Superfood electronic version

One is a reference library of high nutrient density foods compiled by the professional nutrition community, and the other is a list of food ingredients marketed and packaged by Internet celebrities. Ordinary consumers should not directly copy and eat them. They need to make adjustments based on their own diet structure and physical constitution before referring to them.

When I worked as a part-time nutrition consultant at a fitness studio last year, I would receive seven or eight electronic versions of so-called "super foods" from users a week asking for identification. The most exaggerated one was that a girl had saved five versions, ranging from an internal draft of a 985 nutrition research group to a blogger's "must eat list to lose 10 pounds in a month."

In fact, there has never been an official definition of "super food" in serious academic circles. Most of the professional electronic versions currently circulating are classifications of high nutrient density foods by nutrition agencies in various countries. For example, the United States Department of Agriculture published a nutrient density ranking table a few years ago. Domestic nutrition scholars have also translated it and made localization adjustments with common Chinese ingredients. The ranking of ingredients in this type of content is all supported by data - the higher the content of vitamins, minerals, antioxidants, and dietary fiber per unit of calories, the higher it is ranked. There are no fancy descriptions of effects, and there are no purchase links.

Of course, the controversy surrounding this thing has never stopped. When I participated in an industry salon before, I saw two groups of people arguing until their faces turned red. One group is a staunch advocate of superfoods. They feel that everyone is busy at work now and has no time to calculate how many ingredients to eat every day. They just choose the ones with high nutrient density according to the list, which is more efficient and does not make it easy to lack nutrients. For example, if you always forget to eat fruits, grabbing a small handful of blueberries every day is much better than drinking two glasses of sugar-added juice. The other group thinks that this thing is completely a carrier of IQ tax. After all, the nutrient density of Chinese cabbage, eggs, and fresh corn is no worse than imported acai berries and freeze-dried kale, which often cost hundreds of yuan a pound. Ordinary people eat enough daily ingredients, and there is no need to spend such wasteful money.

Both statements are actually reasonable. Most of the people who fall into the trap are those who blindly believe in the Internet celebrity version of the list. Believe it or not, I met a member a while ago who followed the electronic version of superfoods downloaded from the Internet for a month. He went to the office every morning to make a cup of chia seeds and kale powder, and ate quinoa salad with raw cocoa chunks for lunch. My aunt postponed it for 20 days and went to the hospital. The doctor said that she was already cold. She ate too many cold high-fiber foods and her carbohydrate intake was not even half of her basic needs. It would be strange if nothing went wrong. Later, when I looked through her electronic version, the whole article was filled with words like "low calorie," "anti-aging," and "fat burning," without even marking the applicable group. There was also a link to a store directly attached at the end, which was clearly a promotional material produced by the brand. To put it bluntly, many of these Internet celebrity electronic versions were essentially just soft articles with a popular science cover.

When I usually make dietary plans for my members, I don’t have any complicated criteria for choosing the electronic version for reference. I just look at two practical points: first, whether there is a data source. Anyone who is reliable will indicate whether it is the "Chinese Food Composition Table" or an official research report. If the whole article contains subjective descriptions such as "personally tested and effective" and "dry white after eating", then just cross it out. Second, don’t believe in any list that is “applicable to everyone”. If you eat enough green leafy vegetables every meal, you don’t need to spend dozens of dollars to buy kale powder. If you never eat deep-sea fish, saury that costs more than ten yuan per pound is the most cost-effective super food for you, and it is much more useful than those imported freeze-dried fruit powders you buy.

To be honest, I have a version of the ingredients list that I have compiled for almost two years in my mobile phone. I will send it to my friends when they ask for it, but I never dare to call it the "authoritative superfood electronic version". Every time I send it, I have to say a few words: This is a reference. Your favorite tomatoes, the soy milk you often drink, and the crispy dried radish pickled by your mother. As long as they suit your body and are comfortable to eat, they can all be your own superfoods. Don't let an electronic list limit your appetite.