10 Nutrition MYTHS Experts Wish Would Die

super interesting article just came out  in the New York Times where they asked 10 Nutrition scientists about their pet peeves,  the common nutrition myth they wish would die. I already went through, I agree with some, I  have questions about others, so let's take a look. myth number one, fresh fruits and vegetables  are always healthier than canned, Frozen or dried.

yeah, I agree this is a myth, there are specific  studies looking at this and measuring and in general, freezing is pretty good at keeping  nutrient content, sometimes it's even better than buying fresh because in reality we  don't eat everything the day we buy it, it sits in the fridge for a couple days and  by the time we eat it, the Frozen product may actually have more nutrition preserved because  it degrades slower. so Studies have actually measured and shown that. now, leafy greens may be  a bit of an outlier, freezing things like spinach can cause some nutrients, like some vitamins for  example, their level can come down by 25% or so, but depending how long your vegetables sit  in the fridge if you buy them fresh, the difference between refrigerated and Frozen isn't  that big.

the other factor of course is waste, sometimes vegetables sit in the fridge too long,  they go bad and we have to toss them, so buying Frozen can actually result in saving some kaching  and of course less environmental impact because that's less food that gets produced only to be  thrown away. now, one caveat of preserved food are the additives, canned beans for example can  come with a lot of sodium added and canned fruit sometimes comes in this sugary, syrupy water,  so those are some things to look out for, but in general Frozen fruits and vegetables are pretty  good options. myth number two, all fat is bad.

yeah this is a relic from the 20th century, from  last century, and I still see this here and there on social media. I think what happens is sometimes  people lose weight on a low-fat diet and then they get told, see, it was the fat you took out that's  unhealthy. it's not, we can lose weight on all kinds of diets, it doesn't necessarily mean that  the thing we left out is automatically unhealthy, you just cut out a source of calories, eating  too many calories is bad for us, whether it's from fat or not.

one problem with the fat phobia  is people can be drawn to buy and consume Ultra processed foods labeled low-fat or no fat added  and end up eating a lot of refined carbohydrates, I know most viewers of this channel wouldn't fall  for that but that's a pretty common problem. now, some people like to eat low-fat diets mostly  from Whole Foods and that's completely fine as a personal preference but we don't have to fear fat,  the question is not so much the amount of fat, it's the type of fat. as the professor of medicine  from UCLA who contributed this section writes, saturated and trans fats can increase your risk  of heart disease or stroke while healthy fats like mono and polyunsaturated help reduce risk.

so,  vegetable oils, avocados, nuts seeds, fatty fish Etc. we've actually covered this topic in a lot of  previous content, we went over all the evidence, all the cohort studies, all the trials, so  we're not going to spend too much time on this, we're going to move on to myth number three, and I  know there's still uncertainty because we hear all kinds of things on social media but we're going  to keep going over the evidence in the future and we'll bring on as many lipid researchers as we  need so people have clarity and are satisfied on all this, all right? myth number three, calories  in calories out is the most important factor for long-term weight gain.

okay, so this one I found  strange, I read it several times, it's still not clear to me exactly what he means. this one  was contributed by Dariush mozaffarian who's a professor of nutrition at Tufts, and he says the  critical thing for weight loss is avoiding Ultra processed foods, I agree with that in general,  and he recommends a shift from counting calories to prioritizing healthy eating overall, quality  over quantity. agree 100%.

focusing on healthy foods tends to take care of the calorie problem.  I just think the title is weird, how he worded it, the myth he chose, right? calories in calories out  being the most important factor for weight gain, that's the top myth for him.

it's true that  conscious focus on calories doesn't seem helpful for most people but that doesn't mean calories  in calories out isn't a key factor. in fact, we know that eating Ultra processed foods leads  to over consumption of calories, so they're not mutually exclusive, I think his wording conflates  best approaches with what the underlying physiological factors might be. but let me know in  the comments if you disagree and if you interpret his words differently.

