Well, are they? ( I'm talking about stuff that grows, here, obviously.) I know there is a scale for antioxidants and all that which is applied to foods to give them each a score, but what does everyone think about it? I tend to think this is all a bit over-hyped and that everything will eventually end up as some type of super-food as more and more elements of super-foodiness (? ) are discovered. They will probably even find something amazing in iceberg lettuce one day!

Im kind of in agreement with you....which is why I just try and eat a large variety and not worry to much.

Superfoods are a trendy concept these days and a lot of people are trying to make money off the "superfood" bandwagon.

But it is a fact that some foods have far more nutrition than others. It's not a bad thing to try to identify the most nutritious foods and incorporate them into our diet.

Still I think that a lot of people are rushing off to buy exotic superfoods like Goji Berries while simple old standards like Kale are overlooked.

Yeah, pretty sure they're marketing hype for the most part. Still, I do like the idea that perhaps different colored food has different properties. But I think that comes from the part of my brain that believes green M&M's are aphrodisiacs.

I feel most of it is hype but, I suppose it will benefit those who feel they need a list of healthy foods. It's healthier to go by that list than listen to cereal boxes telling you they are made with "whole grains". - I *think*

Nancy - Green M&M's are aphrodisiacs! My super food list says so - scouts honor.

~Danielle

I don't even know which foods are being tauted as super. Going googling...

I think butter is a superfood. Then again, I have a dairy intolerance, so it's not for me. I use ghee instead.

But I think the concept is way overblown. Most of the time foods are labeled "superfoods" because of a reductionist approach - one single chemical is measured and the food gets praised because of that. Plus, many of these super phytochemicals have serious drawbacks - nitriles found in brussels sprouts can release cyanide into the body and impair kidney function (not sure about asplosions). But the nitriles have also been said to prevent cancer.

Polyphenols are touted as "super" antioxidants, but tannins are polyphenols, and before this latest hype, I'd always heard that tannins were bad. Now tea is a super antioxidant because of the tannins. Some believe that polyphenols, which inhibit cyclooxygenase enzymes, can interfere with neurotransmitter function and cause autism-like symptoms. Some people are sensitive to tannins - tea and red wine give me headaches and irritate my gut. And tannins can inhibit absorption of iron and other minerals.

I was thinking along the lines of Jonny Bowden's The 150 Healthiest Foods On Earth or World's Healthiest Foods Website.

~Danielle

I think what irritates people may be idiosyncratic in a lot of cases. I find vinegar extremely irritating to my mouth and esophagus and can only tolerate a splash in salad dressings. Pineapples have the same effect. Good red wine and tea do not bother me a bit.

Thanks, Danielle, here's the food list:

http://www.whfoods.com/foodstoc.php

Very similar to South Beach food lists and I eat most of those.

I think "idiosyncratic" is a good word to describe food sensitivities.

Pineapples make my mouth feel like it's full of tiny cuts. I've heard they're full of enzymes, so I don't know if it's the enzymes or the acids or the sugars. Fermented things made with pineapple don't bother me at all. Bananas are also reportedy full of enzymes and nothing makes my stomach cramp harder or faster than bananas. I can't have vinegar either. I've recently started drinking kombucha, which also has acetic acid. I find it a little irritating but unlike vinegar it doesn't seem to have any long-term ill effects.

I guess I would phrase it like this:

Is there any "super food" that every single person should eat in unlimited amounts?

No.

Does chocolate count?

~Danielle

I can eat about half of the foods on that list. The only things I eat that are NOT on it are the high-fat foods. But what's wrong with blackberries?

From lower down the page:

This is a common conception, but it leaves out the antinutrient factor - another reductionist mistake. A food may be "nutrient dense," but it is not nutritious when chemicals in it inhibit absorption of nutrients or have other negative effects on health. You could mix a vitamin supplement with rat poison and it would still be "nutrient dense" in this equation. I see why there are no high-fat foods - fat has calories. This list just takes all the complexity of nutrition and reduces it to a simple formula, A/B=C.

Actually, I can't imagine how any grains even belong on this list - especially corn. Even with the bran and the germ, corn only has a small amount of vitamins compared to the calories. Maybe someone can correct me, but I'm pretty sure the amount of nutrients in grains is regularly overrated, by a lot.

You might have a latex allergy. I've read that allergies to bananas and latex go hand in hand, so to speak.