Big marketing bullshitters.
Chinese have been eating goji berries for centuries and now angmoh are trying to market it as superfoods or superfrauds.
Goji berries are added to other roots to make soup but angmoh market it like can eat it alone. The vitamins and minerals are in the soup.
See one angmoh keep quiet and don't tell them our Chinese advanced medical science and secret food research and technology, they die their business and die their own kind of cancer and time to extinct them. They tried to extinct Chinese in the 1600-1800s period in their virus warfare with chickenpox 百花 and STDs.
Chinese are the best.
New superfoods seem to be discovered with increasing frequency but rather like Superman they tend to be a fantasy construct.
The label seems to attach itself to any foodstuff that is rich in a particular nutrient. Goji berries, an original superfood, have a lot of vitamin C, while the quinoa seed contains all nine essential amino acids.
Both quinoa and goji berries - and other prominent superfoods such as kale, acai berries, blueberries and green tea - also contain high levels of vitamins that act as antioxidants.
Kale contain high levels of vitamins that act as antioxidants.
Kale contain high levels of vitamins that act as antioxidants. Photo: Penny Stephens
With this elevation in status often come wildly exaggerated claims that blockbuster nutrients will stave off ageing or prevent some as-yet-incurable disease like cancer. Who needs superpowers when you can eat superfoods?
Advertisement
While the description is widely used in blogs and the media, it has no status in science - you’ll struggle to find it referenced in a peer-reviewed journal.
‘‘It’s just a marketing tool used by people to push a certain food,’’ says Dr Paul Roach, a University of Newcastle biochemist.
The problem with the term is that it implies a food contains all the nutrients the body needs, he says.
‘‘But there is no such food."
It is no secret that certain foods contain more nutrients than others. What makes the claims about superfoods dubious is the notion that because a product is high in a given nutrient, eating lots of it will prevent specific diseases or cure a health problem.
That is a dramatically overstating the evidence, says Michael Vagg, a Geelong medical doctor and Deakin University lecturer.
Much of the evidence to support a food’s ''super'' status comes from laboratory research using cell cultures.
http://www.smh.com.au/technology/sc...cientists-are-unimpressed-20140704-zsv87.html
Chinese have been eating goji berries for centuries and now angmoh are trying to market it as superfoods or superfrauds.
Goji berries are added to other roots to make soup but angmoh market it like can eat it alone. The vitamins and minerals are in the soup.
See one angmoh keep quiet and don't tell them our Chinese advanced medical science and secret food research and technology, they die their business and die their own kind of cancer and time to extinct them. They tried to extinct Chinese in the 1600-1800s period in their virus warfare with chickenpox 百花 and STDs.
Chinese are the best.
New superfoods seem to be discovered with increasing frequency but rather like Superman they tend to be a fantasy construct.
The label seems to attach itself to any foodstuff that is rich in a particular nutrient. Goji berries, an original superfood, have a lot of vitamin C, while the quinoa seed contains all nine essential amino acids.
Both quinoa and goji berries - and other prominent superfoods such as kale, acai berries, blueberries and green tea - also contain high levels of vitamins that act as antioxidants.
Kale contain high levels of vitamins that act as antioxidants.
Kale contain high levels of vitamins that act as antioxidants. Photo: Penny Stephens
With this elevation in status often come wildly exaggerated claims that blockbuster nutrients will stave off ageing or prevent some as-yet-incurable disease like cancer. Who needs superpowers when you can eat superfoods?
Advertisement
While the description is widely used in blogs and the media, it has no status in science - you’ll struggle to find it referenced in a peer-reviewed journal.
‘‘It’s just a marketing tool used by people to push a certain food,’’ says Dr Paul Roach, a University of Newcastle biochemist.
The problem with the term is that it implies a food contains all the nutrients the body needs, he says.
‘‘But there is no such food."
It is no secret that certain foods contain more nutrients than others. What makes the claims about superfoods dubious is the notion that because a product is high in a given nutrient, eating lots of it will prevent specific diseases or cure a health problem.
That is a dramatically overstating the evidence, says Michael Vagg, a Geelong medical doctor and Deakin University lecturer.
Much of the evidence to support a food’s ''super'' status comes from laboratory research using cell cultures.
http://www.smh.com.au/technology/sc...cientists-are-unimpressed-20140704-zsv87.html
Last edited:
