Ashley Moran wrote:
> Well actually it doesn't say that, but it does tell me I'm probably
> deficient of most vital nutrients and I won't last long if I am.
>
> I went on World's Healthiest Foods (hoho) at http://www.whfoods.com/
> foodadvisor.php and entered a reasonable weekly diet for me
> (difficult, because they lump foods together which are really
> separate, eg milk and eggs).
>
> Here are my results:
>
>> "Approximately 49% of your total day's calories appear to be coming
>> from foods that are not as nutritionally dense as the World's
>> Healthiest Foods. These other foods may include fast foods, pre-
>> packaged foods, processed foods, fried foods and sweets. To keep
>> your nutrient intake in a generally safe zone we recommend that
>> this percentage be no more than 25%."
>>
>> Nutrients numbers indicate probability of deficiency
>> 95% copper
>> 94% vitamin a
>> 92% folate
>> 91% vitamin e
>> 90% thiamin b1
>> 90% pantothenic acid
>> 90% manganese
>> 90% vitamin d
>> 88% calcium
>> 83% iron
>> 79% dietary fiber
>> 69% magnesium
>> 66% vitamin c
>> 63% riboflavin b2
>> 60% potassium
>> 60% vitamin k
>> 60% omega 3 fatty acids
>> 56% zinc
>> 1% vitamin b6
>> 0% vitamin b12
>> 0% protein
>> 0% selenium
>> 0% niacin b3
>> 0% phosphorus
>
> Well I didn't think I'd be deficient of protein with 4-6 daily
> servings of meat, but apparently I'm deficient of most of the B-group
> vitamins, calcium and iron(!).  I'm apparently deficient of that
> critical nutrient, vitamin D, which is a shame because I like to lock
> myself indoors wrapped in dark robes over the summer months.  And
> since this is necessary to absorb calcium, I should be worried,
> because after two years on paleo now, my bones must be due to start
> cracking any minute.
>
> Does anyone fare any better?  Or does anyone know any other diet
> analysers where paleo fails just as comically?
>
> Ashley
I tried out the site and seem to have faired much better. It's probably
because there is a lot of variety even in what is considered Paleo. For
example, I avoid dairy, legumes, grains, etc, but still eat quite a lot
of vegetables, fruit, and nuts. Because of this the site said that I get
100% of my calories from the "worlds healthiest foods" and that the only
nutrients I am likely to be deficient in are vitamin D (90%
probability), Pantothenic Acid (60%) and Calcium (55%).

This probably isn't very accurate for a number of reasons:

1) Things are inappropriately lumped together.
2) No regard is given to variations within an item or how ingredients
are prepared. e.g. an organic apple vs dried apple chips vs. sweetened
apple sauce, etc. Or fried chicken vs. grilled steak, vs. broiled lamb,
etc.
3) It is a little too vague on what constitutes a serving.

However, for my numbers it seems to be pretty much in agreement with
what I have found from other sources. Like others on the list I do take
supplements, including a vitamin D supplement that I only take during
the darker half of the year (700 IU tablets. I take two a day during the
winter months, and one a day during each of the spring and autumn. I
also try to get at least one hour of sun exposure a day, year round.) I
also take a B Complex and some antioxidants (C, E, alpha-lipoic-acid and
Co-Q 10) and fish oil.

I have read that the RDAs for vitamin D are probably too low (But that
carefully regulated sun exposure, not diet, is the key.) And that the
RDAs for Calcium are probably too high (Another example of conventional
medicine attacking the symptom - bone mineral loss - and not the cause,
which is more complex.) I can find some references for these, but I
don't have the time today (Have to go catch a plane.)

Thanks,
Adam