Maslow adapted: Hierarchy of Food

[Holiday]

Maslow's hierarchy of needs is a progression of human needs, from physical to emotional and beyond, from food and shelter at the bottom, to self-actualization at the top. Maslow theorized that until you have a particular need met, you are unable to focus on any need above that level. For example, if you're starving, you won't be interested in/capable of seeking love. It's a great model.

I've been developing a hierarchy of food using Maslow as a metaphor. If you're looking to improve your diet, focus on the lowest level food that remains in your diet; don't worry about cutting out rice if you're still eating lots of deep fried food and sodas.

This is based on my experience altering my diet. I've vacillated between eating raw vegan, paleo, & slow carb for several years. I'd love to hear your opinions and experience.

Hierarchy of Food
Raw fruits and veggies; seeds and nuts
beans and lentils
Cooked veggies
Seafood
Turkey
Chicken and other lean non-red meat (<7% fat)
Rice
Potatoes
Pork & red meat
Pasta/bread/processed grains
Salty processed food
Sugary processed food
Dairy products
Foods & drinks with corn syrup
Deep fried food

[KaleidoskopicVision]

Not so sure that poultry should be where it is and you should specify what you mean by seafood. If we're talking the musculature of gilled fish rather than the meaty bodies of crustaceans then there are definite general nutritional differences between the two (fish being more nutritionally sound than crustaceans).

Oh and put clean, fresh air, water and sunshine at the top

[shawnmihalik]

I don't think dairy deserves to be below grains and sugary processed foods at all. And what about high-fat meat? I'm surpised that, having been both Paleo and slow-carb, that's not at or near the top of your hierarchy. It certainly is on mine. I would switch cooked veggies and beans/lentils as well.

Actually, I'd make a lot of changes, to be honest, but mine would certainly have some similarities as well.

[ginkgo]

It looks very good to me but you have processed (refined) grains but not whole grains like brown rice and amaranth. I would put that above seafood or turkey.

[shawnmihalik]

Originally Posted by ginkgo

It looks very good to me but you have processed (refined) grains but not whole grains like brown rice and amaranth. I would put that above seafood or turkey.

Whole grains are no better for you than refined grains.

[firenexx]

That seems like an over-generalization. Sure, grains in general aren't necessarily "good" for you, but whole grains are certainly better for you than refined grains are.

And what about "pseudo-grains" that aren't really grains, like quinoa, millet, and amaranth?

Well I guess they might belong in seeds.

This hierarchy thing intrigues me.

[shawnmihalik]

Originally Posted by firenexx

That seems like an over-generalization. Sure, grains in general aren't necessarily "good" for you, but whole grains are certainly better for you than refined grains are.

And what about "pseudo-grains" that aren't really grains, like quinoa, millet, and amaranth?

Well I guess they might belong in seeds.

This hierarchy thing intrigues me.

Whole grains still contain unhealthy anti-nutrients like gluten and lectins, and the body still breaks them down into simple sugar.

[firenexx]

I don't agree that they are particularly healthy, since humans aren't after all horses, but I also don't agree that whole grains are just as unhealthy as refined grains. Refined grains are devoid of anything even remotely healthy whereas whole grains at least have some semblance of nutrition (if you're a horse)

[EARNEST]

just my few words on the subject in general. baring in mind, that we are all have common traits, perks and needs, yet, his pyramid of needs should not be taken for granted. i believe it does not fully apply in societies where altruism in one or another form dominates over an egoistic view (eg. communism, capitalism)

[ginkgo]

Originally Posted by shawnmihalik

Whole grains are no better for you than refined grains.

Whole grains still contain unhealthy anti-nutrients like gluten and lectins, and the body still breaks them down into simple sugar.

Please note that the original chart is about comparing which is healthier

Now I see your logic. Say you have a bowl of organic spinach with no harmful bacteria in it. Then you have a 2nd bowl of spinach that it is loaded with harmful bacteria like staphylococcus.

I say that the first bowl of spinach is healthier than the 2nd bowl. You would say that the first bowl is no better for you than the 2nd bowl since both bowls of spinach contain oxalic acid.

Oxalic Acid and Foods

Also all carbohydrates must be broken down into simple sugar for them to enter the blood. What I just said is incorrect. Wrong information can be contageous. There is no such thing as simple sugar. It is a confusion of simple carbohydrates (sugars) and complex carbs (starches). Only sugars or simple carbs can enter the blood.

There are single and double sugars (monosaccharides and disaccharides). There are refined and whole grains. But people confuse them and start saying imaginary things like simple grains and complex sugar (as opposed to a simple sugar).

[Lioness]

Whole grains have fiber, which is very good for the digestive system. It also helps lower cholesterol.

[shawnmihalik]

Originally Posted by Lioness

Whole grains have fiber, which is very good for the digestive system. It also helps lower cholesterol.

