Buzz
Navigating the world of healthy eating can be tricky, especially with the countless myths surrounding food and nutrition. These misconceptions often circulate widely, becoming accepted truths without question. However, it's crucial to scrutinize unsupported claims, particularly when they impact our dietary choices.
10. Consuming Excessive Milk Strengthens Your Bones
It's commonly believed that drinking plenty of milk strengthens bones, promoting growth and strength. While milk is indeed high in calcium, which is essential for bone health, the reality is more nuanced than this simple assumption suggests.
A recent large-scale study conducted by Sweden’s Uppsala University followed 61,400 women and 45,300 men over several years. Researchers meticulously tracked the dietary habits of both groups, monitoring the women’s health for 20 years and the men’s health for 11 years. The findings indicated that milk consumption was linked to increased mortality rates in both genders and a higher incidence of bone fractures among women. Women who consumed three or more glasses of milk daily were twice as likely to die during the study period and 50% more prone to hip fractures.
In a BBC interview, lead researcher Karl Michaelsson proposed that the adverse effects might be due to milk sugars, lactose and galactose, which are known to accelerate aging-related processes such as inflammation and oxidative stress. Notably, while high milk consumption appeared to raise fracture risks, participants who consumed yogurt and other fermented dairy products experienced significantly fewer fractures. Fermentation reduces lactose levels, which may explain the difference.
Harvard University scientists analyzed 25 years of data and found no substantial evidence supporting milk’s role in preventing osteoporosis. They also raised concerns that excessive milk consumption might elevate the risk of prostate and ovarian cancers. Harvard’s School of Public Health advises against the commonly recommended intake of 2–3 glasses of milk daily, as this level has not been proven to reduce bone issues and may pose additional health risks. While a daily glass of milk provides calcium, exceeding this amount offers no added benefits and could be harmful.
9. Energy Drinks Boost Your Energy
Contrary to their name, energy drinks are not an effective way to boost energy. Most are a blend of sugar, caffeine, and taurine, an amino acid added for purported benefits. Some include guarana, a South American plant that simply provides more caffeine. While a few brands highlight ginseng and B-vitamins, the amounts are usually too minimal to make a difference. The effects of taurine on focus and physical performance are still debated, making its inclusion questionable. Ultimately, sugar and caffeine are the primary active ingredients.
Sugar provides a quick but short-lived energy spike, often followed by a crash. This means you’re essentially borrowing energy from your future self. Excessive sugar intake is also linked to weight gain and various health issues. A study published in Pediatrics revealed that consuming 2–3 energy drinks daily could supply 4–6 times the recommended daily sugar intake, solely from these beverages.
Caffeine is more effective at delivering a sustained energy boost without a severe crash. However, achieving this effect requires consuming large amounts, which is why energy drinks are loaded with it. Caffeine works by blocking adenosine receptors in the brain, reducing feelings of tiredness. These effects can last up to 12 hours, often leading to insomnia. Additionally, excessive caffeine intake is associated with elevated blood pressure and a faster heart rate.
Regular consumption of energy drinks can lead to insomnia from caffeine and weight gain from sugar, both of which deplete your energy over time. For a lasting energy boost, nothing beats a balanced diet, consistent exercise, and sufficient sleep. If you need an occasional pick-me-up, an energy drink now and then is fine, but it’s no long-term solution.
8. Wooden Cutting Boards Pose Risks
A common misconception is that wooden cutting boards are unsanitary for cutting raw meat. The theory is that wood’s porous nature traps bacteria, posing risks like E. coli and Salmonella contamination when used for vegetables or other foods. The US Department of Agriculture once advised using plastic boards instead. This prompted food scientist Dean O. Cliver to explore methods for sanitizing wooden boards. However, when the USDA admitted their recommendation lacked scientific backing, Cliver took it upon himself to investigate further.
Cliver’s research revealed that harmful bacteria rarely transfer from wooden cutting boards to food. Surprisingly, the wood’s absorbent nature played a beneficial role, drawing bacteria deep into the material where it gradually vanished from the surface. While bacteria remained alive within the wood, it was too deep to pose a threat and eventually died. Cliver could only detect it by cutting the board into pieces or forcing water through it under high pressure.
Wood’s ability to trap bacteria might even give it an edge over plastic. To mimic real kitchen conditions, Cliver contaminated both wood and plastic boards with bacteria, scratched them with a knife, and cleaned them thoroughly. He found that more bacteria remained on scratched plastic boards compared to wooden ones.
