Everyone seems to be calling different plants "superfoods" but what are they basing this on? Surely it can't be the nutritional value! I keep trying to explain to people that there isn't a plant on earth that compares to the value of eating meat. So how in the world are you going to call anything other than meat a superfood?
"...a 3-ounce serving of pork liver provides about one-fourth of the vitamin C you need each day, as well as more than six times your daily requirement for vitamin A..."
A 3-ounce slice of pork liver also provides more than 100 percent of the riboflavin, niacin and vitamin B-12 you need each day, and provides a man with 100 percent of the iron and half the zinc he needs daily, and it gives a woman 85 percent of the iron and 71 percent of the zinc she needs each day.
In just 3 ounces! Now compare that to any amount of a single plant "superfood" and see what you get.
I googled "superfoods" and what did I get— no other than 6 lists of top 25, 20, 20, 13, 10 and 10 "superfoods" and what I had found for meat was salmon twice, and sardines once.
How backwards have we made this?
Please get yourself some organ meats and Google search the nutritional profile of them in comparison to plants and see what you come up with. I'm going to cut this short and just say again to please do your own research on this.