Are superfoods charging a super IQ tax?

There’s really no one-size-fits-all approach to this matter. To say it’s all about IQ tax is too categorical, and to say it’s not watery at all is probably because they want to sell you something. The core depends on what you bought, how much you spent, and what effect you’re aiming for.

Two weeks ago, there was a discount in the imported supermarket downstairs of my house. I went over to take a look. Chia seeds from the same manufacturer, with "Super Food·Cleanse the Intestine and Reduce Fat" printed on the packaging, sold for 129 for 500g. The package next to it did not have this label, but the raw material ratio was exactly the same, only 39.9. So this kind of concept is obviously to earn a premium, and the proper IQ tax has not been paid.

However, it is not possible to kill all such ingredients at once. After all, "super food" is not an academic definition in the first place. It was first mentioned in the European and American marketing circles in the early years. Later, it gradually became a common practice to refer to those ingredients with a nutrient density much higher than that of ordinary similar ingredients. For example, the vitamin K and dietary fiber content of kale is indeed several times higher than that of common vegetables and lettuce. Blueberries The content of proanthocyanidins is much higher than that of ordinary apples and pears. A friend of mine who does endurance training will add half a spoonful of unalkalized cocoa powder with oats before every long-distance run, because he hopes that cocoa flavanols can help improve blood oxygen utilization. The cocoa powder he buys is ordinary domestically produced, and it only costs more than 50 pounds per pound. It is much more cost-effective than taking messy supplements. How can this be considered as paying IQ tax?

It’s just that too many businesses are chasing this concept to death. I was watching a live broadcast a while ago and saw someone selling “organic quinoa imported from Peru.” They boasted that it can fight cancer, regulate the gastrointestinal tract, and lose 5 pounds after eating it for half a month. One pound was sold for 89, so I went to check it out. After checking the same grade of quinoa produced in Gansu, the test data of protein, unsaturated fatty acids, and minerals are no worse than the imported ones. It is only 22 per pound. The difference of more than 60 yuan is all due to the tax paid for the name of "super food" and "imported organic". There is also the kind of juice that grinds ordinary wheat seedlings into powder, repackages it and calls it "super green juice". It is said that drinking it can eliminate "intestinal toxins", but the actual active ingredient is dietary fiber. If you eat half a pound more celery, the effect is exactly the same, and it is fresher and cheaper than it.

Many people complain that superfoods are useless. In fact, sometimes they think about them too much. It’s like eating fried chicken and milk tea every day and expecting that a spoonful of chia seeds will make you fall off the scale. That uselessness is really not a problem with the ingredients. It is a supplement to the diet, not a panacea. If you buy it with the expectation that "you can cure diseases and lose weight by eating it", then you will easily be cut off no matter what you buy.

When I buy these kinds of ingredients now, I never look at the "super food" label. I just look at the nutrition facts list and unit price. If it is 10% or 20% more expensive than the same kind of ordinary ingredients and it is indeed higher in nutritional density, then buy it. If it is three to five times more expensive and it is too hyped, I just turn around and leave - there are so many "super" ingredients, it is nothing more than the merchants trying to make money from your pocket for "super wanting to be healthy".