I'll give you the fiber argument -- although we get more than adequate fiber from fruits and vegetables -- but cholesterol doesn't pose the danger we've been lead to believe it does.

[ginkgo]

Originally Posted by Lioness

Whole grains have fiber, which is very good for the digestive system. It also helps lower cholesterol.

The whole grain consists of 3 parts. Refined grains have the bran and germ removed. There is also a much higher concentration of vitamins, minerals and other nutrients in the these parts that are taken off and then sold in health food stores like rice bran and wheat germ. The bran and germ contain lots of powerful antioxidants.

The part that is left in the refined grains is mostly carbs. What is that part of the grain called? It is called endosperm.

What's all the Fuss about Rice Bran?

Rice bran is being hailed as the new super-food. Rice bran contains a quite amazing number of nutrients. Advocates cite the presence in rice bran of 120 antioxidants.

Rice bran doesn't stop there - it contains an astounding quantity of other health-giving nutrients. Rice bran contains phytosterols , polysaccharides, beta-sitosterol, fiber, Vitamin E complex and a large complement of B vitamins. These include even including B15, a vital antioxidant. Rice bran also boasts Co-Enzyme Q10, Omega 3 and Omega 6 Fatty Acids and even Oleic Acid also found in olive oil.

Rice bran has been tested in experimental conditions. So far it has displayed great promise in the use against myriad modern diseases, including arthritis, peripheral neuropathy, cardiovascular disease, high cholesterol and diabetes. Its filling fiber content can also aid in the fight against obesity.

Rice does not contain gluten.

[ginkgo]

Originally Posted by shawnmihalik

Whole grains are no better for you than refined grains.

That is not the opinion of government sites and webmd.

5 Foods That Make You Fat, 5 That Do Not

[shawnmihalik]

Originally Posted by ginkgo

That is not the opinion of government sites and webmd.

5 Foods That Make You Fat, 5 That Do Not

This only furthers my point.

[Benton]

How the hell do dairy products end up below salty, sugary processed food?

[russianrocket]

Originally Posted by Benton

How the hell do dairy products end up below salty, sugary processed food?

Because this hierarchy of food isn't correct.

[Benton]

Originally Posted by ginkgo

That is not the opinion of government sites and webmd.

5 Foods That Make You Fat, 5 That Do Not

The government food pyramid is junk science. I'd encourage you to look into the movie Fat Head which talks extensively about how the food pyramid was actually put together.

[Holiday]

Originally Posted by KaleidoskopicVision

Not so sure that poultry should be where it is and you should specify what you mean by seafood. If we're talking the musculature of gilled fish rather than the meaty bodies of crustaceans then there are definite general nutritional differences between the two (fish being more nutritionally sound than crustaceans).

What differences have you personally noticed between these two categories? This hierarchy isn't based on nutritiondata.com, it's based on how I feel when I eat and changed these categories vis a vis: working out, gaining/losing weight, running.

[Holiday]

Originally Posted by shawnmihalik

I don't think dairy deserves to be below grains and sugary processed foods at all. And what about high-fat meat? I'm surpised that, having been both Paleo and slow-carb, that's not at or near the top of your hierarchy. It certainly is on mine. I would switch cooked veggies and beans/lentils as well.

Actually, I'd make a lot of changes, to be honest, but mine would certainly have some similarities as well.

Cool. Paleo doesn't include fatty meat...just what you could have caught if you had been alive 10,000 years ago...turkey, venison, buffalo, other birds, fish, rodents, cave people :-)....

Beans and lentils are great food, but leave me with a lethargy that cooked veggies don't. I run alot, and on a paleo diet I feel a very typical 'switch in to cruising mode' after a mile or two...with slow carb running is tough from beginning to end. That's why they're below veggies.

Dairy was one of the first things I cut out, and I lost 5 pounds the week I did that. Dairy now feels like it sticks to my body when I eat it...but I wouldn't mind experimenting more with it.

[Holiday]

Originally Posted by EARNEST

just my few words on the subject in general. baring in mind, that we are all have common traits, perks and needs, yet, his pyramid of needs should not be taken for granted. i believe it does not fully apply in societies where altruism in one or another form dominates over an egoistic view (eg. communism, capitalism)

Hmm, neat idea...but I don't think that individual feelings of greed/altruism stem from the form of economy, but rather from the individuals' experience in whatever setting they're in...

[Andrew Gubb]

Interesting, though I'm surprised rice and potatoes were removed so quickly... it's not how things have unfolded for me anyway

[Clint Cora]

It's a nice list although for me, I would put dairy (low fat only) and pasta up a bit higher. These foods certainly have not made me fat or unhealthy and I'm middle aged.

[Holiday]

Here's more interesting info on a hierarchy of food...different format but similar idea:

The Complete Illustrated One Page Bulletproof Diet (Upgraded Paleo) | The Bulletproof Executive

Some big differences from the hierarchy I proposed...this guy is way down on sweet fruit...