Then it is better not to interfere. Now that the issues of the day have disappeared from the ‘discussion’, it seems good to say something about it.
The great thing about the whole fuss was that it completely ignored the original point. The point of view was that superfoods do not exist. And I absolutely agree with that. All unprocessed products are superfoods. Chia seeds are not ‘healthier’ than linseed. Acai berries are not ‘superior’ to blueberries. Coconut fat is not ‘better’ than olive oil. It is useless to compare products.
The variation in the diet determines whether we eat healthy or not. But what the ‘discussion’ led to was a lot of shouting between supporters and opponents of the food center. Because the latter would convey the message that superfoods were not healthy – that was not their point of view – and that pre-packaged products were better than unprocessed food. And that too was not the point of view.
Or the discussion that started with the simple and correct statement: “superfoods don’t exist”; culminated in a fight against the food center. Now I am not an exaggerated fan of the views and the way in which the nutrition center communicates. Far from. In my opinion, what he lacks most is adapting the information to the rapidly consecutive changes in the world called food.
Behind the facts
They sometimes lag behind the facts and dare, cannot or will not respond to current events. One of the current events is, for example, lowering the recommendations for carbohydrates. Indeed, there are a growing number of studies that show that carbohydrates (especially in the form of sugars), rather than fats, are a cause of the development of lifestyle diseases.
On the other hand, it is good to understand how nutritional recommendations are made. This requires many epidemiological and long-term studies. Guidelines can only be drawn up for a certain number of studies with a population that is large enough and with clear conclusions. This type of study will therefore always follow current events. In other words, guidelines can only be adjusted on the basis of sufficient studies.
Open door or not
Regarding carbohydrates versus fat discussion, there have not been (sufficiently) unambiguous results for a long time to adjust the guidelines. And of course ‘we’ all say: yes but, isn’t it obvious? That appears to be, and perhaps it is, and as the research results trickle in, the guidelines will also be adjusted. For example, this has already happened in Brazil.
A cauliflower is also superfood
Back to the discussion that was not a discussion: it is very easy to get rid of instances, it is very easy to take a popi-jopie position based on hypes such as superfoods, but it is much more difficult to to delve into the truth by properly interpreting research results. And the truth about nutrition will always remain somewhere in the middle. And with regard to superfoods: even ordinary cauliflower is a ‘superfood’. Moreover, it simply grows in the ground here. And is therefore also sustainable.