The “superfoods” marketing myth
© Thinkstock
Food marketers and manufacturers together with the media would have us believe that a sure fire way to a healthy diet is to wolf down loads of “superfoods”. But such “superfoods” seem to come and go as often as seasonal fashion trends, and some of them cost about as much as designer clothes! So are they worth it? Do these “superfoods” actually have a positive effect on health?
According to the Miracle foods, myths and the media report, put out by the NHS in February of 2011, um, well, not really… And secretly, I think most of us know it deep down inside, but if any of you are still in doubt…
“Superfood” health benefits in the media
It seems that every time you visit your favourite website or flip through a lifestyle section or magazine, there’s a new headline screaming out at you: “Red wine reduces cardiovascular disease,” “Broccoli fights against breast cancer,” “Chocolate reduces stress”, and so on. And so you think, “Goodness, should I be eating broccoli with every meal?” or “Goodie, I can now eat chocolate to my heart’s content.”
Hold those thoughts because all these catchy headlines, even when they’re based on scientific studies, are not what they seem to be. Nobody is saying that the cited scientific evidence isn’t promising – it’s just that most of it is far from conclusive.
The NHS apparently got a little fed up of all the health chatter regarding “superfoods” and decided to take a closer look at 1,750 of it’s Behind the Headlines stories. (Since 2007, Behind the Headlines has been reviewing 2 health science media stories daily and checking out the health claims against the cited research sources.)
344 of these stories were about foods that apparently impacted our health, and the NHS noted that:
27 foods had been labelled harmful
65 foods had been declared beneficial
14 foods were labelled as both harmful and beneficial!
Digging into the scientific status of “superfoods”
Some of the featured headlines went as far as claiming that the given food could “save your life” – foods such as garlic, curry, beetroot juice and 2 ½ bottles of wine a week!
In these cases, we are looking at plain old exaggeration, but even on the more reasonable claims, the benefits were overstated, or the research didn’t stand up to scrutiny. Many of the studies regarding “superfoods” have limitations, and such limitations feature heavily across all the domains of scientific study.
Some of the limitations of studies, which can skew the stated outcomes:
Size of the study group: Studying a group of 10 people over a period of 1 week for a particular food is hardly enough to prove the benefits and promote the given food to “superfood” status;
Confounding factors: Some studies look at one or two medical parameters impacted by the given food, not always taking into account other lifestyle, demographic and health factors. It is therefore difficult to assert that the health benefit came solely from the food, or whether it was influenced by some of these other factors;
Human recall: Many food studies rely on what is reported by the participants, so recall bias is an issue. Who can actually remember how much of what they ate and drank over the last 3 months? What is your average daily intake of any given food? You may have been travelling, on a diet… whatever, but all this changes the actual averages of what you think you’ve eaten. And then of course, not everyone tells the exact truth – would you feel comfortable admitting that you drink 2 bottles of wine, 5 nights a week? It’s human nature to “adjust” to fit into social norms, and this is no exception during food studies…
Proxy outcomes: These studies look something that is easier to test and which could be an indicator of good health. The NHS report takes the example of a study that showed that eating fish three times a week was associated with a slight reduction in risk of certain brain abnormalities, while the associated media headline reported that oily fish could reduce memory loss. But memory loss wasn’t actually tested, only brain changes, and whether those brain changes impact memory still isn’t known.
Medical studies on animals: As close as mice and fruit flies may be to human beings, they are not human beings. For any medical research to be fully proven for us, it has to be tested on a good number of us over a significant period of time. So finding that a component found in red-wine extends the lifespan of obese mice is interesting, but even if the math were valid for humans… to get a similar result, you’d have to drink several bottles of wine a day!
Study funding: The age-old question of who is paying for research is still valid in some cases. If a chocolate manufacturer sponsors scientific research into the benefits of eating chocolate, they may not necessarily be looking for bad or no press!
Many studies do provide positive preliminary results, but which need further testing and verification. If we take the time to read the small print of the actual studies, this is clearly stated, but then small print never sold newspapers, web advertising or food!
All of this is to say that you really should not believe everything you read about “superfoods.” In case you didn’t know that already.
As old-school as it may sound, rather than racing around town after goji berries or stuffing yourself with steamed broccoli, you’d be better off sticking to the basics:
Eat a balanced diet with a wide and complete range of local, seasonal foods
Limit intake of alcohol, high fat, high sugar, salty and processed foods
Keep to a healthy weight
Indulge in some regular physical activity
Sources:
NHS: Miracle foods, myths and the media
NHS: Behind the Headlines
Jane Banham
More information:
Fact and fiction about "medicinal" food
Studying food manufacturers’ health claims
Nutrition discussions
