Talk:Superfood/Archive 1

Archive 1

Initial discussions

All the articles this disambiguation page links to seem to have been deleted, or the links are broken... What happened? - Haridan 04:43, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

i've fixed the first link. the other two might be removed and the working link replaced with a redirect perjaps--Mongreilf 12:52, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I've made some cleanup changes and added the items in the hastily dumped 'Vegetables' section to the main list of 'Alleged Superfoods'. Shax 02:44, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi guys, I have made quite a few changes. Obviously you might not agree with my point of view but the evidence is available to back it up; and I will keep this coming. Please make comments where necessary; but we really shouldn't be basing this page off an article by a doctor whose views on health and nutrition seem to be dubious at best. But it looks like a very fresh (starter) page so that's why we're all here - to create the best resource we can for people. :)

1. Some people try to say that Salmon, Mackeral and wild fresh fish are a superfood; most of the time this is because they contain Omega3 fatty acids. Unfortunately, since, for the majority of the time, the product has to be cooked, it is difficult for the human body to digest even a small percentage of the flesh. I can refer you to The China Study for further evidence. The same goes for turkey. Investigations into this claim have shown absolutely no scientific evidence that turkey provides any beneficial nutrients, fatty acids or antioxidants. In fact, turkey contains L-Tryptophan which causes fatigue.
Meat has also been shown to sit in the human gut for up to 6 days (and longer in some people) festering, rotting and causing many health problems, such as irritable bowel syndrome.

2. Some people claim that grains also provide nutrients to the human body but extensive research is beginning to show that grains are extremely detrimental to human health . Wholegrains have also been shown in scientific studies to ferment in the gut, causing bloating and gas. Information provided in the book The China Study provides long-term scientific research that grains and meat are the leading cause of heart disease and colon cancer. This said, we cannot include either of these food types as superfoods at this time. I have removed Oats, Oat grass, Kamut and Kamut grass. Oats and Kamut contain Gluten which is a known allergen.

3. Soy is a heavily processed food so cannot be classed as a superfood. Soy contains anti-nutrients - such as phytates and enzyme inhibitors - which are extremely detrimental to human health. It is also one of the world's seven top allergens. I use The Whole Soy Story by Kaayla T. Daniel, PhD, CCN as a reference Also, the article that has been cited for most of this information has this to say about Soy. A study reported in The Journal of the American Medical Association (2003) showed that a diet of soy fibre, protein from oats and barley, almonds, and margarine from plant sterols lowered cholesterol as much as statins, the most widely prescribed cholesterol medicine. This article is basically advocating the consuption of trans fats which are toxic to the human body. This 'Doctor' is trying to say Soy reduces cholesterol but trans fats cause coronary heart disease - that's a hell of a contradiction. Soy has also been shown to disrupt hormone levels in humans, cause early puberty and can make men impotant.

4. I have removed Yoghurt as the only reason it appears in the list is because it contains lactobacillus. I have put Probiotics in it's place as they are classed as a Superfood and they contain lactobacillus. Yoghurt is also a dairy product, which contains Lactose and Casein - both leading allergens for humans.

5. I removed Beans. We need to clarify which beans are being referred to and back it up with evidence or information regarding their benefits. Legumes are supposed to also contain anti-nutrients, which are highly detrimental to human health, as I have already mentioned. Some beans, when sprouted are beneficial to humans but they certainly aren't a superfood.

6. Pumpkin? You have to cook it to eat it which removes the enzymes necessary for human beings to break it down efficiently. It tastes great, yes, but it isn't a superfood.

I know these are all big changes and I don't expect everyone to agree with me on this one. But, with further evidence posted here and outside Wikipedia I will attempt to dispel a lot of the myths and marketing mis-use of the word "Superfood" 0s1r1s (talk) 05:24, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Things to do

• Finish the referencing.
• Split list of superfoods into food groups?

I have begun to split up the different sections. Well, I created the berries section.0s1r1s (talk) 06:29, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

This article isn't accurate

This article is biased against tropical foods or more exotic foods which are commonly known as superfoods & the national measurement insitute of Australia has scientifically proven that these foods have very high levels of nutrition when compared to other foods http://www.measurement.gov.au/Pages/default.aspx ; also their is matters of biodiversity involved & carbon capture, as well as proliferating tree crops to aid carbon capture, as opposed to our reliance on low growing annuals, like wheat for eg: & many others, also their is matters of securing global food trade & preservation of South American Species, Amazon forest speices & many tropical speices, also better machinery is being designed to cultivate these types of crops & many of these crops can also produce high levels of biofuel as a byproduct. Superfood such as Maca fruit, Spirulina, goji berries, aloe vera, lucuma, Chlorella, cashew nuts, Hemp Seeds, Wheatgrass, Brazil Nuts, Goldenberry, Cacao better known as chocolate or cocoa, Camu Camu, Chia Seed, Macadamia Nut, Marine Phytoplankton, Coconut, just to mention a few. Also not everybody lives in the united states, canada, england, as a english speaker their is australia & we have a thriving tropical fruit or superfood industry here, Reference : Superfoods: The Food and Medicine of the Future [Paperback] David Wolfe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.179.83.32 (talk) 19:17, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Raw food underground not a good reference

