Looking at the Tuft website https://sites.tufts.edu/foodcompass/research/data/ it's clear they were focusing on within-category ratings. Celery juice > apple juice and quinoa > tortillas is not going to surprise anyone. And for seafood, salmon has been promoted many times as a miracle diet food. I can't spot any obvious problems in these within-category charts.
If you take a within-category metric and try to selectively apply it across food groups then of course you will get weird results. Is a broad-band metric more useful? I'm not sure. There are meal replacement products (shakes, bars, etc.) but besides those I think you need to break down your diet into at least a few food groups - protein, vegetables, etc. Just taking a random selection of items will probably be deficient in some important nutrients.
Comments
Looking at the Tuft website https://sites.tufts.edu/foodcompass/research/data/ it's clear they were focusing on within-category ratings. Celery juice > apple juice and quinoa > tortillas is not going to surprise anyone. And for seafood, salmon has been promoted many times as a miracle diet food. I can't spot any obvious problems in these within-category charts.
If you take a within-category metric and try to selectively apply it across food groups then of course you will get weird results. Is a broad-band metric more useful? I'm not sure. There are meal replacement products (shakes, bars, etc.) but besides those I think you need to break down your diet into at least a few food groups - protein, vegetables, etc. Just taking a random selection of items will probably be deficient in some important nutrients.
It's also clear that the criticisms from the article apply. For example, in Seafood, Dairy, Eggs, Meat they have ranked soy milk ahead of milk.