Nutritional balance evaluation

Nutritional balance evaluation table

Nutritional balance (100g)
(good) Adequate in protein
o (ok) Slightly low in carbohydrate
x (bad) Extremely high in sugars
x (bad) Extremely high in fat
x (bad) Extremely high in saturated fat
x (bad) Extremely low in fiber
(good) Low in sodium

The nutritional balance table provides a qualitative description of how balanced or unbalanced particular nutrients are. Nine labels are used for the purpose:

  • “Extremely high”, “very high” and “high” are used for positive unbalances (ie, macronutrients in excess of recommended dietary intakes). Each label represents a 5% incremental excess from maximum RDIs.
  • “Adequate”, “slightly high” and “slightly low” are used for balanced macronutrients. "Slighlty high" indicates that nutrients are within 2.5% of the upper RDIs, for all nutrients. "Slightly low" indicates that nutrients are within 2.5% of the lower RDI for protein, carbohydrate, fat and fiber (there is no "slightly low" label for sugar, saturated fat and sodium. "Slightly high" and 'slightly low" labels are not necessary per se, but may help when comparing this evaluation against its graphical representation).
  • “Extremely low”, “very low” and “low” are used for negative unbalances for protein, carbohydrate, fat and fiber (ie, macronutrients below recommended dietary intakes), and for lower levels of nutritional contribution by sugar, saturated fat and sodium . Each label represents a 5% incremental difference from miminum RDIs, for all nutrients.

Furthermore, the nutritional balance evaluation is accompanied by another qualitative assessment which functions as a traffic light indicator and, thus, is based on three paired labels.

  • "√" and "(good)" represents a positive property of the actual distribution of the macronutrient (equivalent to a “green light”).
  • "o" and "(ok)" represents a neutral property of the actual distribution of the macronutrient (equivalent to an “amber light”).
  • "x" and "(bad)" represents a negative property of the actual distribution of the macronutrient (equivalent to a “red light”).

How to interpret nutritional balance

The nutritional balance of a food should be interpreted either according to your particular purpose for having the food or as part of your overall diet, or both.

The nutritional balance assessment of individual foods is more relevant for finalized foods, such as snacks or ready-to-eat meals, which you eat without other accompaniments that may balance their nutritional composition out.

For example, if you eat a between-meals snack, you may be better off eating the most nutritionally balanced snack that you can find. But if you eat such snack prior or after an energy-demanding physical exercise because of the energy it provides, then a snack high in carbohydrate and sugars may be more recommended for purpose (and you will burn out the excess energy quickly, anyway).

On the other hand, if you are combining foods into a meal, then you should look at the nutritional assessment of the complete meal rather than that of particular ingredients.

For example, if you are eating breakfast, standard milk rather than low-fat milk provides a more balanced breakfast if you eat sugary cereals, and soy milk may be better than milk if you eat oats or muesli.


Nutritional balance evaluation (older)

Earlier publications of nutritional balance evaluations (namely, chocolate bars and bonbons, and 2007/2008 printed material) were based on an assessment of excess or deficiency 'proportional' to the ideal composition for each nutrient. Because of this, there was a mismatch between a particular nutrient and its qualitative assessment. For example, carbohydrates, which are recommended in greater proportions, would be considered "high" when they reached 69% (ie, 4% above recommended intake), which was different for protein (high at 0.1% above recommended intake), and fat (high at 1% above recommended intake).

Nutritional assessment of older evaluations are still based on nine labels, with only small variations:

  • “Extremely high”, “very high”, “high” and “slightly high” were used for positive unbalances (ie, macronutrients in excess of recommended proportions [except for protein, were 'slightly high' actually meant 'adequate, but close to its upper RDI limit'])
  • “Adequate” or “within maximum recommended limits” are used for balanced macronutrients (maximum recommended limits may have been used with nutrients with upper limits, ie, sugar, saturated fat and sodium).
  • “Extremely low”, “very low”, “low”, and “slightly low” were used for negative unbalances (ie, macronutrients in deficiency of recommended proportions [except for protein, were 'slightly low' actually meant 'adequate, but close to its lower RDI limit']).

Other interesting sites
320
Journal KAI
105px-Stylised_Lithium_Atom.png
Wiki of Science
120px-Aileron_roll.gif
AviationKnowledge
Artwork-194-web.jpg
A4art
Artwork-162-web.jpg
The Balanced Nutrition Index