I removed the superfood claims from Raw food underground since they are biased, because they serve such foods. Still, they may cook tasty dishes.. Mikael Häggström (talk) 18:23, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Rather than just deleting the references or sections, which is frowned upon at Wiki; it would have been better for you to link to more relevent sources. I have found it quite difficult to find sources for information that are not linked to a site that sells the products. By cooking, was that an attempt at humour? Raw foodist DO NOT cook food - that's the whole point of being raw. I think you meant to say "prepare tasty dishes". Obviously, using the word 'cooked' goes against everything raw foodists believe in and adhere to. Thanks for the input anyway.--0s1r1s (talk) 21:19, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Citations Needed

I will endevour in the next couple of months to find online references to a lot of the information that has now been marked by Mikael needing a citation. As I have mentioned before, it is quite difficult to find sources of information that are not linked to a website that sells the product they are addressing. If necessary, I will continue to link to books as these are the main source of legitamate information. HOpefully, once the EU organic study results are released I will be able to draw a lot of information from that - this is a REAL scientific study into the differences between certified organic farming and factory farming so will have some excellent data that I can hopefully use to expand certain sections that are lacking at present; i.e.: the vegetables mentioned but not backed up with much data.

A citation has been requested for 'raw honey'. Interesting that you mark that Mikael. I wonder why? Raw honey is basically un-processed honey. It is not blended with highly processed white sugar or artificial sweeteners. It has also not been heated (pasteurised) like some other honeys sometimes are. I will find a reference for this as well. --0s1r1s (talk) 21:35, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

This page is silly

It looks like a bunch of health food yuppies yapping around the water-cooler decided what to put up here. Superfood is a trademark owned by NAKED JUICE CO. OF GLENDORA, INC (first use 1982). Some might ASSUME it is used to describe the characteristics described at [Super_food]. But this can't happen in the US or EU because that would be illegal and a lie. Outside use in SALES, that's it (zines=sales, not citation). By using the current definition, you are allowing marketers to make false claims that violate the US Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act today for the same reason it should not say it on this page - it's not defined let alone proven. This is why people make fun of wikipedia. For example...

1) I see "Tasty Superfood O's" on a shelf 2) I am now interested and google on my blackberry and get wikipedia 3) I now see "A superfood is a type of food believed to have health benefits beyond those of more common foods". 4) I have now circumvented the federal regulation requiring me not to market my food as a drug

The supplemental definition on the bottom is just more sales-pitch with use of words like "quality" and "famous" and abuse of punctuation!! to sell me organic or imported chocolate under a phony name. Organic marketers supposedly also spawned the "goji berry" on this page (see [Wolfberry] scrutiny). Cacao is the tree, not the chocolate. The seeds, or cocoa, is used to make the powder. The use of the word Cacao to describe how the cacao plant or seeds is processed is wrong and doesn't even make sense. It's basically health food marketers making up nonsense to sell their "quality" or "raw" brand of chocolate (organic chocolate is not new - but western sellers need to keep up making more fancy names). And what's the difference between the superfood and alleged superfood lists on this page? I assume from the lists that anything sold at a health food store more exclusively than a grocery store, counts as real superfood? It is a sad day when the fruit vendors wage war on the oranges and the tomatoes...

And what's your beef with fish?! I do not understand your logic to remove fish because it has to be raw. Is raw fish not a food?! It is a double-standard. You clearly have other "Raw" items listed and many people eat fish raw. Why not just list "Raw Salmon" or whatever? I live in Hawaii and I eat a lot of raw salmon (as sushi or sashimi, i don't like poke so much) - a heck of a lot more than cooked (gross) salmon.

memeyou@memeyou.net —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.234.123.93 (talk) 15:11, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

You know, I was under the impression that yuppies were people who lived in the 80's who worked in offices; and I was also under the impression that the word 'superfood' was actually used by health care professionals. It may well have been trademarked by the naked juice company but the word has been used for a long time to refer to nutrient rich foods. I think your comment that people make fun of Wikipedia is completely unjust. As I originally stated, my modifications may not have been in agreement with everyone else's views. This is why I asked other people to make changes as they saw fit - as is the Wiki way - rather than berating and insulting people who are trying to add information that others will find useful. In future, perhaps you could make some useful additions rather than using the discussion section to launch insults.

