5 ms·

Agreed. My skepty-sense goes off the moment I hear the word "superfood". Steven Novella on the idea: First, the idea of “superfood” itself is not valid. There

by scott_s 11y ago

Agreed. My skepty-sense goes off the moment I hear the word "superfood". Steven Novella on the idea: First, the idea of “superfood” itself is not valid. There is no magical combination of nutrients that make a food into a “superfood” where it will start to have fabulous benefits. Food is just food. It also doesn’t really matter how you get your nutrients, as long as you get enough in reasonable proportions. The best way to accomplish this is to eat a variety of foods and make sure you get enough fruits and vegetables. This includes avoiding an excess of certain kinds of food and an excess of overall calories. There is no “zone,” however, where proportion of nutrients turns food into anything other than food, that will boost your immune system (which itself is a problematic idea) or shift your metabolism into some sort of optimal state. There is no science behind any of these ideas, but they do sound satisfying to the scientifically illiterate. In short – there is no such thing as a “superfood.” From http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/human-breast-milk-the-new-superfood http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/human-breast-mi...

msandford 11y ago
While I agree to some extent that "food is food" I don't think that's the start and end of it. Fruits tend to have a lot of water in them. Imagine a fruit that has somehow magically had all its cell have 50% more water in them. It'd be 50% bigger than before. And it would sell for 50% more than before. But would it have 50% more nutrition in it? Hard to say, but it feels like no. There'd be more of some stuff sure, like more cell walls to hold all that extra water. But more of the stuff you want? I don't know. I think this is a legitimate concern to have in the whole "superfood" or modern food nutrition debate. Farmers like increasing yield, and there are probably ways to increase yield without increasing nutrition. It's like the old cram an extra 100lbs on every cow in water with salt trick that ranchers used to and perhaps still use. I'm not suggesting that the whole idea of a superfood is real or valid. But there probably are foods which are better for you by virtue of the fact that the agricultural machine hasn't highly optimized them for whatever yet. I am skeptical of the claim 100x, but I might readily believe 2x or 3x.
- linkregister 11y ago
  Would it sell for 50% more? I strongly suspect that an apple with 50% more water would be less tasty and would not sell as well. The most expensive apples in my grocery store are correlated with their availability and popularity when it comes to taste.
  - msandford 11y ago
    Oh, of course. And I agree. But this isn't a step-change that's happening, it's a slow increase in yields or whatever. It's not as though one year they made a tomato that was 50% bigger and firmer and tasted terrible but shipped and looked amazing and everyone switched over to it en-masse. It's 1-2% a year, year after year, in a slow way so that it's very hard to notice. Not that anyone's trying to hide it either, it's just that the interests of the farmers and the people in the supply chain and the grocery store are different in some ways and probably opposed a few to those of the people eating the food.

by scott_s 11y ago

msandford 11y ago

While I agree to some extent that "food is food" I don't think that's the start and end of it. Fruits tend to have a lot of water in them. Imagine a fruit that has somehow magically had all its cell have 50% more water in them. It'd be 50% bigger than before. And it would sell for 50% more than before. But would it have 50% more nutrition in it? Hard to say, but it feels like no. There'd be more of some stuff sure, like more cell walls to hold all that extra water. But more of the stuff you want? I don't know. I think this is a legitimate concern to have in the whole "superfood" or modern food nutrition debate. Farmers like increasing yield, and there are probably ways to increase yield without increasing nutrition. It's like the old cram an extra 100lbs on every cow in water with salt trick that ranchers used to and perhaps still use. I'm not suggesting that the whole idea of a superfood is real or valid. But there probably are foods which are better for you by virtue of the fact that the agricultural machine hasn't highly optimized them for whatever yet. I am skeptical of the claim 100x, but I might readily believe 2x or 3x.

linkregister 11y ago
Would it sell for 50% more? I strongly suspect that an apple with 50% more water would be less tasty and would not sell as well. The most expensive apples in my grocery store are correlated with their availability and popularity when it comes to taste.
- msandford 11y ago
  Oh, of course. And I agree. But this isn't a step-change that's happening, it's a slow increase in yields or whatever. It's not as though one year they made a tomato that was 50% bigger and firmer and tasted terrible but shipped and looked amazing and everyone switched over to it en-masse. It's 1-2% a year, year after year, in a slow way so that it's very hard to notice. Not that anyone's trying to hide it either, it's just that the interests of the farmers and the people in the supply chain and the grocery store are different in some ways and probably opposed a few to those of the people eating the food.