For more than a century, calories have shaped how Americans think about food, health, and responsibility. They offered a standardized way to measure energy and became the dominant metric guiding food labels, diets, and weight management programs. But as the New York Times recently explored in its reporting on the declining influence of calorie counting, that simplicity has come at a cost. Calories reduced food to math, stripped eating of context, and failed to deliver the long-term health outcomes they promised.
Moving Beyond Calories Without Repeating the Same Mistake
As calorie-centric thinking loses credibility, many leaders across health care, food systems, and policy are searching for better tools. Food as Medicine has emerged as a powerful framework, emphasizing nourishment, prevention, and treatment through food. Yet as this movement grows, it faces a familiar risk. Replacing calories with product-based food scores may repeat the same mistake in a new form if those scores evaluate foods in isolation rather than in relation to the individual eating them.
Why Reductionist Nutrition Metrics Fall Short
The New York Times article underscores why reductionist approaches struggle. Calories measure energy, but they do not capture nutrient density, fiber, protein quality, micronutrient adequacy, or the metabolic effects of processing. More importantly, they ignore the human variables that shape health. Hormones, medications, stress, sleep, cultural foodways, access, and chronic conditions all influence how food functions in the body. When nutrition guidance overlooks these factors, it becomes disconnected from real life.
The Limits of Product-Only Food Scoring Systems
This same limitation applies to many emerging food scoring systems. While they represent progress beyond calorie counting by emphasizing quality, most still score products as if their value were universal. A packaged meal receives a number. A snack is ranked good or bad. But food does not exist in a vacuum. A score that makes sense for one person may be irrelevant or even counterproductive for another.
Food as Medicine Requires a Whole-Person Lens
Food as Medicine requires a different lens. It asks not only what is in the food, but who is eating it, why, and under what circumstances. A person managing diabetes, recovering from illness, training for physically demanding work, or experiencing food insecurity will have very different nutritional priorities. Scoring food without accounting for the individual risks turning a supportive tool into another blunt instrument.
Designing Scoring Around the Individual, Not the Product
Nurish’d scoring was designed with this reality at the center. Rather than treating food as a standalone product to be judged, Nurish’d evaluates meals and dietary patterns in relation to the whole individual. The scoring framework emphasizes nutrient density, protein and fiber adequacy, ingredient quality, and alignment with Food as Medicine principles. Just as importantly, it is intentionally embedded within a broader system of care.
Scoring as a Guided Tool Within a System of Care
Crucially, Nurish’d scoring is not meant to replace clinical judgment or personal guidance. It works alongside registered dietitian support, allowing scores to be interpreted through the lens of individual health goals, diagnoses, medications, cultural preferences, and access constraints. In this model, the score is not a verdict. It is a signal that helps guide better decisions within a supported, human-centered approach.
Building Scalable Nutrition Solutions Without Oversimplifying
This distinction matters as organizations seek scalable ways to improve nutrition outcomes. Product-only scores may be easy to deploy, but they place the burden of interpretation on individuals who may lack time, training, or support. Nurish’d’s model shifts that burden back to the system, integrating scoring with education, meal design, and professional oversight. The result is clarity without oversimplification.
Health Is Driven by Patterns Over Time, Not Single Numbers
The New York Times article also highlights growing recognition that health cannot be reduced to a single number, whether that number is a calorie target or a shelf score. Long-term outcomes are driven by patterns over time. Regular access to nourishing meals, consistency, satisfaction, and cultural relevance matter as much as any metric. Nurish’d scoring reinforces these patterns by focusing attention on what food does repeatedly, not what it looks like in isolation.
The Next Evolution of Food as Medicine
For leaders in the Food as Medicine space, this moment represents an opportunity to raise the bar. Moving beyond calories is necessary, but not sufficient. The next evolution is moving beyond product-only thinking toward systems that account for the whole person. Nutrition tools must be flexible, evidence-based, and designed to support dignity rather than discipline.
Redefining the Role of Metrics in Nutrition’s Future
America may not be abandoning metrics altogether, but it is redefining their role. The future of food scoring lies in models that respect complexity while offering practical guidance. By centering the individual rather than the product, Nurish’d translates nutrition science into real-world impact, helping Food as Medicine deliver on its promise of better health through better nourishment.