On this note, you do make an interesting comment about marketers and their sales pitches. As we are all aware, marketing departments will make up all sort of BS to sell their product, and I know health foods are also prone to this issue - as is the case with the 'Tibetan Certified' Goji berries, which actually come from the Ningxia Province of China on the Yellow River and are sprayed with chemical pesticides and fertilisers, certainly NOT a health food product.

I feel I must correct you on your Cacao staement. Cacao, from the Latin name: Theobroma cacao, is the traditional name for the plant. Cocoa was adapted by European travellers who basiclaly couldn't pronounce it correctly and changed the name to make it easier for them to say it. Don't Oranges grow on an Orange tree? What about Olives, or Lemons for that matter. Since you're making such a silly comment on Wikipedia, perhaps you should have done a quick check first before you started your little cacao rant.

Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems you are siding with the conventional food, drug and cosmetic industry on this one; which is not a good move. It is well known that their studies are either bogus or completely fictitious, their information is less than useful on many occasions and that many companies have successfully bribed or lobbied the FDA to give them a green light on their products or ingredients. The laws that have been twisted by the U.S. cosmetics, medicine and drug companies has been well documented and broadcast around the world - the state of the U.S. medical health industry is a clear example of that. We are not restricting ourselves to just the U.S., this is a global site, please try to remember that.

What is my "beef" with fish? I'm sure you didn't mean to be funny but that was a bit of an odd thing to say, considering the subject. Aside from that, fish does contain a significant amount of Omega 3 fatty acids, but then so does Flax seed oil; which goes through far less processing and does not require the destruction of the fish and crustacions and their habitat to get it.
Raw fish is obviously much better than cooked - this is true of ALL FOODS, including red meat. But how many people eat steak tartar regularly? The issue here, as was stated in my original post on the discussion page, is the human body’s ability to digest meat of any kind. In case you are unclear, this means beef, lamb, pork, chicken, turkey, rabbit and other game and, of course, fish.
Obviously, the Japanese have a considerable amount of raw fish in their traditional diet and live on average over 20 years longer than anyone on a Western Style Diet. But recently this gap has dropped because of the quality of the fish being caught or processed from the open ocean or fish farms.

For your information, Human beings are frugivores - meaning we should primarily be eating fruit and vegetables and some seeds and nuts. We should not be eating any meat at all. It's what we are genetically designed to do. We only started eating meat because the other types of food we needed to sustain ourselves were in short supply during and after the last Ice Age so we decided the animals grazing around us was the most logical alternative food source. But that doesn't mean we can immediately start eating like a Lion and expect not to have detrimental effects to our health. The same goes with grains; we only started harvesting grains because they were easier to grow on the prairies but that doesn't mean we should be eating them. There is a hell of a lot of evidence to show that both meat and grains are, as previously stated, the leading causes of cancer in the digestive systems. All the synthetic chemicals in our daily environment make a significant contribution to this, of course.

As with most food these days, it is always best to eat food that has been certified organic. That way you can be assured of the foods integrity. Just make sure it hasn't travelled a couple of thousand kilometres before it's got to you. Using the word 'raw' means the food has not been cooked. A lot of foods get cooked or subject to hear during the processing, more often these days with the use of chemicals, which is going to affect the integrity of the product.

It might be a good idea for you to read a bit more about this subject before you start slamming people who are, honestly, trying to provide impartial information; or at least trying to get the ball rolling so others can make their contributions. I would suggest you read The China Study by Colin and Thomas Campbell, The 80-10-10 diet by Dr Douglas Graham and I think Diet for a New America by John Robbins would also be a good one for you to read.

--0s1r1s (talk) 10:03, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Humans are not frugivores, not in a technical or even meaningful sense at least. Humans are omnivores. Read Frugivore, read Talk:Frugivore, read [1] which is linked there, and then you can come back. These pseudoscientific claims about human nutrition and evolution need to STOP. Humans can subsist on the weirdest and most unbalanced diets, without significant health damage, and yes, vegan and especially fructarian diets belong to those as well as plant-poor diets. However, the most advisable diet is always one that is as versatile as possible, everything in moderation, nothing in excess, no major food group completely omitted: a truly balanced diet. This sort of diet also has the significant advantage that it is tasty! --Florian Blaschke (talk) 15:51, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

