Thread: Superfood diet

Why am I here today? To inform ye (plural form of "you") of the benefits of various "superfoods" such as Dark Chocolate. Starting with dark chocolate, of course.

First of all, avoid milk chocolate at all costs. Milk chocolate is a very low-grade chocolate that contains far fewer benefits than dark chocolate, especially because the U.S. only requires 10% chocolate liqure to be added. Also, milk chocolate and certain types of dark chocolate are produced with Alkali, which greatly reduces the antioxidant capacity as compared to "raw" cocoa powder, and destroys most of the flavonoids.

I personally eat one square of 85% or 100% dark chocolate per day. Dark chocolate is NOT to be consumed in massive quantities like some other types of candy. Too much of a good thing can cause health problems, and especially in this case due to the potency. My favorite brand? Lindt. 100% stuff tends to be in the baking isle. Further reading: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chocolate

Next is Spinach, which (if liquified) provides almost the exact same amount of calcium without the difficult-to-digest compounds or sugars (milk contains one of the worst sugars for your teeth there is). I personally eat at least one can a week, and avoid milk entirely. Other than spinach, there is Broccoli, which is also high in calcium (I eat broccoli very often). There is also quite a lot of controversy regarding milk in general, and I found this post, which does a semi-decent job of detailing some supposed issues. Broccoli is definitely preferred for calcium content, because spinach is a bit harder to digest.

Then there is fish. Fish in general is good for ye, and far more beneficial compared to beef or pork (pork is BAD for ye). Deer meet is also another favorite. Personally, due to budget limitations, I tend to buy the cheap canned pink salmon. I limit my intake due to mercury content, but generally eat one can a week to supplement my diet. If there's a fish farm near ye, take advantage of it and buy fish from there (mercury free!). Essentially fish really is brainfood.

This is part of my ongoing diet. There are many supposed superfoods, but I find the majority of them (such as Corn) are...not exactly safe. One option is Kale, but it's not easy to buy. If ye don't care that your food tastes like old man ass (I don't), do try Kale.

Generally the idea is to list foods that have VERY high nutritional value, but also somewhat low or decent caloric value. Why? Intermittent fasting and calorie restriction increases your life span. Or not. Regardless, it helps, and so does calorie restriction.

EDIT: ALSO! Eat bones! Bone marrow especially. I actually chew on boiled bones (VERY boiled), and eat the bone marrow. It's extremely healthy in small amounts, and our ancestors pretty much did the same thing. Organ meats is another option, but it's fairly difficult to find organ meats.

Edit2: Furthermore, be sure to drink tea and a hell of a lot of water. I generally use a beer stein (0.5 liters) to drink out of, because most other glasses or cups are far too small for proper hydration. Over the course of a day I generally drink 1-2 liters, sometimes tea sometimes just water. Remember, this is over the course of an entire day and SLOWLY.

Yeah I've heard of some of these benefits but do you have any solid references in journals to back them up. A lot of dietary information is anecdotal and poorly sourced.

We all like to think chocolate is good for us & anyone will over-inflate any evidence that it is healthy in order to excuse their habit!

Also WHY are fish, dear meat, tea and bone marrow healthy!?
And how are you defining superfoods? If you claim something like corn is a superfood and also bad for you isn't this all a bit contradictory?

Nutritionists can't seem to make up their minds as to whether or not a food is benificial. Moderate intake of red wine has been said to protect against cancer but a recent study says it may increase likelyhood of developing cancer by 168%. Every food can be unhealthy in some way. Even oxygen has detrimental effects on the body.

I am a big proponent of seaweed. I sit on the couch and munch on plain Nori while watching tv.

Better than land vegetables
Ocean vegetables are one of Nature’s richest sources of vegetable protein. They provide a full-spectrum concentration of beta-carotene, chlorophyll, enzymes, amino acids, and fiber. Ounce for ounce, along with herbs, they are higher in vitamins and minerals than any other food.

Nori is a great multi-tasker: it has twice as much Vitamin C as oranges, packed with beta-carotene like carrots, rich in calcium for your bones, iodine and iron for thyroid, and are great in making sushi.
Arame is laden with macro minerals like magnesium, potassium, calcium, sodium and iodine.
Kelp is high in iodine, which must be present for proper glandular function and metabolism. It also contains phosphorus and calcium, as well as magnesium and potassium. Kelp is a source of vitamins A, B1, B2, C, D and E, plus amino acids. Because kelp is the saltiest of seaweed, it makes a popular salt substitute. However, it’s been tested to be low in sodium.
Wakame is iron-rich and 10 times more calcium than a glass of milk!

