2

votes

Nutritional Density/ What are your thoughts? How do you go about achieving it?

Answered on August 19, 2014
Created November 04, 2011 at 4:47 AM

How do you view the importance of nutritional density and what steps do you take / foods do you eat to obtain that?

A0f2f0f632d42215944a798486bddde1

(1377)

on February 04, 2012
at 08:12 PM

nothing crazy. Chicken/Beef Liver for A, B12, Copper & Iron, Oysters for Zinc, FCLO & Butter Oil for D & K2, Brazil nuts for Selenium, Almonds for E & Manganese, Cacao Nibs for antioxidants & Magnesium, Acerola Cherry for (incredible amounts of) C, Brewer's Yeast for Thiamine, Folate & Chromium, Blackstrap Molasses for Potassium & Minerals, Wakame for Iodine, Concentrace Drops for Magnesium & Trace Minerals. Cron-O-Meter is my friend. Only thing that's bugging me is E - seems impossible to get without being accompanied by PUFA.

A0f2f0f632d42215944a798486bddde1

(1377)

on February 04, 2012
at 08:09 PM

nothing crazy. Chicken/Beef Liver for A, B12, Copper & Iron, Oysters for Zinc, FCLO & Butter Oil for D & K2, Brazil nuts for Selenium, Almonds for E & Manganese, Cacao Nibs for antioxidants & Magnesium, Acerola Cherry for (incredible amounts of) C, Brewer's Yeast for Thiamine, Folate & Chromium, Wakame for Iodine, Concentrace Drops for Magnesium & Trace Minerals. Cron-O-Meter is my friend. Only thing that's bugging me is E - seems impossible to get without being accompanied by PUFA.

A0f2f0f632d42215944a798486bddde1

(1377)

on February 04, 2012
at 08:08 PM

nothing crazy. Chicken/Beef Liver for A, B12, Copper & Iron, Oysters for Zinc, FCLO & Butter Oil for D & K2, Brazil nuts for Selenium, Almonds for E & Manganese, Cacao Nibs for antioxidants & Magnesium, Acerola Cherry for (incredible amounts of) C, Brewer's Yeast for Thiamine, Folate & Chromium, Concentrace Drops for Magnesium & Trace Minerals. Cron-O-Meter is my friend. Only thing that's bugging me is E - seems impossible to get without being accompanied by PUFA.

A0f2f0f632d42215944a798486bddde1

(1377)

on February 04, 2012
at 08:05 PM

and oysters for zinc. Cron-O-Meter is my friend.

A0f2f0f632d42215944a798486bddde1

(1377)

on February 04, 2012
at 08:04 PM

nothing crazy. FCLO & Butter Oil for D & K2, Brazil nuts for selenium, Brewer's Yeast for Thiamine, Folate & Chromium, Cacao Nibs for antioxidants & Magnesium, Trace Mineral Drops for Magnesium & Trace Minerals. Still looking for an E source that's not wheat germ

A0f2f0f632d42215944a798486bddde1

(1377)

on February 04, 2012
at 08:03 PM

nothing crazy. FCLO & Butter Oil for D & K2, Brazil nuts for selenium, Brewer's Yeast for Thiamine, Folate & Chromium, Trace Mineral Drops for Magnesium. Still looking for an E supplement that's not wheat germ

96bf58d8c6bd492dc5b8ae46203fe247

(37227)

on February 04, 2012
at 07:32 PM

@Dan, how come you didn't list your superfoods? You are hereby judged guilty of inflicting "agony by curiosity." :-))

37bef02febd6f751fa8f2993dc44dde3

(105)

on February 04, 2012
at 06:14 PM

If anyone is interested in looking at the effects of organic growing on nutrient density, soil health, energy consumption, etc. in comparison to conventional growing methods, the Rodale Institute just published a 30 year study looking at all these factors and more: http://www.rodaleinstitute.org/fst30years

A0f2f0f632d42215944a798486bddde1

(1377)

on February 04, 2012
at 06:59 AM

@ cliff: conventional has higher levels of specific nutrients (vit. A comes to mind) that get pumped into the veggies/critters via fertilizers/synthetic feed. while organic (*real* organic, aka local/small-scale) may have less dramatic levels of individual vitamins, there's no substitute for good soil. trace minerals and a well-rounded nutrient profile put real organic veg/meat in the top.

A0f2f0f632d42215944a798486bddde1

(1377)

on February 04, 2012
at 06:54 AM

Very true! I'm not going to give up seared broccoli/sauteed kale but in the interest of ND raw wins out.

Medium avatar

(39821)

on November 06, 2011
at 12:50 AM

High temperatures rapidly degrade ascorbate; those foods are generally cooked.

1a98a40ba8ffdc5aa28d1324d01c6c9f

(20378)

on November 05, 2011
at 05:44 AM

I am glad you all did post. Great discussion!

A0f2f0f632d42215944a798486bddde1

(1377)

on November 04, 2011
at 11:29 PM

Second that, just eat broccoli/kale instead of fruit. More C, more nutrients, less calories, less fructose.

Be1dbd31e4a3fccd4394494aa5db256d

(17969)

on November 04, 2011
at 08:35 PM

Actually I think they changed it. It used to be 3500mg but now it's 4700 I think, much better. Depends on activity level as well. They're not all completely 100% accurate, like selenium could be higher, but if you hit the RDAs you're doing pretty well, better than most.

742ff8ba4ff55e84593ede14ac1c3cab

(3536)

on November 04, 2011
at 08:06 PM

It's not about the macros yo, let's not forget the pesky micros.

1a98a40ba8ffdc5aa28d1324d01c6c9f

(20378)

on November 04, 2011
at 07:33 PM

Thank you Travis!

76f3ead3aa977d876bcf3331d35a36e9

(4620)

on November 04, 2011
at 07:30 PM

@Stabby, do you mean to say that the RDA for potassium is too low?

Be1dbd31e4a3fccd4394494aa5db256d

(17969)

on November 04, 2011
at 06:34 PM

Although I agree in the context of some nutrients. It isn't that we need tons and tons of B vitamins and the more the better, but there is no harm to shooting for as much of each one as we can from food just to be sure that we get enough of them.

Be1dbd31e4a3fccd4394494aa5db256d

(17969)

on November 04, 2011
at 06:23 PM

Okay maybe it is more important than "mildly important", to a point. Especially when you phrase it in the context of a very deficient junk diet changing to a more nutritious diet. A compromise would be "achieving nutritional completeness via nutrient-density, however dense the nutrition needs to be"

7dc950fc76a046048e683d2a27dced37

on November 04, 2011
at 06:07 PM

I'm thinking more about nutritional density of whole foods versus processed, which is why I think the concept is important.

Be1dbd31e4a3fccd4394494aa5db256d

(17969)

on November 04, 2011
at 06:05 PM

Majkinetor you need to expand upon what you say, your first comment is an assertion, and your second one is an incorrect inference since I didn't say that I meet the RDA and nothing more, often some nutrients are many times the RDA. In any case you need to try to prove me wrong. The RDA is accurate or over-shooting for most minerals, potassium needs are probably somewhat higher. The body purges perfectly good available vitamin c every few hours, so I can't see how more would be better, if you are deficient more is better for a time but the need doesn't appear to be infinite for all time.

7dc950fc76a046048e683d2a27dced37

on November 04, 2011
at 06:05 PM

Stabby, I did disagree with "Nutritional density by itself is only a mildly useful concept" ... I think it's more than mildly useful. Also, I didn't mean to poo-poo red meat (shouldn't have tried to post when I was running late for work). I mostly meant that the Western practice of avoiding offal & marrow means we miss out on pretty important nutrients.

Be1dbd31e4a3fccd4394494aa5db256d

(17969)

on November 04, 2011
at 06:04 PM

To clarify, every time you say "nutritional density" i would say "nutritional completeness", we're talking about the same thing. What I disagree with is the notion that something like spinach has a high density of various micronutrients, so the more the better, as if there is no such thing as plateau of usefulness, there most definitely is, and a toxicity issue with many minerals if consumed in too large a quantity.