While I don't have any qualms with the technicalities people are discussing here, the opening line states that it's a term 'used by various people in a variety of manners and contexts'. I'm sure there's no reason for the article to be so vague and generic? Druckles (talk) 17:13, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Quinoa

I added a reference to Quinoa (a Wiki page with a good range of info) but somebody seems to have deleted it. I'm wondering why. One reason that Quinoa is a strong candidate for superfood status is that it is a complete protein... which is very rare in any plant food (Goji is the only other one I can think of). The Wiki entry mentions that... and has a very good description of it... so I'm not sure why it's not a sufficient reference. If a second reference is needed to back it up a bit more perhaps you should add... additional citation required? ...or something similar. If it's something else entirely then let me know so I can fix it up. There are lots of pages that mention Quinoa as a superfood.

BTW: Read the list a few times to check for Goji... but forgot to look for the alternative name Wolfberry... and missed the citation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slick12 (talk • contribs) 14:12, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Quinoa is still there, at the bottom of the list. The Wikipedia guidelines are that one shouldn't use a Wikipedia page as a reference. The reference should be for Quinoa being described or marketed using the term "superfood" or very similar. Pseudomonas_(talk) 17:39, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Changes to page

I thought I'd explain the changes I've made - I've stripped out the medical claims - these seem to be unreliable, and Wikipedia really can't be promoting therapies for which there is questionable evidence - it would be deeply irresponsible and against WP policy.

Some claims, like those of being rich in enzymes, detoxification, cleansing of blood, and pH balance, are marketing rather than medical/scientific terms, and again, don't seem to belong in Wikipedia. Others, like "contains over 100 chemical constituents" apply to all biological tissue, and are hence not informative. The pronounciations of the names of various plants are all available on the pages about those plants, and don't need repeating. The claims "has been shown" is verging on weasel words unless citations are provided to the evidence (not people selling the plant). Personally, I don't consider the claims of a website selling X evidence that X is great because it cures Y - it is, however, perfectly acceptable evidence that the claim is made, and we need to distinguish the two carefully. Words like "incredible", "wonderful" and so on, have no place in Wikipedia.

Given there's no formal (legal, scientific, or medical) definition of superfoods, I'd strongly suggest we stay on the firm ground of documenting foodstuffs that have been described (by WP-appropriate sources) or marketed as superfoods. The alternative is constant (and POV) bickering over what should or should not count. It's just like we can't make a list of geniuses, but we could (if we wanted to) make a list of people who have been called geniuses in the press (note that the article Genius has a link to List of Nobel laureates, which is an objective, formally defined category).

I've removed the "Nibble" quote at the bottom and tried to factor the more NPOV stuff into the header of the article.

Pseudomonas_(talk) 21:45, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Take out the axe! Too many uncited claims, prepare to remove... soon! --TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 10:19, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

If you mean trimming that big list, go for it. I think the prose is better refined and cited than axed. Pseudomonas_(talk) 10:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

It is a sad world we live in when people have to follow the FDA's process for accepting something as nutritious or something that actually cures a disease or alleviates pain. When an M.D. uses food to cure "diseases" like cancer, alzheimers, high blood pressure, etc. but the FDA won't allow him to publish this information as a viable option to drugs and traditional medical therapies then there has to be an ulterior motive for the FDA and those that restrict a web site to "scientific" evidence. Scientific evidence is another way of saying "we want to keep you from curing yourself by not allowing vital information to be published that will actually work and instead we're going to give you some medication that although it has been proven not to work, we're going to give it to you anyway because we chemically reproduced and patented it and we said it works." If you doubt the FDA releases harmful products I have one word for you -- Vioxx. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.201.230.65 (talk) 21:51, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

The marketing of Soy as a superfood

Soy seems to have crept back into the list of superfoods. Since I gave information previously about the marketing mis-information about Soy I thought that would have been enoungh to keep this out of the list. There is a huge amount of information out there about the detrimental effects of Soy. Phytoestrogens have been shown in scientific studies to cause all sorts of problems in humans, including sterility in men.

As I have mentioned previously, Japanese, Chinese and Korean all have Soy in their diets but in quite minimal quantities, it is not the mainstay of their meals. They may have Miso soup in Japan, but it will be as a pallette cleanser or in a very small dish. The type of Soy used in food, prior to westerners reaching the Orient, was always fermented. This is a long process that reduces the Soy to a usable, non-toxic, state so it can be processed for food, etc. It is never used immiedately after harvest, as is done in the west.

