Talk:Superfood

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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[1] 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.[2]
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[3] 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 [4] Also, the article that has been cited for most of this information [5] 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)

Contents

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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: http://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)

[edit] 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)