The last day,s the stars have been aligned and for one thing or another I have had to hear several allegations about the "superfoods". You know, those things that we usually tell those who sell them, about how they will save you bad diet, how will cover your requirements of everything there and for having just smell them and how they are essential in this cruel world. With a look over the shoulder including those of "what are you going to know, you little nutritionist, more than me who sell them?" You put yourself in a situation, don't you?
They are called "superfoods" to generally exotic products, which usually come in powder, ready to add to shakes or other foods and that promise all kinds of benefits and also an extraordinary contribution of different nutrients (proteins, vitamins, minerals, antioxidants ...) In addition, the usual thing is that they are accompanied by all kinds of legends in packaging very new age and very "the designer and who writes things in them have taken a trip" .
I have explained why I do not like them:
They are usually non-native products (baobab, maca, açai, goji berries, mesquite ...) Apparently, those who consume them seem to think that they bring an added value since they are from exotic places (from New Zealand, from South Africa, from the Amazon. ..). Who cares about the environmental impact or support for local consumption if I can overeat in a teaspoon? Yes, the ECO seal that is not missing. ECO something that comes from Indonesia ?, ECO will legally be, but ethically ECO, no.
They are expensive products, which means many companies are doing a tremendous business by exaggerating their properties ... or inventing them directly. But with expensive, I mean more than € 60 / kg, many times. Do you know how many "nutrients" you can buy for that price in a market? better don't do accounts if you have "superfoods" at home, so as not to get depressed.
They are unnecessary products: we do not need to reinforce all those nutrients in an environment like ours, with access to food. We can cover everything with a normal diet and if at any time we need a supplement (for example, iron), no superfood will replace it .
Their properties are exaggerated and the numbers distorted. False or unrealistic comparisons are used. What do I care about the protein that spirulina has for 100g if I am going to take 5g? Why do you compare it with an egg or some chickpeas whose consumption ration is at least 60g?
What do I not include as "superfoods"? For example, brewer's yeast, whose production can be close and its price is much lower. Yes, I think it's a good condiment and it's also very good. But of course ... the brewer's yeast is totally out, that's very old and they sell it even in the super. What little glamor. UNLESS it is "nutritional yeast" right? No, it's not necessary. That yes: that nobody thinks that to take yeast of beer is going to compensate in any way a bad diet , but if you want to throw something that knows well, throw it. A note: Brewer's yeast only has B12 available when it has been supplemented with that vitamin. Many brands do it.
Also seeds (sesame, flax, chia) can be bought nationally, without needing to be labeled "superfood", in fact if they carry it they can cost three times as much. That is another, now take anything normal as cocoa or raisins and you plant the "superfood" and live. And the next step is Danone, with yoghurts being marketed with 1.2% açai and 15 g sugar. A little bit of please, huh?
One of the phrases that stuck in one of those conversations about the "superfoods" was that of "A spoonful of wheat grass has as many nutrients as 50kg of spinach". Let's see, To me, that is a functional adult release this and believe it, today I wonder, more than anything because you use a neuron to filter the assertion, you realize that it is loaded to laws of physics.
But I insist, no matter how rich in nutrients a food is, when the consumption ration is 5-10g, the net contribution will be negligible and it will not have the least relevance in the global calculation of our diet. We are doing the cousin.
When you buy one of those products, please, look at the content of whatever they have per consumption ration. Is that many times indicated by 100g corresponds to half a pack, people.
Think if your diet is really lacking in that nutrient, and if the answer is affirmative, meditate upon it if it is not smarter to improve your diet instead of taking something expensive and unsustainable , and that often lies to your face.
If your diet is not healthy, no superfood will make you good. And if your diet is healthy, a superfood will not improve it.
If someone tells you that a normal diet is not enough to meet requirements, that it is very difficult, that current foods are dead or something similar, to justify the pattern of those products, change from professional to one that knows, at least , organize a healthy diet.
If in addition the same person wants to sell you the products ... I think the conclusion falls under its own weight.
Superfoods, by the way, are these:
