Talk:Superfood

Supposing the benefit / harm ratio of foods could be quantified
Would superfoods be foods at least 2 standard deviations above the mean? The concept is belittled rather than treated neutrally. 66.64.72.10 (talk) 23:12, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * As exceptional nutrient density (which might define a "superfood") is related to human health, the source(s) would have to be based on WP:MEDRS literature, including systematic reviews of high-quality clinical trials. No such analysis has been planned or published in my view. Further, what would be assessed? One nutrient or a select group? Or should some be seen as negative factors, such as high calorie content, saturated fat or high sodium content? And at what cost to the typical consumer? The technique of nutrient profiling is the closest nutritional assessment tool, provided here as an example of objectively qualifying nutrient-dense foods. --Zefr (talk) 23:38, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Contradictory statements
I have removed the following two statements that contradict each other: For example, some seaweeds hailed as superfoods contain natural toxins which are thought by some to increase risk of cancer and liver damage. This statement is however incorrect, the cited article refers to Microcystin, which are produced by certain freshwater cyanobacteria (not seaweeds). Thusfar no poisonous seaweeds have been discovered according to The Seaweed Site. I'm putting them here for discussion. Deli nk (talk) 00:10, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Since this content is really about human health, we'd need WP:MEDRS. These sources ain't that. Alexbrn (talk) 06:36, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

How about a different example from the same source (https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2007/may/13/health.healthandwellbeing1) that can be verified by MEDRS sources: "Spencer points to the case of beta carotene which, eaten in its natural form, appears to work as an anti-oxidant, killing the free radicals in our bodies which can damage DNA and initiate cancers. When the compound was separated by scientists and ingested as a dietary supplement, however, it was found to increase the risk of certain cancers." Of course, we're not going to use that quote. --Ronz (talk) 15:58, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Superfood. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100510020807/http://www.functionalingredientsmag.com/article/Trends/amazon-superfruits-set-to-boom.aspx to http://www.functionalingredientsmag.com/article/Trends/amazon-superfruits-set-to-boom.aspx
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090706054649/http://www.cspinet.org/nah/11_06/juice.pdf to http://www.cspinet.org/nah/11_06/juice.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101205064358/http://www.functionalingredientsmag.com/article/Business-Strategies/-em-functional-ingredients-em-market-overview.aspx to http://www.functionalingredientsmag.com/article/Business-Strategies/-em-functional-ingredients-em-market-overview.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:46, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Incomplete
I'm taking a break from this article, but I have to say that it is leaving some stuff out. To be a full and complete article on this topic, it needs to address the following:
 * Antioxidants - what they are and whether the claims are true and how they function in the human body, also what foods were promoted for their antioxidants (acai, blueberries, red wine)
 * Antioxidants, anthocyanins, polyphenols (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1756464616000530)
 * Separate sections for "superfruit" and "supergrain" - now that "superfruit" redirects here, and why ancient grains are better or worse than regular grains
 * ✅, terms explained.
 * Some of the most common superfoods are not even mentioned or linked on the page - Salmon, Kale
 * The history of marketing exotic fruits - how the banana was first marketed (on old revisions of the page)
 * Which nutrients are featured in superfoods - amino acids, antioxidants, fiber, fatty acids, B vitamins, other phytochemicals
 * Bod (talk) 20:54, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Please address substantial changes here (3 by my count)
I spent a bit editing the article to make it read better.

Please address the 3 changes of substance you disagree with here:
 * To lede: The superfood category may overlap with the functional food category, or it may be based on traditional plant medicine in certain cultures.
 * Similarly, the term "supergrain" was coined following a surge of interest in ancient grains and any possible nutritional benefits those varieties might have.
 * [File:Pomegranate Juice Fresh.JPG|alt=Glass of pomegranate juice|thumb|Pomegranate juice was heavily marketed by POM Wonderful for its antioxidants, and criticized by the FDA for misleading advertising.]

And if agreement cannot be reached, then let the c.e. changes stand. Bod (talk) 20:24, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:V is a core policy. You must support contested material with inline citations which directly support the text. Alexbrn (talk) 20:33, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Here is a NY Times article about the ancient grain fad: https://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/08/16/is-teff-the-new-super-grain/
 * The POM Wonderful info is cited on that wiki page: https://www.nutraingredients-usa.com/Article/2010/03/03/FDA-says-Pom-Wonderful-antioxidant-claims-not-so-wonderful?c=7InNqGv0Ajf%2BGsoljaV0RA%3D%3D
 * The functional food wiki page describes that term and so you can see the overlap with superfood. The marketing of traditional medicines as superfoods is seen by companies like MRM and Navitas Organics and the labeling of maca powder and moringa. (https://mrm-usa.com/shop/superfoods/superfoods-raw-organic-maca-root-powder/) (https://www.puritan.com/mrm-brand-0773/pporganicmoringapowder85-oz-016478?scid=45184&cmp=gpl-_-herbalsupplements-_-016478%20MRM&gclid=CjwKCAjwwdTbBRAIEiwAYQf_E8CXT2W8y371ybaruZEVaM95s8TjWLk93yU7nlkQmluQ_mylADv-mRoCQVUQAvD_BwE)
 * So you want these citations? Bod (talk) 20:56, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * No, those sources are just examples of marketing hype, which you are buying completely. None of the examples given has any scientific basis for being called "super". --Zefr (talk) 21:00, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The whole page is about a marketing term. What makes the page at all interesting is why certain foods are/were called "super" (omega-3, amino acids, wheatgrass, antioxidants, vitamins, traditional medicine) and whether there is any basis to that. Not all articles are science-based on wikipedia. Once the page exists, it is the burden of the editors to describe it fully. To not describe how it is a catch-all category for functional foods, exotic fruits, and traditional plant medicinal foods is to not accurately represent the term. Bod (talk) 21:16, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Article example
This article from LiveScience (https://www.livescience.com/34693-superfoods.html) maybe shows how a good article on the topic should be structured and what should be covered. To summarize the structure:
 * Intro highlighting ambiguous definition but also describing healthy diet
 * Examples of foods and nutrients. "nutrients that certain superfoods contain include antioxidants, thought to ward off cancer; healthy fats, thought to prevent heart disease; fiber, thought to prevent diabetes and digestive problems; or phytochemicals"
 * Criticism section
 * Conclusion showing skepticism but highlighting benefits
 * Bod (talk) 22:00, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Another example of you buying the hype. Livescience is completely non-expert and unscientific. Food is about health, and WP health topics are guided by WP:MEDRS sourcing. Please take a rest. --Zefr (talk) 22:07, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I am content to rest on the WP article, and read the LiveScience article for now. It is good to know the stance on LiveScience as a source, because it seems fairly decent. Bod (talk) 22:15, 16 August 2018 (UTC)