Cliver noted this as the key distinction between wood and plastic. While new plastic boards are easier to clean, heavily used wooden boards with knife marks performed similarly to new wood. In contrast, scratched plastic boards were difficult to sanitize manually. However, even heavily scarred plastic boards could be effectively cleaned in a dishwasher.
7. Gum Takes Seven Years to Digest
Many of us grew up hearing warnings not to swallow gum, as it supposedly stays in our digestive system for seven years. This is one of the most enduring urban myths, though its origins are unclear. What is certain, however, is that this claim is entirely untrue.
While chewing gum is resistant to digestion, it doesn’t linger in your system for years. The sweeteners, oils, and sugars in gum break down in the stomach, but the gum base is indigestible and moves slowly through the digestive tract. Still, it typically exits the body within about a week. If gum truly took seven years to digest, doctors would frequently find it during medical examinations, which they don’t.
It’s worth noting that swallowing gum isn’t harmful just because it’s indigestible. Humans regularly consume indigestible plant fibers and can even pass small objects like coins, provided they’re under 2 centimeters (0.8 inches) in diameter. Gum only becomes problematic if consumed in large quantities over a short period, potentially causing blockages. This is most common in young children, who may require medical intervention to remove the gum.
6. You Should Drink Eight Glasses of Water Daily
The belief that we need to drink eight glasses of water each day is a widespread myth with unclear origins. According to Snopes, the earliest reference dates back to a 1945 recommendation by the Food and Nutrition Board, which suggested a daily intake of 2.5 liters (85 oz) of water. However, the board clarified that most of this water comes from food, not just drinking. This means the recommendation was never about consuming eight glasses of water exclusively.
In truth, there’s no universal rule for water intake. The amount you need depends on factors like body size, climate, and activity level. The Institute of Medicine advises that men consume around 13 cups of fluids daily, while women should aim for about nine cups. Importantly, overhydration can be harmful, leading to symptoms such as dizziness, nausea, or even seizures. However, as long as you drink when thirsty, you’re likely meeting your body’s needs.
5. All Chocolate Is Unhealthy
Chocolate lovers, rejoice! Chocolate isn’t just a guilty pleasure—it can actually be good for you. A study in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition found that cocoa products, including chocolate, are associated with reduced blood pressure. Another study involving 21,000 adults in England revealed that those who ate two chocolate bars daily were 11% less likely to suffer heart attacks or strokes compared to non-chocolate eaters. Additionally, chocolate enthusiasts were 25% less likely to die from cardiovascular issues.
However, the study’s authors noted that the findings only showed a correlation, not causation. For instance, individuals at higher risk of heart disease might avoid chocolate, while healthier people indulge more freely. To explore further, researchers reviewed existing studies and found that regular chocolate consumption was linked to a 45% lower risk of dying from heart disease. Interestingly, most participants favored milk chocolate over dark, despite the latter’s reputation as the healthier option.
Don’t dismiss dark chocolate, though—it might be the only candy that aids weight loss. A University of Copenhagen study found that a small piece of dark chocolate effectively reduces cravings for other foods. Additionally, researchers at the University of L’Aquila discovered that daily dark chocolate consumption for 15 days reduced insulin resistance by nearly 50%, lowering the risk of diabetes. The fats in dark chocolate also slow sugar absorption into the bloodstream. While moderation is key, a daily dark chocolate treat can be a smart choice.
4. All Carbs Are Unhealthy
Many believe that cutting carbs is the key to weight loss. Since carbohydrates are converted into glucose, the body’s primary energy source, excess glucose turns into fat. Reducing carbs lowers glucose production, forcing the body to burn fat for energy—supposedly leading to a slimmer figure. However, the reality is more nuanced than this simple explanation suggests.
Not all carbs are created equal, just as not all chocolate is unhealthy. Many nutritionists now advocate against eliminating all carbs, as suggested by diets like Atkins. Instead, they recommend avoiding high-glycemic-index carbs, which convert to glucose quickly and spike blood sugar levels. Low-glycemic-index foods, such as fruits, vegetables, and whole grains, boost metabolism and help burn calories efficiently. In contrast, high-glycemic-index foods like processed snacks and potatoes are harder to metabolize, meaning a calorie from vegetables isn’t the same as one from refined bread.
While low-carb diets may lead to short-term weight loss, they can slow metabolism, making it harder to maintain weight over time. Studies show that after 1–2 years, the benefits of such diets diminish, with weight differences as minimal as 0.5 kilograms (1 lb). Additionally, low-carb diets often lack fiber, which helps regulate blood sugar and reduces the risk of type-2 diabetes.