Be1dbd31e4a3fccd4394494aa5db256d

(17969)

on November 04, 2011
at 05:59 PM

Majkinetor you need to expand upon what you say, your first comment is an assertion, and your second one is an incorrect inference since I didn't say that I meet the RDA and nothing more, often some nutrients are many times the RDA. In any case you need to try to prove me wrong. The RDA is accurate or over-shooting for most minerals, potassium needs are probably somewhat higher. The body purges perfectly good available vitamin c every few hours, so I can't see how more would be better, if you are deficient more is better but the need doesn't appear to be infinite.

Be1dbd31e4a3fccd4394494aa5db256d

(17969)

on November 04, 2011
at 05:58 PM

Majkinetor you need to expand upon what you say, your first comment is an assertion, and your second one is an incorrect inference since I didn't say that I meet the RDA and nothing more, often some nutrients are twice the RDA. In any case you need to try to prove me wrong. The RDA is accurate or over-shooting for most minerals, potassium needs are probably somewhat higher. The body purges perfectly good available vitamin c every few hours, so I can't see how more would be better, if you are deficient more is better but the need doesn't appear to be infinite.

Be1dbd31e4a3fccd4394494aa5db256d

(17969)

on November 04, 2011
at 05:54 PM

Nothing that you said disagrees with what I said, but you do disagree with yourself when you poo-poo read meat and simultaneously state that nutrition is more than just essential nutrients. Red meat has the most carnosine, carnitine, their precursors, alpha-lipoic acid, a lot of creatine, etc.

Be1dbd31e4a3fccd4394494aa5db256d

(17969)

on November 04, 2011
at 05:49 PM

Majkinetor you need to expand upon what you say, your first comment is an assertion, and your second one is an incorrect inference since I didn't say that I meet the RDA and nothing more, often some nutrients are twice the RDA. In any case you need to cite your sources.

1d0497f8781845ab371b479455bfee8e

(11157)

on November 04, 2011
at 05:39 PM

Searching for a nutrient-dense diet was how I stumbled upon Paleo :)

Medium avatar

(39821)

on November 04, 2011
at 05:29 PM

Totally agree; cool, now I don't have to post.

32f5749fa6cf7adbeb0b0b031ba82b46

(41747)

on November 04, 2011
at 03:04 PM

Is high nutritional density really something that we nee to aspire to? Does every food need to be nutritionally dense? I don't think the answer is yes to either. Eat to fuel, eat to thrive.

1a98a40ba8ffdc5aa28d1324d01c6c9f

(20378)

on November 04, 2011
at 02:28 PM

Thank You Kewpie!!!

1a98a40ba8ffdc5aa28d1324d01c6c9f

(20378)

on November 04, 2011
at 02:27 PM

Thank You Beth!!!

B0fe7b5a9a197cd293978150cbd9055f

(8938)

on November 04, 2011
at 01:19 PM

Haha majkinetor I was thinking the exact same thing when I read that.

13a44ea00b0c9af0b6d0f3d5f5c2cfca

(7223)

on November 04, 2011
at 01:08 PM

I was referring to produce that is both locally grown *and* organic. Not locally grown *or* organic. I mentioned organic because I always choose that option for health and environmental reasons. But, yes, as far as nutrients go, it is a confounding factor.

E5c7f14800c5992831f5c70fa746dc5c

(12857)

on November 04, 2011
at 12:59 PM

organic doesn't guarantee more nutrients unfortunately. I've heard anecdotes that conventional stuff usually has a higher brix when compared to organic options, this mostly applies to grocery store bought stuff though.

77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on November 04, 2011
at 09:52 AM

+1 otherwise :)

77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on November 04, 2011
at 09:52 AM

*My diet is nutritionally complete if we go by RDA* This means your diet is nutritionally incomplete

77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on November 04, 2011
at 09:51 AM

*Just how much vitamin c do we need? Is it the more the better? Probably not* Probably yes :)

1a98a40ba8ffdc5aa28d1324d01c6c9f

(20378)

on November 04, 2011
at 06:44 AM

Thanks Stabby!!

