How the GASP score works: our food scoring explained

You're standing in the kitchen holding an onion, wondering if it's worth the wind. That's the question the GASP score is built to answer ut with a number you can read in a second.

Here's the short version: GASP rates a food on four things, each shown as a number from 0 to 100. Lower means gentler. A high number isn't a warning sign that a food is off-limits \u2014 it just means more people tend to find it harder on a J-pouch or sensitive gut. There are no bad foods here, only gentler and harder ones for the gut you've got right now.

What the four letters mean

Each letter scores one way a food can give you trouble. We keep them separate because the kind of trouble matters. Wind and runny output are different problems, and you might be fine with one and not the other.

• G \u2014 Gas. Rapidly fermentable carbs (the FODMAPs), some fibres, and sulphur-rich foods that can make wind smell stronger. Think onion, garlic, beans, cabbage.
• A \u2014 Agitation. Things that can irritate the gut lining or speed transit: chilli and capsaicin, acidity, caffeine, alcohol, and very fatty or fried food.
• S \u2014 Stool-loosening. Things that tend to make output runnier \u2014 certain sugars and sugar alcohols, lots of free water, and the effect of fat on bile.
• P \u2014 Particle load. The bits that arrive largely intact: skins, seeds, pith, and tough fibrous strings. Sweetcorn is the classic.

How they blend into one number

The overall GASP score isn't a flat average. We lean hardest on Gas and Stool-loosening, because day to day those two cause the most grief. Agitation and Particle load still count, just a bit less.

There's also a fifth signal we track separately: Binding (B). That flags foods many people find help firm things up \u2014 white rice, ripe banana, smooth peanut butter, that sort of thing. It doesn't lower the score; it's there so you can spot a counterweight when output is loose.

Two details that change the number a lot

This is where a simple score earns its keep. Two foods that sound the same can score worlds apart.

Serving size is realistic

We model a sensible portion, not a silly one. A spoonful of onion powder stirred through a sauce is not the same as a bowl of raw onion, so it doesn't score the same. The number reflects what you'd actually eat.

How you cook it matters

The same vegetable shifts depending on what you do to it. Boiling and draining washes out some of the fermentable carbs. An infused oil (garlic flavour without the garlic solids) skips most of the FODMAP load. Pickling, mashing, peeling, slow-cooking \u2014 all of it nudges the score. So a food can appear more than once if the preparation genuinely changes how your gut sees it.

Adaptation vs Long-Term Health

The right answer changes with where you are. So GASP has two modes.

In Adaptation mode, particle load and stool-loosening weigh more heavily \u2014 those are what tend to bite when things are still raw. In Long-Term Health mode, we ease off, because a varied diet is good for you once your gut can handle it. Same food, sometimes a different score, depending on the mode you're in.

What the score is, and what it isn't

GASP is a modelled estimate. We build it from food composition data plus FODMAP logic, then weight the four parts the way real-world experience suggests. The evidence behind FODMAPs is solid; the exact weightings are our considered judgement, not a lab result.

It is not a test of your gut, and it's not medical advice. Your gut is its own thing. Two people can eat the same kumara and have completely different afternoons.

So treat the number as a starting point. Reintroduce one food at a time, in a small portion, on a calm day \u2014 and trust what your own body tells you over any score we give you.

If you want the full method, how the scores work goes deeper. Otherwise, browse the food scores and see how your usual suspects stack up.