There’s a good article in Men’s Journal on the term “Super Food”:
The term superfood has colonized both mainstream and natural-food stores, even though the word has no scientific or FDA-approved meaning, says Dr. Frank Sacks of the Harvard School of Public Health. “It’s just a term somebody dreamed up. The trendy term used to be nutraceutical. Now it’s superfood, and the public needs to be very, very skeptical.” Today’s leading experts use the term to refer only to such everyday natural foods as salmon, broccoli, and blueberries, whose health benefits are supported by reams of research.
Read the whole thing, and take note.
The point isn’t that novel foods don’t have unique health benefits, but emphasizing only a few creates an illusion of simplicity. People are unhealthy or healthy for a lot of reasons. Emphasizing the exotic mis-allocates your attention on pointless minutaie instead of focusing on daily habits which take time to implement.
The end result is you’re bombarded with a montage of facts and lists that, taken together, confuse more than they clarify. Another article sums up the aggregate effect very well:
The downside, however, is that we can become overloaded with information: the latest exercise discovery, the most nutrient-crammed “superfood”, the ground-breaking medical breakthrough.While I don’t pretend to have all the answers, I’ve been around long enough to get my head around what’s worthwhile and what’s questionable. And this week, three items turned up in my inbox that all raised the question: would I spend my money on them?
I don’t write articles about the “List of N Things” because I think they’re useless. They’re the fast-food of journalism: cheap and easy to digest, but they’re hollow calories for your brain.
Meanwhile, Forbes has a new article about the amazing benefits of Chia seeds and how investment bankers are using them to run marathons.
Have a nice day.