Other health risks accompany low-carb diets. A 2012 study at Boston Children’s Hospital compared an Atkins-style diet (10% carb intake) with a balanced diet (40% low-glycemic-index carbs). While the low-carb diet resulted in faster weight loss, it also increased cholesterol levels and raised the risk of heart disease, strokes, and diabetes. The balanced diet, on the other hand, provided steady weight loss and lowered the risk of chronic illnesses.
Interestingly, low-carb diets may not be significantly better than traditional low-fat diets. A study by the National Center for Biotechnology Information compared low-carb and low-fat diets. While low-carb diets slightly reduced cholesterol, they also increased high-density lipoprotein cholesterol and triglycerides. Overall, there was no notable difference in weight loss or metabolic risk factors between the two diets.
3. Fried Foods Aren’t Always Linked to Heart Disease
While fried foods are often demonized, not all are harmful. Indulging in fried chicken daily isn’t advisable, but some fried foods can actually be beneficial.
A study in the British Medical Journal tracked 41,000 Spanish adults for 11 years, recording their fried food intake. During the study, 606 heart-related incidents and 1,134 deaths occurred. However, researchers found no connection between fried food consumption and heart disease or mortality. In fact, foods fried in sunflower or olive oil showed no proven link to heart disease.
It’s worth noting that the study focused on the Mediterranean diet, which differs significantly from the deep-fried fast food common in many regions. Additionally, the research only examined heart disease and didn’t address fried food’s effects on obesity or other health concerns. The authors also emphasized that their findings only applied to foods fried in olive or sunflower oil, not other types of oil.
That said, not all fried foods are detrimental to heart health. Homemade fried dishes can be nutritious if you choose the right ingredients and frying methods. Numerous healthy fried food recipes are available online, and many resources advise cooking at the optimal temperature for the oil you’re using.
2. Natural Doesn’t Always Mean Better
The term “natural” is a favorite among food marketers, often used to attract consumers. However, there’s no clear definition of what makes a food “natural.” The FDA has yet to establish strict guidelines for the term, stating:
From a food science perspective, defining a food as “natural” is challenging because most foods undergo processing and are no longer in their raw, earth-derived state. The FDA has not established a formal definition for the term “natural” or its variations. However, the agency permits its use as long as the product contains no added colors, artificial flavors, or synthetic substances.
The USDA, on the other hand, strictly regulates the term “organic.” This often frustrates certified organic producers, who compete with unregulated “natural” products and consumers who struggle to distinguish between the two.
Organic producers also benefit from certain consumer misconceptions. For instance, many people purchase organic products to avoid pesticides. However, large organic farms frequently use a variety of non-synthetic pesticides, fungicides, and chemicals approved by the USDA. There’s no evidence that non-synthetic pesticides are inherently safer than synthetic ones, nor is there proof that organic foods are nutritionally superior to non-organic options. Additionally, large-scale organic farming can have environmental impacts similar to conventional farming.
1. Gendered Food Is a Modern Phenomenon
The Internet often ridicules absurdly gendered products like earplugs, soda, flash drives, Bibles, and donuts. Sociologist Lisa Wade, who manages Pinterest’s Pointlessly Gendered Products board, argues that these items perpetuate harmful gender stereotypes. Examples include a tactical-style baby carrier for men, identical laxatives in pink and blue packaging (with fewer pills in the pink bottle), and Q-tips rebranded as a “Men’s Ultimate Multi-Tool.”
This trend has sparked criticism, particularly toward the idea of gender-specific foods. Canada’s Stonehill Bakery faced backlash for introducing bread marketed to men and women. The bakery claimed the breads addressed different nutritional needs, with women’s bread containing calcium and iron, and men’s bread rich in zinc and magnesium. While the concept had merit, the packaging—comparing “hearty” men’s bread to “light” women’s bread wrapped in pink—was poorly received.
Marketers have subtly targeted genders for decades. Sensory psychologist Marcia Pelchat has observed that women tend to prefer sweeter flavors and avoid bitterness, leading to chocolates and sweets being marketed to women, while bitter products like ale target men. Women also face societal pressure to eat healthily, resulting in health foods being marketed with a feminine slant. Whether women eat more yogurt due to targeted ads or marketers target women because they already prefer yogurt, the gendering of food is far from a new phenomenon.
