The system has been adopted by Whole Foods grocery stores, which is what lead me to Wikipedia to learn more about it. It seems quite notable as a result, so I disputed the proposed deletion by removing the tag. I added a note to the article with references to establish notability for readers. -- Beland (talk) 18:02, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

i agree we should keep it. makeswell (talk) 17:59, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What I want are the individual scores for the foods from entirely public sources. I have some non-public sources of some of these which I will try to include below:

http://www.drfuhrman.com/images/misc/line_chart.jpg

http://media.fooducate.com/blog/posts/ANDI.jpg

I hope this helps with this page which is btw hugely notable and must be increased along the lines of these abovementioned charts but with a way to include more listings and their lab values.

Glennndavis (talk) 16:03, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly agree that this article is definitely noteworthy. I hope it is expanded. Many doctors are now recommending that their patients pay attention to the ANDI score of foods. This topic will become increasingly important in the future. More and more doctors are catching on to this. The article should be expanded, not deleted. --Westwind273 (talk) 17:13, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notability and our coverage both hinge on coverage in independent reliable sources. Currently, the article lacks such coverage: Fuhrman is not an independent source for the scale he created, Whole Foods is not a reliable source (and not quite independent here either). This leaves "Fooducate", whoever the hell they are. Their "about" page states only that they are "NOT funded or influenced by food manufacturers, supplement companies, diets, or any sort of magic pill." Not helpful.

A Google news search turns up one hit, a bare mention in The Guardian. Google Scholar has some stuff that I'm starting to wade through. - SummerPhD (talk) 21:42, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Found a bit more about "Fooducate". It's a blog. I'm yanking it. - SummerPhD (talk) 22:03, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The concept of nutrient density is widely-discussed in the scientific literature, presumably before Fuhrman developed the ANDI. A critical question, I think, is whether ANDI preceded the literature (which would show Fuhrman's notability among researchers) or the literature preceded ANDI, which shows that Fuhrman would have access to the literature for developing the concept (not entirely original, in that case).

The Dietary Guidelines for Americans 2005 recommend the consumption of a variety of “nutrient-dense” foods and beverages within and among the basic food groups. So what is nutrient density? According to definitions, nutrient density is a measure of nutrients provided per calorie of food, or the “ratio of the amount of a nutrient in foods to the energy provided by these same foods.

^[1]

National nutrition guidelines emphasize consumption of powerhouse fruits and vegetables (PFV), foods most strongly associated with reduced chronic disease risk; yet efforts to define PFV are lacking. This study developed and validated a classification scheme defining PFV as foods providing, on average, 10% or more daily value per 100 kcal of 17 qualifying nutrients. Of 47 foods studied, 41 satisfied the powerhouse criterion and were more nutrient-dense than were non-PFV, providing preliminary evidence of the validity of the classification scheme. The proposed classification scheme is offered as a tool for nutrition education and dietary guidance. [NOTE: PEER REVIEWED]

^{[2][3][4][5][6][7][8]}

The point here is that the nutritional concept of nutrient density is not without scientific evidence, scientific justification.

MaynardClark (talk) 03:24, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, the point here is to discuss improvements to the article, not to have a general discussion of the topic. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:57, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@MaynardClark: is there a reason you posted this both here and at the Joel Fuhrman page? and is this the followup to your response on the merge discussion there? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:16, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

"Early in the 21st century" really it is 2014, puffery is not needed. - - MrBill3 (talk) 02:34, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But, MrBill3, the first YEAR of online publication I found was 2002 (maybe earlier; I could quickly find 2002 published online), and that IS 'early in the 20th century IN a Wikipedia article that is being written to last for quite a few years 'going forward.' I don't think we need 'loaded language' to describe the clearly accurate description. My point is to demonstrate that the overall idea (of a phytonutrient index) need not be attributed entirely to Dr. Joel Fuhrman's originality, which the previously-standing article had suggested. The general concept of a rank-ordering of values of what was being increasingly recognized, through the results of nutritional research, to be a useful characteristic of some edible plants rather than others, is not inherently brilliant. As with composing good quality Wikipedia articles, some 'knowledge products' require organizational work to develop the useful resource(s), and that requires someone to understand what knowledge issues are involved and then to take needed 'next steps' to put things in order. Others had called for something LIKE the ANDI, but Joel Fuhrman helped to bring it into its original form, then modified it for its 2012 form (published in his book). How long before practice and implementation make its wider use evident through publication? We don't seem to know.  :MaynardClark (talk) 03:34, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The point is moot. The article has been merged per Talk:Joel_Fuhrman#Merge:_Aggregate_Nutrient_Density_Index. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:06, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps "operationally 'moot'" to what 'the project' shows here. MaynardClark (talk) 04:17, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Article talk pages are for discussing improvements to their related articles. If ANDI becomes notable in the future, there might be something to discuss. Until there are independent reliable sources though, there are no other "next steps". - SummerPhD (talk) 13:58, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]