"Superfoods" - Peanuts and what else?

[barbitu8]

@Senegoid

I’ve heard from a friend (who I believe is fairly knowledgeable in these areas, being a microbiologist by profession) that ALL vegetable food sources contain at least some of ALL the necessary amino acids – but not necessarily in very optimal quantities, nor in optimal proportions to one another.

Thus, you should (sort-of, theoretically) be able to subsist on peanuts alone, or rice alone, or beans alone – but the combination of rice and beans gives a more complete, and more completely optimal, combination of the necessary amino acids.

All veggies do contain all the essential amino acids, but not enough that the body can use them. Rice has one in meager amounts which beans can complement. IIRC soybeans do contain enough of all. Eggs should be the closest to a “superfood” for obvious reasons.

[Rhythmdvl]

@Werekoala

(ok, four questions, so sue me)

Why is this thread different from all other threads?

[Yllaria]

@dtilque

Milk is missing iron. Babies live off stored quantities of iron, but they only last about 3 months.

Is that mother’s milk or cow’s milk?

[panache45]

Is peanut butter (without additives) the nutritional equivalent of whole peanuts . . . or does the grinding process have an effect?

[Senegoid]

@Rhythmdvl

Why is this thread different from all other threads?

Because matzah is a superfood?

[dtilque]

@Yllaria

Is that mother’s milk or cow’s milk?

Both. And probably milk from all mammals, although I doubt if anyone’s tested all of them to be sure.

@panache45

Is peanut butter (without additives) the nutritional equivalent of whole peanuts . . . or does the grinding process have an effect?

The grinding should make the nutrients in PB be released somewhat more readily, since it’s basically the same as chewing, only more thorough. Otherwise there is no difference. Assuming you’re talking about real peanutbutter, and not those abominations with [del]toxic sludge[/del] sugar added.

[Little_Nemo]

@Sage_Rat

Since there’s 29 vitamins and minerals, each with their own requirements, the odds that a single fruit or vegetable is going to exactly match the profile of maximal health is pretty minimal. You can think of it like a key to a door, with 29 positions. What are the odds that a randomly generated key is going to get all of those correct? So even if you find something that has all 29 in above-minimal bounds, some of them are probably going to go over the maximum recommendation.

What you’re saying is logical but it may not be an accurate metaphor. It isn’t a random system. We evolved alongside plant life so it wouldn’t be surprising to find we can live off of the nutrients that are most common in plants. And for the last few thousand years, we’ve been selecting and domesticating plants and have presumably tended to choose the ones that are the best match for our nutritional needs.

[Broomstick]

I doubt we’ve been selecting our crops for “nutritional needs” until the 20th Century, and maybe not even now for the most part. We’ve been selecting our crops to be more sweet, less bitter, and more consistent in germination, growth, ripening, and other convenient traits. If those align with better nutrition that’s great, but really what we selected for was less toxic and easier to farm.