RR Phantom
Location : Wasted Space Job/hobbies : Cayman Islands Actuary
| Subject: Why superfoods are not so super after all Tue Jun 25, 2013 6:26 am | |
| I'm not happy. Last week I discovered I've been wasting my time every Sunday for most of my adult life. I refer to my weekly meal of mackerel, which I force myself to eat despite the repulsive taste and texture, and the smell that lingers for days after. Not only do I hate the slimy fish, but twice I've nearly died (or at least it felt that way) when a bone has stuck in my throat.
So new draft guidance published by Britain's National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (Nice) suggesting that the impact of an oily-fish diet in preventing heart attacks or strokes "could be minimal" is far from welcome. Minimal? I've been missing out on a lovely, wholesome fry up - my preferred choice, naturally - for a decade or more because I, and millions of others, believed that oily fish was key to health and longevity.
Like any good psychiatrist, I blame my mother. When I was a child, she bought a book called Superfoods and, in her determination to guarantee my sister and I would live long enough to look after her in her old age, it became her bible. Each time we found an unusual or exotic foodstuff on our plate, she would take great pleasure in informing us it was a "superfood" and would help ward off diabetes or cancer or evil or whatever it was she'd read about.
We all know that certain foods are better for us than others, but the idea that some possess almost mystical properties is very seductive.
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/diet-and-fitness/why-superfoods-are-not-so-super-after-all-20130625-2otg8.html#ixzz2XDqwmMeB |
|