplements.
  • Dried foods.
  • A quantitative combination of high-index glycemic foods raises the final measure beyond the simple numerical calculation. (Cumulative effect)

Nutrients that can lower both marginal (*) indexes. (Healthy foods.)

  • Natural foods & beverages.
  • Easy to digest foods such as cooked vegetables.
  • Fermented natural foods.
  • Foods are rich in dietary fiber, including fruits.
  • Sauces, natural oils, and natural emulsifiers such as egg yolk, vinegar, mustard, lemon, etc.

(*) A positive marginal index reflects an increase in the index beyond the additional food item's addition. A negative margin index demonstrates the opposite.

 

What will the nutritional calculations look like according to the proposed methodology?

The proposed new methodology will produce a customized simulation with ongoing monitoring while interacting (on a mobile phone) with the person. It will also be possible to enter photos of food and beverages while filling in the missing details.

  • Since this is a massive amount of variables, the simulation will be performed statistically by computerization. It will not be possible to achieve a simplistic manual calculation.
  • The methodological difficulty is in producing conventional simulation equations. This is given that there is still no consensus among many nutrition experts.
  • The result we should expect from the simulation is whether the food we consume is healthy and supports a good quality and longevity of life. It will be necessary to reach another index (which does not currently exist) called the Health score.

The proposed simulation is the first step towards artificial (inevitable) intelligence in all medical services and necessary conditions for preventive medicine.

 

It is essential to distinguish between different types of sugar sources.

There is a dramatic difference between natural sugar in fruits and vegetables and free sugar in cake, cookies, pizzas, and processed foods. Even unnatural, calorie-free sugar substitutes are especially harmful. Diabetes (types 1 and 2) is not caused by eating sweet fruits and vegetables!

Non-recommended combinations. (Sugar with other foods)

  • All synthetic sugar substitutes, diet drinks, and foods containing artificial sweeteners increase the body's damage. (Although they do not have sugar.)
  • Refined sugars, such as cakes, biscuits, waffles, and Industrial ice cream. 
    • Eating a cake with the same calories as sweet vegetables such as beet or carrot is entirely different.
  • Any combination of pastry containing sugar (or unnatural sugar) and hydrogenated oils.
  • Sweet natural foods fried in trans fat. (Such as roasted fruit) 

Natural sweet foods are allowed for moderate consumption.

  • Sweetness in fruits and vegetables comes with dietary fiber, minerals, enzymes, and electrolytes and is essential for good health.
  • Honey, Stevia, and Date honey are recommended natural sugar. (limited in consumption) They are always superior to processed substitutes.
  • It is advisable to combine natural sugars with natural green foods from plants; they neutralize the sugar's acidity.
  • Drinking freshly squeezed juices (not too sweet) has many benefits; the liver needs juice for increased bile fluid production.

 

Who are the relevant bodies to fund the nutritional simulation project?

The food industry and private entities will have no interest in financing a project that could harm their profitability in the future. It is, therefore, a project that is supposed to be funded from government budgets and implemented by regulatory bodies dealing with the field.

  • This is a relatively expensive empirical study, but with a massive return at the level of national economies because of a decrease in morbidity.
  • Since this is an issue that concerns us all, it is possible and desirable to share it with international parties. The knowledge that will accumulate in the simulation study is supposed to serve all of humanity.

Performing a mathematical simulation of the nutrition sciences will require all researchers in the field to arrive at an orderly, agreed methodology. The empirical findings will significantly help in formulating a philosophy of nutrition science!

 

Summary Conclusions and Recommendations.

  1. The nutrition sciences do not have a directive philosophy; therefore, there is a lot of confusion, including in the various calculations. Formulation of a comprehensive and agreed-upon conception of the entire field of nutrition is required for the benefit of the public. (Mostly confused by the plethora of options)
  2. The required methodology is much more complex than the existing one. Its use will require a dedicated application, but the result will be infinitely more accurate, detailed, and, most importantly, more accurate. I have not elaborated on the statistical technique required to perform it. The ability and statistical tools to estimate many explanatory variables have long existed.
  3. If the science of nutrition wants to advance into the 21st century, it must converge on a simulation that best mimics the human body. At the moment, we are very far from the desirable condition.
Frequently asked questions and answers:
What are the disadvantages of using the existing nutritional indices? (Mainly, glycemic and insulin index)
Beyond the fact that the calculations are inaccurate, it also may lead to erroneous conclusions.
Aren't the calculation methods you suggest, considering the composition of the food and drinks and the source (natural vs. processed), very complex?
The calculation methods I propose simulate the body's routing optimally. In an era where everyone has a mobile phone, all calculations will be performed using a dedicated application.
Why didn't nutrition scientists try to put together matrices of different food compositions, even though it was clear that food composition had an effect?
I guess the food and beverage manufacturers had no interest in funding expensive research that could harm their interests. In the absence of funding, the study was not carried out!
Reading the article was Interesting/Beneficial?
NO
0
YES
36
May interest you:
Add New Comment
We use cookies to improve the user experience on the site. Learn moreI Agree