Doesn't matter. Even if I only absorbed 90% of the water I drank, I could just drink 1.111 L of water to get 1 L of "hydration", and it would still be cheaper

Doesn't matter. Even if I only absorbed 90% of the water I drank, I could just drink 1.111 L of water to get 1 L of "hydration", and it would still be cheaper than drinking 1 L of Brawndo, the Thirst Annihilator. On a money cost basis, in any place on Earth that has municipal drinking water on tap, drinking that water is the cheapest way to hydrate your body. Whether or not "best" includes the money cost is a matter of opinion, but most people at least include it as a factor. The same goes for a lot of "superfoods". On a cost basis, whatever you get from 100g of the "superfood" can probably be obtained by eating 200g of something else, sold at a much lower price. Or it's only of interest to vegans, because the "something else" is an animal product. People on western diets just aren't limited by nutrition content. If you eat your normal calorie quota--even a reduced quota from a weight-loss diet--you can always get adequate nutrition from just the normal, healthy, non-"super" foods. There's nothing stopping you from eating a bucketful of broccoli with a bit of salmon, and skipping the wheatgrass-kale-chia-pomegranate super-smoothies forever.