Be1dbd31e4a3fccd4394494aa5db256d

(17969)

on November 04, 2011
at 06:37 AM

Good question. Both over-emphasis on narrow definitions of nutrient-density, and no emphasis on nutrients at all can be problems and I get the feeling like a lot of newbies focus too much on restriction of bad stuff than on nourishment, which can be a mistake considering the usefulness of nutrition.

1a98a40ba8ffdc5aa28d1324d01c6c9f

(20378)

on November 04, 2011
at 05:53 AM

I have updated the question. Thank You Ashley

1a98a40ba8ffdc5aa28d1324d01c6c9f

(20378)

on November 04, 2011
at 05:18 AM

How do you view the importance of nutritional density and what steps do you take / foods do you eat to obtain that?

1da74185531d6d4c7182fb9ee417f97f

(10904)

on November 04, 2011
at 04:57 AM

Can you elaborate?

  • 1a98a40ba8ffdc5aa28d1324d01c6c9f

    asked by

    (20378)
  • Views
    2.4K
  • Last Activity
    1519D AGO
Frontpage book

Get FREE instant access to our Paleo For Beginners Guide & 15 FREE Recipes!

8 Answers

best answer

5
Medium avatar

on November 04, 2011
at 07:12 PM

Maybe I will post....

You're gonna want to overshoot and excrete the excess. Red meat-based diet with plenty of organs will take you most of the way there, but you add in good yolks to make doubly sure your EFAs and fat solubles haven't run off into the fire etc., then you add shellfish to make up for mineral depletion in modern soils. Sardines 1-2 times a week would cover calcium. Some vitamin C-bearing fruit every day and as much starch as you want. Or supplement C if ZC/VLC. The only thing you'd want to supplement is vitamin D and magnesium, but not even the latter if you eat a lot of almonds every day.

1a98a40ba8ffdc5aa28d1324d01c6c9f

(20378)

on November 04, 2011
at 07:33 PM

Thank you Travis!

A0f2f0f632d42215944a798486bddde1

(1377)

on November 04, 2011
at 11:29 PM

Second that, just eat broccoli/kale instead of fruit. More C, more nutrients, less calories, less fructose.

Medium avatar

(39821)

on November 06, 2011
at 12:50 AM

High temperatures rapidly degrade ascorbate; those foods are generally cooked.

A0f2f0f632d42215944a798486bddde1

(1377)

on February 04, 2012
at 06:54 AM

Very true! I'm not going to give up seared broccoli/sauteed kale but in the interest of ND raw wins out.

11
7dc950fc76a046048e683d2a27dced37

on November 04, 2011
at 11:23 AM

Really? I'm gonna disagree with Stabby?! No good can come of this. Ah well, once more unto the breach ;).

I think nutrient density is actually a critical concept. The almost sole focus on macronutrient ratios and calories in vs out has led to a half-century of scant attention paid to a small number of micronutrients (mostly those in fruits and veggies) ... and I think this has a huge role to play in the rise of obesity, diabetes, and other so-called lifestyle diseases (or as WHO calls them, non-communicable diseases).

I think this macronutrient/CICO focus is a disaster from a weight-loss perspective. I also think that the combination of excess calories from a Western diet and missing essential micronutrients (e.g., choline) causes lots of downstream problems for the liver.

I think the nutrient density of food is also important because of the "scientists keep discovering new nutrients" theme that whole foodies push (see also issues like vitamin C is not just ascorbic acid, or vitamin E is not just alpha-tocopherol etc re supplementation). And when you add that to the problems with the quality of the food we can get (i.e., does an orange today have the same nutritional profile as it did 50 years ago), the source of your food is also an issue (hello, locavore!).

Me, my primary effort these days is to increase the nutrient density of my diet primarily through specific animal foods including grass-fed liver, pastured egg yolks, and shellfish. Sure, I like a piece of red meat as much as the next paleo guy or gal, but in terms of nutrient return on investment, I think those are the best (or at least the ones I'm easily able to include).

