3 Nutrition Myths Distracting You From Better Health
Before popular social media, headlines and news reports informed the public of nutrition- and health-related information. Even then, journalists and news outlets often misinterpreted or exaggerated findings, or reported data from studies that held little-to-no weight. With the addition of social media, millions of people are able to take center stage and – true experts or not – do the same, with the large difference being their content is reaching people across the globe versus only within the United States.
Since these changes, there has been a dramatic rise in the amount of mis- and disinformation people consume (both actively and passively), ultimately causing significant confusion and harm to many.
My hope is to correct some of this confusion by discussing a few of the most common myths and misconceptions I hear on a weekly (if not daily) basis. Here are the top 3 Nutrition Myths Distracting You From Better Health:
1) “Processed foods are bad for your health”
Let’s be clear: most of the food we eat is processed in some way. When we alter a food by chopping, blending, canning, heating, freezing, drying, or fermenting, that is processing.
Processing doesn’t inherently create food that is bad for your health. In fact, many foods that are processed can be very nutrient-dense and health promoting. For example, a meal such as a bright, colorful salad with chicken, balsamic vinaigrette, a sprinkle of cheese, and a whole wheat roll on the side has protein, fat, carbohydrates, fiber and color, making it a well-rounded meal. Each part of this meal has been processed in some way, and some ingredients are even classified as “ultra-processed” (the food category that we hear is the worst for our health). Any guesses to which part of the meal is “ultra-processed”? The whole wheat roll – that’s right, the meal component providing fiber and nutrient-rich whole grains.
Confused? Me too.
Many health professionals believe the primary issue here is there’s no consensus on the proper categorization of food. Among the various systems used to categorize processed foods, the NOVA classification system seems to be the most widely adopted in the US and in other countries. The image below shows a summarized view of the NOVA categories.
Image from: de Araújo, T. P., de Moraes, M. M., Afonso, C., Santos, C., & Rodrigues, S. S. P. (2022). Food Processing: Comparison of Different Food Classification Systems. Nutrients, 14(4), 729. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu14040729
The NOVA system is not without its flaws and has received many critiques from the medical and research communities. One of the most interesting (and problematic) inconsistencies noted by many dietitians is that foods like whole wheat bread, infant formula, protein powder, and flavored yogurt are in the same category as soda and candy – make that make sense. Nuance is clearly not a strong-suit of the NOVA classification.
This lack of nuance is especially problematic because this system is routinely used in many studies to look at how processed- and ultra-processed foods affect health outcomes. These studies are then used to develop nutrition and public health recommendations, with almost no regard for nutrient composition, overall diet quality, food access, and affordability. So, rather than adding clarity to nutrition guidelines, this results in further confusion, stigma, and fear of food, particularly food in the processed and ultra-processed categories.
Fortunately, there’s research underway exploring the nuance a bit more (despite common sense telling us there’s something “off” about this system). In a recent study, intake of certain “subgroups” of ultra-processed foods (UPFs) were associated with lower risk of Type 2 Diabetes. These subgroups included foods like “dark” and whole-grain breads, cereals, packaged sweet and savory snacks, yogurt, and dairy-based desserts. Outside of ongoing research, however, it’s important to know and understand the research we have that tells us foods like whole wheat bread and tofu, for example, are nutrient-dense and associated with positive health outcomes. In fact, this is the case for many foods that fall into the processed category, and some in the ultra-processed category.
With that said, it does seem that diets high in UPFs are associated with poorer health outcomes, particularly when the high intake results in crowding out plant- and other nutrient-dense foods. However, it’s important to keep in mind that most nutrition research is association-based, and UPFs are most commonly consumed by lower income communities who may lack access to healthcare, stable housing, and food, and may be negatively impacted by other social determinants of health (all of which greatly impact overall health and wellbeing, independent of UPF consumption).
Though, ultimately all foods – processed and ultra-processed – fit into a quality, balanced diet without jeopardizing health. Prioritizing nutrient-density in the diet doesn’t have to come at the cost of unnecessarily avoiding enjoyable foods such as cookies and soda.
