Recently, I responded with a rhetorical question to a LinkedIn post by a well-known Australian nutritionist who claimed that almonds are a superfood. I asked her: if almonds are a superfood, does that mean we should eat more of them than walnuts, hazelnuts, or Brazil nuts.
She replied that all nuts are superfoods, added the question “aren’t they great?” and wished me a good day.
My next question would have been: “Does that mean we should eat more nuts than leafy green vegetables? No? Does that mean leafy greens are also a superfood?”
And what about oily fish?
You see where I’m going with this.
In any case, I didn’t respond. I’m training myself not to get into pointless arguments.
Super stories
Writing about moderation is boring. Click, click, hook. That’s what we’re after. Sensationalism sells. Add “super” to any word, and you increase the chances that someone will read your article.
The first mention of the term “superfood” was linked to bananas. At the start of the 20th century, the United Fruit Company, as part of its marketing strategy to boost banana imports, called them a superfood (1).
Today, new superfoods appear on a monthly basis. Goji, chia, açaí, avocado, broccoli, cocoa, coconut oil, dark chocolate, quinoa, blueberries, kale, turmeric, mangosteen, kombucha, spirulina, maca, pomegranate, salmon, rosehip, chokeberry, raspberries, strawberries, chili, garlic, flaxseeds… With every superfood article you read, the list grows. I bet that by reading enough articles you could cover all the foods in the world.
Between 2011 and 2015, there was a recorded increase of 202% in the number of products launched on the market labelled as superfoods (2).
Superfoods promises to improve athletic performance, memory, the immune system, skin… or, most often, all of the above at once. How well-founded are such claims?
They aren’t. First of all, the concept of superfoods is unfounded. There isn’t even a single accepted definition, let alone a scientific classification of superfoods. Imagine the nutritional version of the Wild West, and you’ll get a pretty accurate picture of the situation. The concept closely follows Hippocrates’ saying, “Let food be thy medicine, and medicine be thy food.” Given that food is not medicine…
The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines a superfood as “a food rich in nutrients considered to be especially beneficial for health.” There are two main problems with this definition.
The first is that it defines a (too)large number of foods. And if most foods are super, the “super” label loses its meaning. Or rather, it becomes clear it never had one to begin with.
The second problem is the assumption that just because a food is rich in a certain nutrient, it will be especially healthy. A sufficient amount of vitamin C will prevent scurvy. Will a higher amount surely lead to something even better? No. In the case of vitamin C, the excess will simply be excreted by the body. In another case, the excess could be toxic.
If we accept this definition and its logic, we’d have to conclude that dietary supplements are hyperfoods. (They aren’t.)
The science of superfoods
Do I even need to mention that the concept of superfoods became popular in the media, not among scientists? When I type “superfood” into the PubMed search bar, I get the suggestion “Did you mean ‘superfund’?” So much for the scientific basis of the term.
Advocates of certain superfoods attribute various health benefits to them. However, such claims are almost entirely unsupported by scientific research, especially high-quality studies. In other words, they are unfounded.
In 1991, the USDA (United States Department of Agriculture) created a tool for measuring the antioxidant activity of foods, ORAC (Oxygen Radical Absorbance Capacity). Antioxidants reduce the level of free radicals in the body, which is why they are believed to have a positive impact on health.
So, the higher the ORAC, the better.
Not so fast.
Twenty years later, the USDA withdrew this tool after concluding that the story about antioxidants isn’t as simple as we’d like. For example, it’s now believed that a certain level of free radicals in the body is actually desirable, that they have a positive role in health.
The story of blueberries as the ultimate superfood stems from this tool, due to their very high ORAC score.
Superfoods are not harmless
Does that mean superfoods are harmful?
In themselves, no.
Almost without exception, they are plant-based foods. If you’re the average resident of the Republic of Croatia, or planet Earth, it would do you good to increase your intake of plant-based foods.
From that angle, wouldn’t following this trend have a positive effect on your health?
Maybe.
But it’s like trying to make a basketball shot with your eyes closed — sometimes you’ll succeed, but not because of what you’re doing, rather in spite of it.
The concept of superfoods is not only unfounded, but also potentially harmful. By focusing on individual foods instead of food groups, it limits variety, the foundation of a healthy diet. For example, if you eat chard every day, you won’t be able to eat spinach. And if you somehow manage that, you won’t eat broccoli. We can’t say that one vegetable is better than another. To achieve optimal health, we need diversity.
Protect your wallet
Have you noticed that superfoods are almost without exception outrageously expensive? Or at least more expensive than foods that aren’t as “super”? Who would pay several times more for certain fruits or vegetables unless they believed these foods had some magical properties?
That’s exactly why such properties are most often attributed to exotic foods, which already have a higher price due to transport costs. There needs to be some reason why we’ll pay more for a certain food.
And once someone saw how well this story sells, they thought of calling ordinary foods superfoods too. That’s how kale got its turn. And even got its own day in the USA.
Superfood is just food
One reason why the concept of superfoods is so successful is the absence of a definition of a healthy diet. If we don’t know what we should be aiming for, it’s easy to sell us something we don’t need.
Superfoods are not the only foods rich in nutrients. High nutrient levels are also found in many “ordinary” foods, and especially in supplements. This makes the term “superfood” questionable, not to say useless. Okay, I will say it — it’s useless.
The concept of superfoods is just another example of the search for a magic pill that will solve all our dietary problems. But don’t fall for marketing tricks. Focus on the diversity of your diet. Avoid emphasizing one food at the expense of another. Don’t avoid superfoods, but don’t consider them “super” either. If you need something super in your life, let it be a super diet.
How super is your diet, find out by talking to our nutritionists.
References
- Company UF. Food Value of the Banana: Opinion of Leading Medical and Scientific Authorities. Boston: United fruit company; 1917.
- Super growth for “super” foods: New product development shoots up 202% globally over the past five years | Mintel.com. https://www.mintel.com/press-centre/food-and-drink/super-growth-for-super-foods-new-product-development-shoots-up-202-globally-over-the-past-five-years. Accessed April 25, 2019.