7dc950fc76a046048e683d2a27dced37

on November 04, 2011
at 06:05 PM

Stabby, I did disagree with "Nutritional density by itself is only a mildly useful concept" ... I think it's more than mildly useful. Also, I didn't mean to poo-poo red meat (shouldn't have tried to post when I was running late for work). I mostly meant that the Western practice of avoiding offal & marrow means we miss out on pretty important nutrients.

Medium avatar

(39821)

on November 04, 2011
at 05:29 PM

Totally agree; cool, now I don't have to post.

1a98a40ba8ffdc5aa28d1324d01c6c9f

(20378)

on November 04, 2011
at 02:27 PM

Thank You Beth!!!

Be1dbd31e4a3fccd4394494aa5db256d

(17969)

on November 04, 2011
at 05:54 PM

Nothing that you said disagrees with what I said, but you do disagree with yourself when you poo-poo read meat and simultaneously state that nutrition is more than just essential nutrients. Red meat has the most carnosine, carnitine, their precursors, alpha-lipoic acid, a lot of creatine, etc.

Be1dbd31e4a3fccd4394494aa5db256d

(17969)

on November 04, 2011
at 06:23 PM

Okay maybe it is more important than "mildly important", to a point. Especially when you phrase it in the context of a very deficient junk diet changing to a more nutritious diet. A compromise would be "achieving nutritional completeness via nutrient-density, however dense the nutrition needs to be"

7dc950fc76a046048e683d2a27dced37

on November 04, 2011
at 06:07 PM

I'm thinking more about nutritional density of whole foods versus processed, which is why I think the concept is important.

742ff8ba4ff55e84593ede14ac1c3cab

(3536)

on November 04, 2011
at 08:06 PM

It's not about the macros yo, let's not forget the pesky micros.

Be1dbd31e4a3fccd4394494aa5db256d

(17969)

on November 04, 2011
at 06:04 PM

To clarify, every time you say "nutritional density" i would say "nutritional completeness", we're talking about the same thing. What I disagree with is the notion that something like spinach has a high density of various micronutrients, so the more the better, as if there is no such thing as plateau of usefulness, there most definitely is, and a toxicity issue with many minerals if consumed in too large a quantity.

1a98a40ba8ffdc5aa28d1324d01c6c9f

(20378)

on November 05, 2011
at 05:44 AM

I am glad you all did post. Great discussion!

6
Be1dbd31e4a3fccd4394494aa5db256d

(17969)

on November 04, 2011
at 06:34 AM

Nutritional density by itself is only a mildly useful concept. Some foods have a lot of nutrients, like spinach, but just eating nutritionally dense foods won't guarantee nutritional completeness, because you might be missing a few important ones, even though you have plenty of the others. And sometimes "density" will only be from a few nutrients. Just how much vitamin c do we need? Is it the more the better? Probably not, so after a point density doesn't matter for any particular nutrient.

So I just go by completeness, and it is hard to know exactly what the optimal amount of each nutrient is, but it is easy to know which ones are toxic in high amounts and which ones you couldn't really overdose on via food. So keep the toxic ones to the right amounts and try for as much of the non-toxic ones as is reasonable, I doubt you'll ever need more than 150% of any RDA but some people might have other views. My diet is nutritionally complete if we go by RDA, except for calcium which is a bit lower just because it has been demonstrated that calcium requirements are lower than the RDA and this is especially the case if vitamin d and magnesium are sufficient.

I do supplement with a few things. Vitamin d in the winter, a bit of magnesium, K2, and some non-essential ones. I think that non-essential nutrients can actually be important as well, depending on which one it is and what it does.

And now for a more in-depth exploration of the issue in Chris Masterhacks' review of a proponent of "nutrient-density" http://www.westonaprice.org/thumbs-down-reviews/eat-to-live

77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on November 04, 2011
at 09:51 AM

*Just how much vitamin c do we need? Is it the more the better? Probably not* Probably yes :)

B0fe7b5a9a197cd293978150cbd9055f

(8938)

on November 04, 2011
at 01:19 PM

Haha majkinetor I was thinking the exact same thing when I read that.

