You’ve no doubt been subjected to at least one friend or family-member attempting to convince you that you’re not eating enough of something. If you’re unlucky, they’ll have force-fed you some anecdotal rhetoric about a new “superfood”. If you were really unlucky (or hungry), you may have even bought into the hype.
There’s no stopping it. The next “superfood” is surely on its way to health-food stores in the form of yet another unpronounceable and exotic-sounding fruit. More often than not, this new fad-food will be attached to some preliminary, ambiguous research-based hypotheses that it either “wards off cancer” or fights an entirely ambiguously defined disease like aging. Whichever emotive ailment it’s proclaimed to cure, it can be difficult to justify not throwing that spoonful of Fumujiju Berries (not a real thing) onto your bowl of cereal in the morning; you know, just in case.
In spite of the promoted “life-saving” benefits, it might seem odd that your doctor has probably never sent you down to the health-food store with a prescription for the latest superfood. In actual fact, of the 22-million scientific articles published and accessible through the international go-to for biomedical literature, PubMed, “superfood” is a term you won’t find in the title of more than three (circa 2015).
Where you will find the unfortunate and misleading term is in almost every form of advertising used to promote a goji or acai berry product, coconut water or pomegranate seed.
But what is it that makes these foods so “super” and what draws us into buying them?
The most commonly marketed features of superfoods:
Antioxidant-rich:
Antioxidants are known to protect our cells from free radicals with the hope of slowing the ticking genetic clocks that determine our lifespan. Free radicals amass from inhaling cigarette smoke, developing obesity and as a result of converting everything we put in our mouths to energy.
Ironically, it’s possible that the less we eat of typically sugar-rich “superfoods”, the better we combat free radical damage by not producing as much of them in the first place.
Additionally, the body has very clever ways of regulating free radical production and clean-up using its own naturally produced antioxidants. Unfortunately, these natural antioxidants are a little like low-budget office cleaning services. There is growing evidence to suggest that your naturally produced (i.e. very low-cost) antioxidants tend to get pretty lazy (or don’t turn up at all) once you start shame-tidying your own desk (or start munching on X-brand antioxidant pills). The problem being that if you’re someone who buys into the hype of shortcut nutrition, it probably won’t be long before you run out of your expensive Dr Oz-spruked wonderfruit and it could be a while before your cleaner notices all your free radical trash building up again.
Nutrient-dense:
Numerous superfoods are wildly promoted to contain more nutrients per gram than the not-so-super foods you and your ancestors have been eating for millennia. Technically speaking, a nutrient is any compound or chemical needed by the body to build, maintain or repair its tissues. Therefore, a gram of fancy-fruit is no more “nutrient-dense” than a gram of simple sugar, which is 100% “macronutricious”.
Importantly, many types of nutrients can’t even be stored in our bodies for later use, e.g., vitamins B and C. Therefore, eating kilos of overpriced superfood berries, overly rich in these vitamins, ultimately leads to not much more than the production of overly expensive urine.
Full of [insert super-ingredient here]:
Where were you when the news broke that red wine and dark chocolate was good for you? Although red wine consumption is still associated with improved heart health and a lower incidence of heart disease, the one magical ingredient originally attributed all the glory was later realised to have been pre-maturely founded on limited (and partly fraudulent) evidence. Of course, this scientific misconduct was only exposed after the scrutinised ingredient, resveratrol, had been mass-produced in pill, juice and ointment form and sold internationally as the “super-ingredient” to prevent heart disease.
The real issue in this case, like in many others, was that the limited scientific evidence caused enough stir for a worldwide market to form practically overnight. These sorts of over-enthusiastic responses to soft, preliminary scientific findings are the reason most superfoods become so successful, and so often.
Recently, a sub-field of genetic research revealed that the human genome responds favourably to moderate, but not extreme (binge-like), changes to diet. These, albeit preliminary, studies showed that some key benefits attributed to a moderate intake of antioxidant-rich berries was completely lost when this intake increased past a certain amount, say, in pills which claim to contain the equivalent of 5-10 serves.
Generally, the hype surrounding the promotion of each new superfood ironically encourages unhealthy, binge-like nutrition habits in some people. Nutritionally (and potentially genetically) speaking, these habits are as far from healthy as it gets.
So not all superfoods are necessarily a complete waste of money. Indeed, some of these foods do help to supplement a diet otherwise lacking the nutrients these foods bring to the table. The core issue is rather “superfood fanaticism”, as it inadvertently lures people into a false sense of security with their health all the while losing sight of their broader nutritional needs.
It’s a no-brainer why the notion of superfoods grows more and more appealing. We’re all guilty of packing more into our schedules, sometimes not leaving ourselves the time to pack a decent lunch. As long as we acknowledge the fact that no so-called “superfood” alone has the ability to replace the health benefits of eating a balanced and varied diet, there’s probably no harm in sprinkling a handful of Fumijiju berries on that next bowl of cereal.