Be careful drinking so much tea, Darius. It retains alot of flouride.

But Milk is glorious! It is the perfect after gym drink, especially if you are poor or lazy. 10g of essential amino acids is enough to provide you with a positive energy balance required for protein synthesis.

Nutritionists need to get their acts together imo.

Originally Posted by Molecular

But Milk is glorious! It is the perfect after gym drink, especially if you are poor or lazy. 10g of essential amino acids is enough to provide you with a positive energy balance required for protein synthesis.

Nutritionists need to get their acts together imo.

They need to start presenting evidence based on more than in vitro and animal studies... and they need to make nutritionist a protected term so the likes of Gillian McKeith has to call herself some other thing that requires no qualifications at all. Foodologist or something.

Originally Posted by Kukhri

Moderate intake of red wine has been said to protect against cancer but a recent study says it may increase likelyhood of developing cancer by 168%.

A relative risk increase, yeuk. 168% increase could mean almost anything. If the incidence was 1 in 10,000 (just for fun), then it would be an increase to 1.68 per 10,000. Which is an absolute risk increase of less than 0.01%. An exaggerated example, but you see why that sort of figure is meaningless. You won't find numbers like that in a peer reviewed paper. You'll find it in the media. The whole "wine is good, oh no wait it's bad" thing is just the newspapers trying to interpret press releases by research labs. If you believe some papers, pretty much everything that exists either causes or cures cancer. It's madness.

madness cures cancer too

So Biologista, you're saying that I shouldn't freak out and barricade the doors when an uneducated reporter tells me i'm going to get elbow cancer if I drink tap water? Ludicrous.

I will come back to this thread to elaborate, but just to address a few comments/questions....

Yeah I've heard of some of these benefits but do you have any solid references in journals to back them up. A lot of dietary information is anecdotal and poorly sourced.

They need to start presenting evidence based on more than in vitro and animal studies

'They' do, I don't know what journals/databases you are using (if you are in fact looking at all) but there are plenty of good peer-reviewed journals that include placebo-controlled clinical trial studies, etc. One of the best is the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, but there are of course many others.

and they need to make nutritionist a protected term so the likes of Gillian McKeith has to call herself some other thing that requires no qualifications at all.

I agree, I'm not sure where you are, but in Australia we have begun the process of a National Register of Nutritionists, who are accredited by the Nutrition Society of Australia (NSA). In fact, the development of a new term (and your eg. of foodologist is not entirely silly) is high on the agenda of the NSA, for the very reasons you mentioned.

The whole "wine is good, oh no wait it's bad" thing is just the newspapers trying to interpret press releases by research labs.

oh i'll agree with this wholeheartedly, i really think this is media coverage you are talking about, which you should take very much with a grain of salt.

Also WHY are fish, dear meat, tea and bone marrow healthy!?

I will address fish, and it is mainly because it is our primary source of long chain omega-3 fatty acids (however it is also high in protein while being low in saturated fat). However that mainly applies to the oily fish, eg. salmon, tuna, sardines, etc.
Omega-3 fatty acids are vital structural components of cell membranes in all body tissues, and deficiencies negatively impact cell (and therefore tissue) function. They are especially important in the brain, heart and retinal tissues, and are required in particuarly large amounts during fetal development and infancy.

Originally Posted by Kukhri

So Biologista, you're saying that I shouldn't freak out and barricade the doors when an uneducated reporter tells me i'm going to get elbow cancer if I drink tap water? Ludicrous.

Next week it will cure your elbow cancer. So I say, wait it out.

Originally Posted by missomega

I will come back to this thread to elaborate, but just to address a few comments/questions....

Yeah I've heard of some of these benefits but do you have any solid references in journals to back them up. A lot of dietary information is anecdotal and poorly sourced.

They need to start presenting evidence based on more than in vitro and animal studies

'They' do, I don't know what journals/databases you are using (if you are in fact looking at all) but there are plenty of good peer-reviewed journals that include placebo-controlled clinical trial studies, etc. One of the best is the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, but there are of course many others.

I'm not suggesting that there is no evidence at all, but rather that it is rare to see meaningful evidence presented by the generic diet gurus who hold the strongest influence. that's hypotheses being presented as established theory, and used as lifestyle advice. For example, supplements and the like are still being widely presented as beneficial for all (on the basis of in vitro work) despite very good evidence to the contrary (I can think of two large scale vitamin studies that demonstrate no benefit above placebo).

Originally Posted by missomega

and they need to make nutritionist a protected term so the likes of Gillian McKeith has to call herself some other thing that requires no qualifications at all.