Be1dbd31e4a3fccd4394494aa5db256d

(17969)

on November 04, 2011
at 05:49 PM

Majkinetor you need to expand upon what you say, your first comment is an assertion, and your second one is an incorrect inference since I didn't say that I meet the RDA and nothing more, often some nutrients are twice the RDA. In any case you need to cite your sources.

77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on November 04, 2011
at 09:52 AM

+1 otherwise :)

1a98a40ba8ffdc5aa28d1324d01c6c9f

(20378)

on November 04, 2011
at 06:44 AM

Thanks Stabby!!

32f5749fa6cf7adbeb0b0b031ba82b46

(41747)

on November 04, 2011
at 03:04 PM

Is high nutritional density really something that we nee to aspire to? Does every food need to be nutritionally dense? I don't think the answer is yes to either. Eat to fuel, eat to thrive.

Be1dbd31e4a3fccd4394494aa5db256d

(17969)

on November 04, 2011
at 05:58 PM

Majkinetor you need to expand upon what you say, your first comment is an assertion, and your second one is an incorrect inference since I didn't say that I meet the RDA and nothing more, often some nutrients are twice the RDA. In any case you need to try to prove me wrong. The RDA is accurate or over-shooting for most minerals, potassium needs are probably somewhat higher. The body purges perfectly good available vitamin c every few hours, so I can't see how more would be better, if you are deficient more is better but the need doesn't appear to be infinite.

Be1dbd31e4a3fccd4394494aa5db256d

(17969)

on November 04, 2011
at 05:59 PM

Majkinetor you need to expand upon what you say, your first comment is an assertion, and your second one is an incorrect inference since I didn't say that I meet the RDA and nothing more, often some nutrients are many times the RDA. In any case you need to try to prove me wrong. The RDA is accurate or over-shooting for most minerals, potassium needs are probably somewhat higher. The body purges perfectly good available vitamin c every few hours, so I can't see how more would be better, if you are deficient more is better but the need doesn't appear to be infinite.

Be1dbd31e4a3fccd4394494aa5db256d

(17969)

on November 04, 2011
at 06:05 PM

Majkinetor you need to expand upon what you say, your first comment is an assertion, and your second one is an incorrect inference since I didn't say that I meet the RDA and nothing more, often some nutrients are many times the RDA. In any case you need to try to prove me wrong. The RDA is accurate or over-shooting for most minerals, potassium needs are probably somewhat higher. The body purges perfectly good available vitamin c every few hours, so I can't see how more would be better, if you are deficient more is better for a time but the need doesn't appear to be infinite for all time.

77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on November 04, 2011
at 09:52 AM

*My diet is nutritionally complete if we go by RDA* This means your diet is nutritionally incomplete

Be1dbd31e4a3fccd4394494aa5db256d

(17969)

on November 04, 2011
at 06:34 PM

Although I agree in the context of some nutrients. It isn't that we need tons and tons of B vitamins and the more the better, but there is no harm to shooting for as much of each one as we can from food just to be sure that we get enough of them.

76f3ead3aa977d876bcf3331d35a36e9

(4620)

on November 04, 2011
at 07:30 PM

@Stabby, do you mean to say that the RDA for potassium is too low?

Be1dbd31e4a3fccd4394494aa5db256d

(17969)

on November 04, 2011
at 08:35 PM

Actually I think they changed it. It used to be 3500mg but now it's 4700 I think, much better. Depends on activity level as well. They're not all completely 100% accurate, like selenium could be higher, but if you hit the RDAs you're doing pretty well, better than most.

4
13a44ea00b0c9af0b6d0f3d5f5c2cfca

(7223)

on November 04, 2011
at 12:43 PM

When I think about choosing nutrient dense foods, I find, in a micro sense, I think mostly about nutrient differences between like foods, not between different foods.

For example, I don't reject steak because liver has more nutrients. But, I do reject conventionally grown steak in favor of 100% grass fed steak because the latter has more nutrient density. And, the same is true with fruits and veggies. If I can get it locally and organically grown, I'm always going to choose that option over the grocery store options.