For more informatino about the health dangers of Soy, I would refer you to the excellent book: The Whole Soy Story by Kaayla T Daniel PhD http://www.wholesoystory.com/. there is also an article on Soy on Dr Mercola's website: articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2005/02/26/soy-myths.aspx

Considering how much of our food contains Soy, it is vital that we make sure the evidence pertaining to it's dangers are well published. It would be interesting to see if some sources, scientific or otherwise have stated how good Soy is for you. Wiki is supposed to be objective and unbiased (I'm trying hard to make sure my information is to, so feel free to correct me if I go over the line here) so we need to show both sides of the coin, as it were. Personally, as I have a lot of allergies, I steer clear of the stuff as much as I can. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 0s1r1s (talk • contribs) 08:30, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

As I've said above, it's not practical to argue whether a food is or isn't "super" here, since there's no objective standards for "this one is, that one isn't". We can debate "what is the evidence that soy is harmful" - and I think that's better done by enriching the Soybean article than this one. I think most of the material you added is also there in some form, so I didn't copy it over; if I've missed something I apologise.

I've put soy back on the list because it's been alleged to be a superfood in the press - this is reporting not endorsing the claims. Pseudomonas_(talk) 09:14, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, fair enough Pseudomonas. The information from BBC4 and then the stuff I have added gives people the views of both sides of the story and, you're quite right in saying, any further information should be listed under the Soy article. Thanks for the contribution. :) --0s1r1s (talk) 06:32, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Superfood

there is a supplement called Superfood, so shouldn't there a directory that leads to this and also that? 72.45.60.6 (talk) 21:25, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Is there? Hmm, ok. That's a bit cheeky of them - I'm not sure how they managed to swing that one. I'd presume it would actually be called something like: "Blackmore's Superfood supplement' but you didn't give us a link to the product so I can't really tell. I'll do a little digging and see what I can come up with about this one.

--0s1r1s (talk) 05:05, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

why is there more information in this discussion than in the article itself!?

what we cant even get a list of superfoods in the article? how about a list of foods that claim to be superfoods with information to support or deny it beneath it??? its better than having an empty article,all just because nobody here can agree on what a superfood is or isnt.Im sure you could find SOMETHING wrong with ANY food if you tried. Saying that just because a food has gluten and we know a small portion of the population is allergic to gluten and thus its disqualified is ridiculous. A small portion of the population has an allergy to ANY food or any THING . Maybe we should just put this caption in the article under SUPERFOODS:" A utopian but false belief that any food can be universally beneficial or of superior nutrition to others. List of superfoods: none exist." Can we rename the article to "kind of sort of superfoods", and then maybe everyone will be satisfied that if we put up a list of foods they might meet THAT lesser qualification? People are confusing the term superfood with PERFECTfood around here and it needs to stop! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.108.114.107 (talk) 23:18, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi there. There was originally a list of superfoods but someone has decided to delete them all. The debate did start to get quite heated - as you can tell - so that's probably why the whole lot got removed. Either that, or because of the unfortunate nature of Wikipedia's 'free-edit' policy, they just didn't like the list and wiped it. --0s1r1s (talk) 09:10, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

See the discussion on this page. There's no real definition of a superfood, so it'd be like making a list of "films that are quite good" or "comedians that are really funny" - subjective. Pseudomonas_(talk) 23:31, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

That's in your opinion Pseudomonas - a lot of people would disagree with you, including me; but I'm not willing to get into this again with you.

The general consensus states "a superfood is an edible substance that has up to a dozen or more unique properties not just one or two". These foods might contain antioxidants, proteins, amino acids, trace minerals and other beneficial properties as compared to a more basic food which may only have two types of antioxidants and no other benefits.

I think it would be best if both of us stayed off this page as it's detrimental to the content of the page itself. --0s1r1s (talk) 09:35, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

What has been put in the article sounds like AMA sanctioned entries to prevent someone from actually discovering something nutritious that might improve their health. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.201.230.65 (talk) 21:53, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Original content deleted from the main page

This is the list of confirmed and alleged superfoods that originally appeared on the main page. I'll leave it to someone else to decide whether this is returned. Someone obviously has a problem with me being a contributor to this page so it's in my best interest to provide the information here and then you make your own decisions. I think the fact that I used the term 'raw' got someone's back up and sent them on a vengeful spree of deletion. Foods lose most of their beneficial properties when subjected to heat - fact. I mean, seriously, you only need to do a search on Amazon for 'superfoods' and you'll come back with many of the major writers who know a hell of a lot more than me about the nutritional content and benefits of the various products named 'superfoods'.

Anyway, the following foods have been know for their 'super' qualities for a very long time and recent growing scientific research has corroborated this.