2) “Organic food is safer and more nutritious than conventionally grown food”
While research is still ongoing with this particular topic, the research we do have points to organic food not being any safer or significantly more nutritious than conventionally grown food.
Of course, this is contrary to what some people say about organic versus conventional food. The Environmental Working Group (EWG), an independent lobbyist group, is one such example. This organization publishes a report called the “Clean 15” and the “Dirty Dozen” each year, which ultimately scares consumers into thinking conventional produce is harmful and organic is best (or essential) for health and safety. Without getting too far into the weeds, here’s a quick rundown of some of the issues with the EWG and reports such as these:
The EWG uses the United States Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Pesticide Data Program (PDP) to count the number of pesticides on produce instead of measuring the amount of each pesticide. The issue with this is that simply counting the number of pesticides tells us absolutely nothing about the safety of these pesticides. Why? Because the dose makes the poison. The pesticides that are used on crops are heavily regulated and monitored by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The EPA sets Acceptable Daily Intakes (ADIs) that are set 100-1000 times lower than the “No Observable Adverse Effect Level” (NOAEL). These limits take into consideration whether or not a pesticide accumulates in the body over time, how it is metabolized, toxicity levels, and is further adjusted for more sensitive populations like infants, children and people who are immunocompromised.
Organic farming practices utilize pesticides just as conventional farming practices do. Organic farming uses mostly “natural” pesticides (with few exceptions for certain synthetic pesticides), whereas conventional farming utilizes synthetic pesticides. The differences between the two practices do not imply organic food is safer or healthier.
Organic and conventional produce have similar amounts of pesticide residues on them, and when tested, organic produce often has residue (known as “drift”) from synthetic pesticides used in conventional farming.
The USDA frequently tests both organic and conventional produce for pesticide residues to ensure they are within the ADIs the EPA has set, and take action when pesticide residues exceed the ADI. There is a caveat to this, however – the USDA is not equipped with the necessary tools to test for most of the organic-approved pesticides due to cost and the specificity of tools needed.
Studies show that while organic food contains higher amounts of certain micronutrients and phytonutrients, these may not be in clinically meaningful amounts. Meaning, these differences may not make a significant difference in someone’s health and nutritional status, especially when they are eating a variety of foods from each food group.
Naturally, the fear mongering doesn’t stop with the EWG, as there are many people who use questionable studies to push the “organic is best” narrative. Some of the most used studies I have found follow similar methodology, in that they: start with one group of people → test pesticide residues in their urine when they are eating only conventionally grown food → then switch them to organic food and test for the same pesticide residues.
What they conclude and report to the media is pesticide residues in the urine are significantly less after the group switches to eating organic food. However, there is one glaring problem with this – most synthetic pesticides are not allowed to be used in organic farming. Of course they will measure significantly less synthetic pesticides in the subjects’ urine after switching to organic food. I mean, come. on. – how are studies like this published?
At the end of the day, based on the current data it is unethical to demonize conventionally grown food and lift up organically grown food as superior, especially when a very large percentage of the population doesn’t consume enough fruits and vegetables as it is. In 2019, only 12.3% of surveyed adults met the daily fruit recommendation of 1.5-2 cup equivalents, and only 10% of surveyed adults consumed the daily vegetable recommendation of 2-3 cup equivalents, according to the CDC.
Moral of the story: buy and eat whatever produce or ingredients you like and can afford. Rest assured you and your family are safe eating conventionally- or organically grown food.
3) “Supplements are essential for health and can replace certain foods”
While I can certainly see the appeal of just having to pop some pills to get your nourishment for the day, supplements cannot replace fruits, vegetables, or any other food group – there are just so many components of food that cannot be put into a pill or bottle. For example, when attempting to replace food groups (like veggies and fruit) you lose out on fiber, calories (i.e. fuel for your body), water content, some bioactive compounds, and the satiety factor that these food groups bring to meals and snacks. Losing this satiety factor, or ability to feel “full” and satisfied, ultimately can end up making you feel hungry more often and lead to overeating.