However, in a macro sense, I think mostly about the difference between broad categories of food. The focus of my diet is on fresh meats, eggs, fruits, and veggies because those foods give me more nutritional bang for my buck than grains or processed foods.

E5c7f14800c5992831f5c70fa746dc5c

(12857)

on November 04, 2011
at 12:59 PM

organic doesn't guarantee more nutrients unfortunately. I've heard anecdotes that conventional stuff usually has a higher brix when compared to organic options, this mostly applies to grocery store bought stuff though.

1a98a40ba8ffdc5aa28d1324d01c6c9f

(20378)

on November 04, 2011
at 02:28 PM

Thank You Kewpie!!!

13a44ea00b0c9af0b6d0f3d5f5c2cfca

(7223)

on November 04, 2011
at 01:08 PM

I was referring to produce that is both locally grown *and* organic. Not locally grown *or* organic. I mentioned organic because I always choose that option for health and environmental reasons. But, yes, as far as nutrients go, it is a confounding factor.

A0f2f0f632d42215944a798486bddde1

(1377)

on February 04, 2012
at 06:59 AM

@ cliff: conventional has higher levels of specific nutrients (vit. A comes to mind) that get pumped into the veggies/critters via fertilizers/synthetic feed. while organic (*real* organic, aka local/small-scale) may have less dramatic levels of individual vitamins, there's no substitute for good soil. trace minerals and a well-rounded nutrient profile put real organic veg/meat in the top.

37bef02febd6f751fa8f2993dc44dde3

(105)

on February 04, 2012
at 06:14 PM

If anyone is interested in looking at the effects of organic growing on nutrient density, soil health, energy consumption, etc. in comparison to conventional growing methods, the Rodale Institute just published a 30 year study looking at all these factors and more: http://www.rodaleinstitute.org/fst30years

3
A0f2f0f632d42215944a798486bddde1

(1377)

on February 04, 2012
at 07:08 AM

First I was SAD, then I went Paleo, then I went a little WAPF. I took my diet as far as it would go with whole foods (mostly beef, organ meats, salmon, nuts & leafy green veg), but I had a few nutrient gaps that needed filling in. Thiamine, Folate, D, E, Magnesium and Zinc come to mind. Now I eat a few "superfoods" and take a few natural supplements, and I hit 200%-500% on almost all my RDA's averaged out over a week.

Nutrient Density is a big part of being healthy (I think), but it's about even with everything else on the list.

"The List"

Avoid Toxins - Optimize Macronutrition - Meet and Exceed Nutrient Requirements - Balance Omega Fats - Maintain Healthy Gut Flora - Perform High-Intensity Exercise - Get Daily Sunlight - Sleep Enough and in the Dark

A0f2f0f632d42215944a798486bddde1

(1377)

on February 04, 2012
at 08:05 PM

and oysters for zinc. Cron-O-Meter is my friend.

96bf58d8c6bd492dc5b8ae46203fe247

(37227)

on February 04, 2012
at 07:32 PM

@Dan, how come you didn't list your superfoods? You are hereby judged guilty of inflicting "agony by curiosity." :-))

A0f2f0f632d42215944a798486bddde1

(1377)

on February 04, 2012
at 08:03 PM

nothing crazy. FCLO & Butter Oil for D & K2, Brazil nuts for selenium, Brewer's Yeast for Thiamine, Folate & Chromium, Trace Mineral Drops for Magnesium. Still looking for an E supplement that's not wheat germ

A0f2f0f632d42215944a798486bddde1

(1377)

on February 04, 2012
at 08:04 PM

nothing crazy. FCLO & Butter Oil for D & K2, Brazil nuts for selenium, Brewer's Yeast for Thiamine, Folate & Chromium, Cacao Nibs for antioxidants & Magnesium, Trace Mineral Drops for Magnesium & Trace Minerals. Still looking for an E source that's not wheat germ

