what i will acknowledge is that the orac count is only one way to measure anti-oxidant levels in foods, and that the effects of digestion are an important consideration in determining whether a food has useful levels of anti-oxidants or not. i was initially going to post a frap assay, but it wasn't ordered. note that all of the assays have some criticism of them, and the results aren't better than each other - these are just different measures. if you can find an ordered list of some other count, i'd want to take it into consideration as well, but i'd expect substantive overlap.

so, the list i posted measured how many total anti-oxidants are in a food per 100 g, raw, using one specific method of measurement. you might not be able to digest all of those. they might be modified by heat. etc.

but, the list pointed these defects out. it's right there in the introduction - clearly.

see, and this is the valid criticism that you hear about the whole thing - that people are easily duped by fancy marketing, don't understand what they're reading, etc. but, that's true about anything, and the solution isn't to attack what is in fact good science but to try and focus on the scientific literacy of consumers; if a company can easily trick people into buying carcinogenic water as a health supplement, it's not the company's fault, it's the fault of the people that are easily tricked. and, likewise, if you think that pomegranate juice is going to cure your prostate cancer, that's your fault - not theirs.

exactly what you can get out of any specific food is going to be complicated, granted. but, what that means is just that you're better off playing the averages.

so, i mean, if you want to make the argument that the orac list wasn't beamed down from the temple mount then, sure, i guess. but, who said that in the first place?