I suspect the real issue is using the “nutrients per calorie” meaning of nutrient dense, rather than interpreting it as “nutrients per some measure of food amount that makes intuitive sense to humans, like what serving size is supposed to be but isn’t”.
Ideally we would have some way of, for each person, saying “drink some milk” and seeing how much they drank, and “eat some spinach” and seeing how much they ate, then compare the total amount of nutrients in each amount on a person by person basis.
I know this is not the correct meaning of nutrient dense, but I think it’s more useful.
I think the best we can hope in this context is to have a number of distinct and precise metrics—like nutrients per calorie, nutrients per dollar and nutrients per bulk--, feed these to intuition, and decide accordingly. In other words, when it comes to food, I think we should make decisions according to a “rational” rather than a “quantified” model, given the difficulties of coming up with adequate definitions of a “serving size”. Your approach wouldn’t work, I believe, because how much people eat of a given food often depends on the presence or absence of other complement and substitute foods.
Amount of foods from a food group typically reported in surveys as consumed on one eating occasion;
Amount of foods that provide a comparable amount of key nutrients from that food group, for example, the amount of
cheese that provides the same amount of calcium as 1 cup fluid milk;
Amount of foods recognized by most consumers (e.g., household measures) or that can be easily multiplied or divided to describe a quantity of food actually consumed (portion);
Amount traditionally used in previous food guides to describe servings.
While the amount of food people would eat is not the only factor used, it’s a major one.
I suspect the real issue is using the “nutrients per calorie” meaning of nutrient dense, rather than interpreting it as “nutrients per some measure of food amount that makes intuitive sense to humans, like what serving size is supposed to be but isn’t”.
Ideally we would have some way of, for each person, saying “drink some milk” and seeing how much they drank, and “eat some spinach” and seeing how much they ate, then compare the total amount of nutrients in each amount on a person by person basis.
I know this is not the correct meaning of nutrient dense, but I think it’s more useful.
I think the best we can hope in this context is to have a number of distinct and precise metrics—like nutrients per calorie, nutrients per dollar and nutrients per bulk--, feed these to intuition, and decide accordingly. In other words, when it comes to food, I think we should make decisions according to a “rational” rather than a “quantified” model, given the difficulties of coming up with adequate definitions of a “serving size”. Your approach wouldn’t work, I believe, because how much people eat of a given food often depends on the presence or absence of other complement and substitute foods.
Googling quickly brings up http://www.cnpp.usda.gov/Publications/NutritionInsights/insight11.pdf
Serving size is defined as follows:
Amount of foods from a food group typically reported in surveys as consumed on one eating occasion;
Amount of foods that provide a comparable amount of key nutrients from that food group, for example, the amount of cheese that provides the same amount of calcium as 1 cup fluid milk;
Amount of foods recognized by most consumers (e.g., household measures) or that can be easily multiplied or divided to describe a quantity of food actually consumed (portion);
Amount traditionally used in previous food guides to describe servings.
While the amount of food people would eat is not the only factor used, it’s a major one.