I agree, I'm not sure where you are, but in Australia we have begun the process of a National Register of Nutritionists, who are accredited by the Nutrition Society of Australia (NSA). In fact, the development of a new term (and your eg. of foodologist is not entirely silly) is high on the agenda of the NSA, for the very reasons you mentioned.

Unfortunately, this is not the case in the US, UK or much of Europe. Use of the term "nutritionist" is a red-flag for pseudoscience here. Dietician is a protected term, though.

Originally Posted by missomega

The whole "wine is good, oh no wait it's bad" thing is just the newspapers trying to interpret press releases by research labs.

oh i'll agree with this wholeheartedly, i really think this is media coverage you are talking about, which you should take very much with a grain of salt.

Of course, but the public at large obtain their "scientific" information from the media, as they should (I get my non-science information from them). But for science they're a terribly unreliable source. Diet information makes up a huge portion of science coverage in the mainstream. Much of it reads like the arbitrary commandments in the OP, none of it provides evidence and all of it is extremely irresponsible.

Originally Posted by missomega

Also WHY are fish, dear meat, tea and bone marrow healthy!?

I will address fish, and it is mainly because it is our primary source of long chain omega-3 fatty acids (however it is also high in protein while being low in saturated fat). However that mainly applies to the oily fish, eg. salmon, tuna, sardines, etc.
Omega-3 fatty acids are vital structural components of cell membranes in all body tissues, and deficiencies negatively impact cell (and therefore tissue) function. They are especially important in the brain, heart and retinal tissues, and are required in particuarly large amounts during fetal development and infancy.

There are gaps in this hypothesis. Yes we make use of these fats, that can be shown. Yes these fats are in our foods, we can show this. Yes we assimilate some of these fats that we make use of from our food. But is there evidence that people in general are deficient? Not really. Does eating lots of these foods benefit us? Not necessarily, if we are not deficient. The actual evidence on that is ambiguous. Fish oil trails, when done correctly, have not really shown a measurable benefit for increased fish intake or oil supplement intake. That sort of suggests that most people are already getting the most fish oil intake that they can make use of. More work needs to be done, sure. But doesn't that mean that we shouldn't really be stating the fish oil hypothesis as fact just yet?

Much of naturopathy relies on the notion that a great many people are deficient in various nutrients due to the poor quality of modern food. This this blamed for everything from tiredness and depression to some cancers. The proposed "cure" is modifications to diet and use of supplements. That's three hypotheses. And none of them has been well-supported with evidence. Not a good foundational basis for a whole branch of health science.

Couple of comments
First, there is no such thing as a superfood. There are foods that are probably especially good, such as broccoli, and foods that are probably worse, such as butter. However, none are 'super'.

The key to good diet is a wide variety, while avoiding the nasties.
The nasties include anything with too much :
- salt
- sugar
- saturated fat
- starch without dietary fibre.

I have seen wolfberries, blackberries, brazil nuts, blueberries, olive oil, apples, citrus, avocados, and a whole lot of other foods all touted as 'super'. There is no super food. There is only good food and bad food. Even good food becomes bad if eaten in too great a quantity, or if not admixed with a good variety of other good foods.

Second : Caloric restriction as a means of extending life span in humans is still unproven. It may work, and it certainly does in some animals, but it is not shown in humans. There are lots of things which are healthy for certain animals but not humans, and vice versa. For example : dark chocolate may be healthy for humans in small doses, but it is decidedly toxic for dogs! We should not assume that something that works in some animals also does in humans.

I have always thought, that if caloric restriction in humans is as good as the enthusiasts say, there would be a culture somewhere that ate a low calory diet, but a good food variety, which would live a lot longer than the rest of us. But the longest life span culture on Planet Earth is Okinawa, current average life expectancy of 84 years. The European population of my country is steadily getting obese, and our life expectancy is 82. 2 years difference is pretty minimal!

Third : Fish.
We should not eat too much fish. Not for health reasons, but ecological. The world's fisheries are rapidly being fished out. 20 fish species are already commercially extinct, and the rest are going down that road fast. We should all restrict this diet component for that reason. Even farmed fish is not good. They are normally fed on fish meal or dried krill, which means the same overfishing of wild stocks. Krill especially should not be fished, since it is the basis for entire food chains, including whales. Farmed salmon are fed krill!

While omega 3 fatty acids in fish are good, we can get the same result by consuming omega 6 fatty acids found in olive oil and similar products. Perhaps not quite as good, but almost, and it does not lead to the collapse of the world's largest ecosystem. There are, in the pipeline, genetically modified plant crops containing substantial omega 3 fatty acids.

walking is an important part of a balanced diet