There aren’t many scenarios where supplementation of certain nutrients are necessary. Circumstances such as a known deficiency of the nutrient(s) in question or being on a medication that depletes a certain nutrient are two of the few times supplementation is needed. Other times where supplementation may be highly recommended is when someone has a very limited diet with a lack of variety and an inability or unwillingness to add more variety, and/or is trying to get pregnant or is pregnant.
In spite of all this, supplements are still promoted as means to treat or fix almost anything, like issues that may actually be related to inconsistent engagement in certain health behaviors. Unfortunately, supplements cannot make up for things like skipping meals and snacks, lack of quality sleep, lack of exercise and movement, drinking too much alcohol, and not drinking enough water. In fact, these are all pretty pervasive misconceptions due to great (but misleading) marketing. I often find myself reminding clients that they cannot drink a ton of alcohol and have quality sleep, efficiently build muscle, and recover well, despite certain companies claiming their supplements can reverse the adverse effects of a night of partying.
That’s not where the deceptive promotion of supplements ends, however. Another common and harmful misconception is supplements can replace medications or other medical treatments for chronic diseases and conditions. These claims can, and have, led to people seriously harming themselves and not getting proper medical treatment. While it is understandable that people want alternatives to medications and other treatments to avoid side effects, supplements have not been shown to be an effective replacement for these things (with few exceptions), and absolutely still have the potential for negative side effects.
As if that wasn’t enough, there’s a growing number of people stating supplements are essential due to the nutrient content of crops significantly declining, leaving the population at high risk of nutrient deficiencies.
While there is some (and by “some” I mean very little) truth to this for certain nutrients, there’s a lot of nuance that’s not mentioned when this topic is discussed.
The first piece of nuance lies within the foods that are used to illustrate nutrient declines. For example, a study from Australia noted a 30-50% decrease in iron content of sweet corn, red-skinned potatoes, cauliflower, green beans, green peas, and chickpeas. When you read or hear something like this it sounds pretty significant, right? Well, when using a study like this as evidence, what most people fail to mention is the amount of each food that was tested, and that these foods are not rich sources of iron to begin with. This, unfortunately, is a common tactic that tends to be used by practitioners and influencers alike trying to sell their supplements to the masses.
Another area of nuance that is not usually discussed is the significant limitations of the data being used to analyze nutrient changes in crops. A review published in the Journal of Food Composition and Analysis does a great job of analyzing many of the popular studies used to argue the case for nutrient declines, in addition to breaking down the considerations when using these studies to make such bold claims. This same review mentions that while there are changes in nutrient content in crops, these changes are within “natural variation ranges and are not nutritionally significant”, and that consuming a variety of fruits, vegetables, and grains in the recommended amounts still provides adequate nutrition.
Oh, and did I mention the supplement industry is largely unregulated and that most supplements don’t undergo 3rd party testing for safety and transparency? Red flag.
Final Thoughts
I know – that was a lot.
Is your head spinning? Are you questioning everything you’ve ever heard? If so, you’re not alone. I too was once (okay, many times) in your shoes.
The science around health and nutrition can be complicated (hence the need for dietitians), but much of the evidence boils down to fairly simple recommendations – you know, the ones you’ve heard most of your life, like:
Getting a minimum of 150 minutes of moderate exercise a week
Eating a balanced diet consisting of fruits, vegetables, whole grains, unsaturated fats, and [mostly] lean protein
Eating chips, red meat, baked goods, candy and fried foods in moderation
Managing stress
Getting ~8 hours of sleep, and
Staying hydrated
If these recommendations sound boring, I get it – we live in a society that values novelty and wants to be told the “secrets” to living longer and being our healthiest selves. Unfortunately, there are no secrets.
While the science and application of nutrition can be very nuanced, the fact is many people make good health and nutrition much more complicated than it actually is or needs to be.
(I mean, how would Mark Hyman or others like him sell their books and supplements if all they said was to follow the recommendations above?)
Instead of stressing out over what you hear on the news, social media, or on a podcast (because that’s not going to make you healthier!), make things easier on yourself and eat food you like and can afford, rinse your produce before eating it, and do your best to follow the ‘boring’ recommendations above.