Is it a super food, or are we being super fooled

It is common knowledge that enjoying a well-rounded diet of foods that boast diverse nutrient profiles can help give the body what it needs to stay healthy.

Many foods are healthy, some less so. But are there really “superfoods” that are much healthier than others?

For some time people were led to believe so, but nutrition is much more complex.

Foods touted to knock out free radicals in the body, which are believed to contribute to various illnesses, are often characterized as superfoods.

According to author Ben Goldacre, author of Bad Science, the body actually uses free radicals to kill bacteria, and Goldacre notes they may not be so bad in certain amounts.

Every food producer wants to expand sales, and it ‘s great marketing to refer to a particular food as a “superfood.” The Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health says that there’s no scientifically based or regulated definition of the term “superfood,” despite widespread use of the term and even its inclusion in the Merriam-Webster Dictionary.

It’s believed the term superfood originated in the early twentieth century as part of a food marketing strategy by the United Fruit Company to promote its major import of bananas around the time of World War I. Later, bananas were touted as superfoods in medical journals, which gave the term some additional credibility. Seeing as the superfood moniker translates to superior sales, it’s had some staying power, if also a little controversy.

Consumers must wade through the hype and realize they can vary their diets accordingly to maximize nutritional focus without being lured in by a superfood characterization.

Many foods are beneficial. And as always, questions regarding health and nutrition can be discussed with a health care provider.