Cacao, Coffee Berries, Aloe Vera, Açaí berries, Noni Fruit, Rose Hips, Bee Pollen, Maca, Quinoa seed, Flax seed, Blueberries, Bilberries, Raspberries, Tomatoes, Almonds and Spirulina.

The following foods do not have any scientific evidence to say they are superfoods - it is mostly marketing hype that has labelled them as such at this point.

Wheat Germ, Oats, Barley, Avocado, Soy Beans, Cow's Milk & Yoghurt (Pasteurised, perhaps unpasteurised might have a higher bacterial count so this would certainly be of benefit to someone's digestive system but still would not be classed as a superfood), Broccoli, Coffee beans, Turkey, Salmon, Mackerel & other 'oily' fish, Beef, Pork, Black beans and Eggs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 0s1r1s (talk • contribs) 09:23, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Marketing neologism vs the marketing itself

The article as is describes superfood as a marketing term. If we present it as something else, we do so additionally to what we have, and present it in a logical way, properly sourced, per WP:NPOV. Extra care needs to be taken with any health claims per WP:MEDRS.

I'm concerned that the article will become unmanageable if we simply list anything ever claimed to be a superfood. If sources aren't using the same definition (or any definition in the case of most marketing), it will be hard if not impossible to avoid false equivalence. --Ronz (talk) 20:14, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Chocolate?

Any of these look like independent reliable sources that would warrant mentioning chocolate? --Ronz (talk) 00:52, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

• "A List of the Best Antioxidants". Oracvalues.com -The Internet Antioxidant Database. Retrieved 03/02/2011. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)

• "What Makes Dark Chocolate a SuperFood?". Retrieved 03/02/2011. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)

• "Healthy Dark Chocolate - SuperFood Or SuperScam?". Antioxidants and Health. Retrieved 03/02/2011. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)

• Sabato, Jill. "Dark Chocolate is a Superfood". Articlebase. {{cite web}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); Check date values in: |accessdate= (help); Missing or empty |url= (help) www.articlesbase.com/food-and-beverage-articles/dark-chocolate-is-a-superfood-764745.html

• Sabato, Jill. "Dark Chocolate is a Superfood". Articlebase. {{cite web}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); Check date values in: |accessdate= (help); Missing or empty |url= (help) www.articlesbase.com/food-and-beverage-articles/dark-chocolate-is-a-superfood-764745.html

Articlebase is blacklisted, so neither of those. --Ronz (talk) 00:55, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Careful, there's no "scientific" evidence of chocolate being a superfood. Since there is no scientific evidence then it must not be true.  :-) Wikipedia sounds like they have some biases toward the medical, big pharma, FDA or other organization that tries to choke any information that might make you healthier without the aid of drugs. I wonder who helps pay their bills??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.201.230.65 (talk) 21:57, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Two questionable sources listing superfoods

• Barbour and Mount, Celia and Rachel. "25 Superfood to Incorporate Into Your Diet Now". The Oprah Magazine. The Oprah Network. Retrieved 7 January 2012.
• Seliger, Susan. "Superfoods Everybody Needs". WebMD Article. WebMD. Retrieved 7 January 2012.

I don't think we should include the Oprah Mag article, but the WebMD is at least worth discussing. --Ronz (talk) 06:30, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Definition

(The comments below were originally added to the "Initial discussions" section. There were moved here so they wouldn't be overlooked. --Ronz (talk) 17:51, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I was reading the article on Superfoods which stated the first use is in 1998. Dr. John W. Apsley II first coined the term in his book, "The Genesis Effect: Spearheading Regeneration with Blue Green Algae" in Feb. 1996. I have a copy of the second printing "The Regeneration Effect: Spearheading Regeneration with Blue Green Algae," published later in the same year. The term is first used on page 2 where he talks about unique foods that have Regenerative Effectors. Super foods have superior nutritional substances. He then gives an example of page 6 where he talks about the nutritional quality of tomatoes grown at Findhorn where they have optimal minerals in the soil.

Here is the reference information:

• Apsley, John W. II, "The Regeneration Effect: Spearheading Regeneration with Wild Blue Green Algae." Tuscaloosa, AL: Genesis Communications, 1996.

71.227.157.39 (talk) 23:29, 13 January 2013 (UTC)primeapsley@hotmail.com

• Superfood is any food which benefits and/or manipulates the human metabolism in a beneficial way. I would say that Turkey and Salmon are definitely beneficial because they have high protein levels, no matter how long they may or may not sit in our digestive tract they DO provide high levels of protein. Whithout protein in our diets everything goes awry because we are made of protein even to the lowest cell structure and we need it for muscle. Salmon and other kinds of "superfood" fish are almost entirely protein with very low or nonexistant fat and cholesterol levels. Whereas beef will be almost, if not definitely be bad for you, salmon definitely will be good for your body.

