02/03/2015
Mythbusting Mondays #21
There's no such thing as a Superfood
- - - - - - - - - -
A 'superfood' is supposed to be a food that has an unusually high density of nutrients and is therefore thought to have remarkable health benefits. However, similar to 'detox' the term 'superfood' has no reliable definition. Catherin Collins, chief dietician at St George's Hospital in London, says, "the term 'superfoods' is at best meaningless and at worst harmful".
- - - - - - - - - -
Let's start with meaningless.
Newspapers and blogs love the idea of a superfood. The idea that a single food can profoundly benefit one's health really captures the imagination of journalists and consumers. The problem with dietary reporting, though, is that headlines are often inaccurate, unhelpful, or contradictory; often there are reports of the same food being healthy one month, and harmful the next! That's before you even consider the mercurial nature of dietary science.
Researching the effects of a single food on our health is notoriously difficult. Human diets are so complex that it is naive to try to disentangle the effects of any single food from whatever else you are eating. Taking this even further, superfoods are often labelled thus because the item in question is purportedly packed full of one particular nutrient. The problem with this approach according to Michael Pollan, author of The Omnivore's Dilemma, is that "it takes the nutrient out of the context of food, the food out of the context of diet, and the diet out of the context of lifestyle".
The EU prevents the use of the term 'superfood' on packaging unless there is substantial evidence in support of the claim, but claims made in the media have no such restrictions. As such we are faced with outlandish headlines that claim certain foods can:
“add five years to your life”
“help keep teeth healthy”
“protect your eyes”
"make women less likely to gain weight”
“undo diabetes damage”
“stop breast cancer spreading”
“protect the lungs”
"protect against heart disease"
"cut the risk of prostate cancer"
"cut the risk of heart attack and stroke”
or even "save your life”.
- - - - - - - - - -
Still wondering how the term 'superfood' might be harmful?
Apart from producing headlines such as the above, which are downright misleading, labelling some foods as 'superfoods' results in a skewed way of thinking about how we eat. Consider this list of commonly cited 'superfoods':
Acai berries
Kale
Seaweed
Pomegranates
Wheatgrass
Chia seeds
Goji berries
Manuka Honey
Spirulina
Quinoa
What do they have in common? They are all fairly exotic, rare, and unusual; not typically seen in a modern Western diet. Undoubtedly these foods will have many beneficial nutrients but they are also especially marketable. Attach some extraordinary claims to these 'unique' foods, and suddenly you have a vastly inflated price. Denoting some foods as superfoods gives the impression that other more everyday foods are somehow inferior or deficient. Broccoli, soy, fish, oats, blueberries, ginger, garlic and tea are all highly nutritious, and have at times been called superfoods, but they aren't as sexy. Aren't as marketable. Aren't as expensive!
So don't blow your food budget on a small packet of exotic berries with a premium price-tag. They won't be a silver bullet to good health if the rest of what your diet and lifestyle is poor. You are always better off sticking to the fundamentals; eat a variety of fruits and vegetables, limit your intake of sugar, processed foods and calories, and maintain high levels of physical activity.
- - - - - - - - - -
Thanks for reading another instalment of Mythbusting Mondays :) If you would like FitCoach Jonno to be your personal trainer then get in touch via email at [email protected]. You can also follow what Jonno is up to Jonathan Loch on Twitter and Instagram.