A0f2f0f632d42215944a798486bddde1

(1377)

on February 04, 2012
at 08:09 PM

nothing crazy. Chicken/Beef Liver for A, B12, Copper & Iron, Oysters for Zinc, FCLO & Butter Oil for D & K2, Brazil nuts for Selenium, Almonds for E & Manganese, Cacao Nibs for antioxidants & Magnesium, Acerola Cherry for (incredible amounts of) C, Brewer's Yeast for Thiamine, Folate & Chromium, Wakame for Iodine, Concentrace Drops for Magnesium & Trace Minerals. Cron-O-Meter is my friend. Only thing that's bugging me is E - seems impossible to get without being accompanied by PUFA.

A0f2f0f632d42215944a798486bddde1

(1377)

on February 04, 2012
at 08:12 PM

nothing crazy. Chicken/Beef Liver for A, B12, Copper & Iron, Oysters for Zinc, FCLO & Butter Oil for D & K2, Brazil nuts for Selenium, Almonds for E & Manganese, Cacao Nibs for antioxidants & Magnesium, Acerola Cherry for (incredible amounts of) C, Brewer's Yeast for Thiamine, Folate & Chromium, Blackstrap Molasses for Potassium & Minerals, Wakame for Iodine, Concentrace Drops for Magnesium & Trace Minerals. Cron-O-Meter is my friend. Only thing that's bugging me is E - seems impossible to get without being accompanied by PUFA.

A0f2f0f632d42215944a798486bddde1

(1377)

on February 04, 2012
at 08:08 PM

nothing crazy. Chicken/Beef Liver for A, B12, Copper & Iron, Oysters for Zinc, FCLO & Butter Oil for D & K2, Brazil nuts for Selenium, Almonds for E & Manganese, Cacao Nibs for antioxidants & Magnesium, Acerola Cherry for (incredible amounts of) C, Brewer's Yeast for Thiamine, Folate & Chromium, Concentrace Drops for Magnesium & Trace Minerals. Cron-O-Meter is my friend. Only thing that's bugging me is E - seems impossible to get without being accompanied by PUFA.

3
Cf32992bfa1907147c7cdc451bba9c63

on November 04, 2011
at 04:39 PM

I eat solely multivitamins. Bow before my nutritional density.

Actually I eat a variety of foods. Variety of meats, veggies, fruits, dairy, etc and I stop worrying about it, because stress is worse for you than missing nutrients (assuming your diet is 95% in place).

Also, nutrient density isn't always a good thing. Try telling an athlete to eat 5000kcal of broccoli a day... refined foods/sports drinks have their place.

2
96bf58d8c6bd492dc5b8ae46203fe247

(37227)

on November 04, 2011
at 04:55 PM

If, by nutrient density, you mean complete nutrition I try very hard to achieve it.

If you mean eating as little as possible while achieving complete nutrition I work in the other direction. Food volume is very important to me for keeping my appetite under control so I eat large salads, stews with bone broth, etc., and go out of my way to achieve complete nutrition using as much food volume as possible.

0
Medium avatar

on November 21, 2013
at 06:09 PM

I tend to look for foods that are easy to digest, lack toxins, and are packed with nutrients. I try to round things out over the week so that things are kept in balance. I prefer a simple way of eating and delicious foods that require minimal preparation.

This leads to staples like the humble sweet potato, macadamia nuts, the banana, beef, canned salmon/sardines, lean pork muscle meat (has lots of selenium and thiamine among others), dark chocolate, red wine, shellfish, then leafy greens, berries and sweet fruits in moderation. I try to eat liver every week or two. I also aim for a plethora of fermented foods each day. Tracking my nutrients cronometer I find that everything is just peachy. Most nutrients in excess every day.

I fill the rest of my needs with things like butter, cream, and paleo oils - the calorie density being of value here. I still end up with a much higher carb intake than most paleo eaters for various reasons. Nutrient density is important but also how it makes me feel and how it tastes. I probably average 190 grams of carbs and 115 grams of fat and I'm not terribly active.

Answer Question


Get FREE instant access to our
Paleo For Beginners Guide & 15 FREE Recipes!