• It makes sense to me that flesh stays in the bowels for a long time, who says that there is a hard fast rule that long digestive processes are bad? Our systems are well built and work well, if we maintain them, and we are obviously designed to eat both flesh and vegetation, whether some object to this natural practice or not. If different types of food have longer processes and are processed differently then who is to say that the digestion of meat at any speed is not natural and correct?

• Salmon also has high levels of vitamin D, which people direly need, especially in lower-sunlight areas such as Alaska and in polar lattitudes. Not even Californians get enough of it and must supplement it in the diet with eggs and such.

• On salmon's benefits: www.naturalnews.com/036706_salmon_superfood_nutrition.html

• Having to cook a food does not make it especially less super if it still provides excellent nutrition and still manipulates the metabolism for our greater benefit, We need more data and sources about pumpkin's benefit or lack thereof.

• I agree on soy.

• I'm neutral on grains

• We need sources for the legumes.

• Not everyone is lactose intolerant, just as not everyone is allergic to peanut butter. Dairy is full of beneficial nutrients, and probiotics are beneficial to maintaining the symbiotic microscopic flora and fauna (classifying animal-like actively moving and eating microscopic life as "fauna") which symbiotically aid in and are quite neccessary to our digestion .

• So let's revamp the article some more. Timothy Perseus Wordsworthe (talk) 19:35, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Scientific references

I added scientific references but they were undone by user Zefr. Can we talk about this please? Kindly justify the undo and I am ready to discuss. Candlelight2 (talk) 04:33, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

What's to discuss? It might be helpful to start by one specific example, such as identifying the best source in your opinion that you used, and the exact context in which you used it.

Familiarity with WP:OR, WP:NPOV, and WP:MEDRS would be helpful, as they've already been brought up in the context of the edits in question. --Ronz (talk) 21:51, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Deceptive sentences

I deleted these sentences which were subsequently re-added.

"Possibly the most frequently mentioned superfood group, berries remain only under preliminary research and are not yet certain of providing health benefits.[8] Specifically, blueberries, as a popular example, are not especially nutritious, having high content of only three essential nutrients: vitamin C, vitamin K, and manganese.[2]"

Sentence one refers to a scientific article that has supports the opposite claim - that berries are indeed superfoods that provide health benefits. Why this article was cited doesn't make sense. The second sentence is purely subjective. What defines a nutritious food? I don't understand why these sentences were re-added. --Che kid (talk) 22:06, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

The key word in the reference for sentence one is "potential" for producing health effects, as no study yet has shown a specific food (berries or any other food group) to have specified health benefits in humans. This FDA list shows the nutrients and food groups that have passed the rigorous process of regulatory review for health claim status, but berries are not included.[2] There likely have been studies of berry consumption showing no effect on a disease model or human illness, but if these were negative, they would likely be uninteresting for publication. You can remove the reference from this sentence or find a more suitable one.

The reasoning behind sentence two derives objectively from nutrient tables shown for many foods in Wikipedia, such as spinach, and the number of nutrients that supply more than 20% of the Daily Value (DV) per typical serving. Blueberries have no nutrients above 20% DV, so are relatively nutrient-poor (as are most berries), whereas a nutrient-rich food like spinach has many. --Zefr (talk) 03:28, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I'd still argue that these two sentences are subjective and as written wrong. A quick study in Google Scholar shows many references to studies on the healthy benefits of berries.

For the second sentence: the definition of nutritious (or nutrient-rich) as "more than 3 nutrients greater than 20% DV" is subjective. Where is this from? Is this a scientifically accepted definition? If so, then a citation should be given to indicate that blueberries are "nutrient-poor". The sentiment may (or may not) be correct, but without a proper source this definition of nutritious is subjective. Che kid (talk) 01:25, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Recent changes

I've reverted the recent changes because they included the unexplained removal of sourced information and sources, and adding once again original research. I'll try to fold back in the uncontroversial portions, and comment on any sources that are removed below.

I removed http://www.todaysdietitian.com/newarchives/100610p44.shtml. Given that it mentions "superfoods" only once, and instead defines and uses "functional food" instead, it's use was grossly inappropriate, violating V, OR, and NPOV. --Ronz (talk) 22:02, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

http://www.webmd.com/diet/features/superfoods-everyone-needs might be useful to add back in if it's not redundant. It seems a rather poor article, and shouldn't be used where MEDRS applies. (As with the previously mentioned source, it's use was inappropriate.) --Ronz (talk) 22:08, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

http://whfoods.com/foodstoc.php is a useful resource. Each food it lists includes a write-up with references. I'm a bit reluctant to include it as an external link though. What do others think? --Ronz (talk) 22:23, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Proposed merger of Superfruit into Superfood

I propose merging Superfruit into this article, Superfood. Superfruits are essentially a subset of superfoods in general, and there's substantial duplication of content, since it's basically the same marketing strategy, whether it's applied to Quinoa or Pomegranates. Neither article is particularly overloaded with indispensable content, so I don't see that we'll end up with an over-sized or bloated article if we combine the two. I'm arbitrarily choosing this page as the central point of discussion. I'll leave notices on the relevant userpages and Wikiprojects. 0x0077BE ^{(talk · contrib)} 20:35, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me. Let's make sure we include a redirect for superfruit to superfood as well. Rhode Island Red (talk) 20:52, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Agree. Hopefully within a short time, both terms will fade into lexicon oblivion as inane marketing crazes and "uninformed wingnuttery" should.[3] --Zefr (talk) 20:56, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely support merge. No reason to have separate articles for each part of a "super" plant (or animal? "super grain" and "super vegetable" get some relevant Google results, but nothing for "super meat" yet; there's a marketing opportunity for somebody to jump on). Plantdrew (talk) 21:59, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree too. Might as well merge with Superman as well. None of them are real. HiLo48 (talk) 02:04, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

I know it's just a joke, but it's not like something being real is a criterion for having a Wikipedia article, given that Superman does have a very high-quality article, and Superfruit and Superfood basically refer to the same thing, with "Superfood" having a slightly wider definition. 0x0077BE ^{(talk · contrib)} 17:57, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

• It seems like so far there's pretty broad support for the merger. I'm going to let the notice stand for a week and then I'll merge the articles if there's no significant opposition. 0x0077BE ^{(talk · contrib)} 17:58, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Since there is no medical, scientific, or nutritional definition of "superfoods" or "superfruit", then the articles could easily be combined. The real question is, given that they are undefined marketing terms, why we have anything other than a comment that the terms are not defined and essentially meaningless, is not clear to me. Desoto10 (talk) 03:24, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

It's not like having concrete definitions or being real are requirements for having an article. There are extensive articles on Continents and Organic food, neither of which are well-defined. I'd say superfoods are notable, and a balanced coverage of it will likely focus on what has been called superfoods, and indeed the fact that it's largely a marketing term. Either way, it seems like there's no opposition to a merge, so I'll undertake it ASAP. 0x0077BE ^{(talk · contrib)} 15:13, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Superfoods aren't notable. They can't be, because we have no definition. What's notable is the use of the term as a marketing tool to deliberately deceive ill-informed consumers. That's what our article should be all about. HiLo48 (talk) 21:23, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

It is fallacious reasoning to say that superfoods are not notable because there is not a strict universal definition of a superfood. Continents do not have a strict general definition, generally they are just a specific set of 5-7 land-masses, but it's certainly notable. Our article should reflect the reliable sources. In the end, I imagine that because of the nature of "superfoods", reliable sources will not take the concept seriously and will address it as such. That said, it's important to maintain a neutral point of view, and "there's no clear definition" simply does not rule out the ability of a concept or group to be notable. 0x0077BE ^{(talk · contrib)} 22:06, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Merge completed; open for editing. --Zefr (talk) 20:06, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Note that we now have an article on the latest fad, ancient grains. Plantdrew (talk) 23:58, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

NPOV box

A number of the sources citing the term "superfood" as in any way legitimate are presented as counterpoints at best. The article introduction is also full of weasels and doesn't accurately portray the word as it was when conceived nor as it is in common usage. Pretendema (talk) 15:53, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Pretendema, I think you're the one who added the POV tag, if I understand the article history correctly. What are your specific concerns? Also, what language in the intro do you find weasely? Petershank (talk) 18:02, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Supposing the benefit / harm ratio of foods could be quantified

Would superfoods be foods at least 2 standard deviations above the mean? The concept is belittled rather than treated neutrally. 66.64.72.10 (talk) 23:12, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

As exceptional nutrient density (which might define a "superfood") is related to human health, the source(s) would have to be based on WP:MEDRS literature, including systematic reviews of high-quality clinical trials. No such analysis has been planned or published in my view. Further, what would be assessed? One nutrient or a select group? Or should some be seen as negative factors, such as high calorie content, saturated fat or high sodium content? And at what cost to the typical consumer? The technique of nutrient profiling is the closest nutritional assessment tool, provided here as an example of objectively qualifying nutrient-dense foods. --Zefr (talk) 23:38, 4 August 2016 (UTC)