I agree with his bottom  line though, minimizing Ultra processed foods in general and focusing on Quality Foods. it's just  I would have worded the myth as something like, focusing on calories is the best approach for  weight loss, or trying to eat less is the best approach for weight loss, something like that, and  then explain that it's better to focus on eating better instead of eating less. myth number four,  people with type 2 diabetes shouldn't eat fruit.

yeah this is a pretty common one to hear, I  think it comes from fruit containing sugars, even though they're natural sugars in the food  Matrix with fiber but there's this notion that sugars of any Source are bad for diabetes. I don't  have a 100% black and white position on this, the balance of evidence doesn't seem to support  that whole fruit is a problem for diabetics. we know people who eat more fruit tend to have a  lower risk of developing type 2 diabetes and type 2 diabetics who eat more fruit tend to  have a lower risk of complications and even mortality.

now, we can always argue, well, maybe  it's some other healthy habit that they have, it's not the fruit itself, so we also  want to see, ideally, when available, some randomized trials. I've seen a few trials  specifically looking at whole fruit separate from vegetables in a population with type 2 diabetes.  this one for example told half the participants to eat a bit more fruit and the other half to eat  a little bit less, and after three months they didn't see a significant difference in body weight  or hemoglobin A1c, which is an average of the glucose levels over the long run.

several caveats  of this study that lower my confidence a little, for example the difference in Fruit intake was  subtle, before the trial they ate about 190 grams of fruit a day average, which is the equivalent  of a medium Apple, and during the trial one group went up to 320 grams a day and the other came down  to 135, so it's like comparing an apple and a half to two-thirds of an Apple. so the trial is saying  that in the background of a whole dietary pattern, eating a little more than an apple a day versus  a little less than an apple in type 2 diabetics doesn't seem to make a big difference  for glucose levels and I have no trouble believing that. I'm not knocking the trial,  this is a common hurdle, getting people to achieve significantly different levels of intake,  what we call contrast of exposure.

in an Ideal world we'd like to see one group eat no fruit or  close to it and the other group eat five or six pieces a day, and if we still see no difference,  then that's pretty compelling that Fruit by itself doesn't seem to play a huge role. another source  of uncertainty is they don't specify what people ate instead of the fruit. fruit normally replaces  other desserts or snacks so people cutting back on fruit might eat something worse instead. 

another factor to bear in mind is heterogeneity. just saying "fruit" is a very large category, I  think it's entirely possible that different fruits may have different effects, particularly for  people with defective metabolism like diabetics. for example, in this study, blueberries, bananas,  apples and pears and grapefruit were associated with lower type 2 diabetes risk, peaches and  oranges with no significant difference and cantaloupe was associated with a higher risk of  type 2.

usual caveats apply, I'm not saying this demonstrates cause and effect and cantaloupes  make us diabetic but I think this raises the possibility of heterogeneity between fruit types.  so what about trials looking at specific fruits? I've seen some with berries for example, and they  generally seem to improve metabolic parameters like glucose, insulin and inflammatory markers,  both in diabetics and in healthy people.

I've also seen some trials with grapes meta-analyzed and  they don't find a significant effect on glucose or insulin of whole grapes, although the trials that  looked at whole grapes were not in diabetics, they were in healthy people. also seen a couple trials  with dates, generally finding lower glycemia and no significant change in hemoglobin A1c. so the  data I've seen doesn't point to a clear issue with fruit in type 2 diabetics, with the usual  uncertainty around types of fruit and amount and replacement Etc.

as we discussed recently with Dr Nicola guess, the main factor for type 2 diabetes remission is weight loss and people have different  strategies for that, some people put type 2 diabetes in remission with high fruit diets,  others with low carb diets where they have some low carb fruits like berries and they generally  avoid more sugary fruits like mangoes and bananas. both approaches can work, at least for weight loss  and type 2 diabetes remission. so overall I agree the statement "diabetics shouldn't eat fruit" is  not supported by the evidence.

at the same time, I don't think it's unreasonable necessarily for  some diabetics to choose a strategy where they focus on specific fruits or even where they reduce  the amount of fruit they were eating before, depending on specifics, I think it's less about  whether you eat fruit or not and more about what you eat instead. I think this gets into the  obsession with glucose levels to the point where we lose track of big picture, overall health  including glucose levels and dietary pattern, healthy overall whether it includes a little  bit more or a little bit less fruit. okay, myth number five, plant milk is healthier than  cow milk, and the professor who wrote this one, she's very categorical, she says "it's just not  true".

I'm less sure than she is, I would say that I'm agnostic on this question because I just  haven't seen Health outcome data on plant milks. I see a lot of people jumping to conclusions  on this, seems to be a very emotional issue, some people saying, well, of course the plant  milk is going to be healthier, it's from a plant, it's not from an animal. and some people say the  opposite, of course it's going to be unhealthier, it's a processed food.

I don't find either of  these arguments compelling, it's not true that all animal foods are unhealthy or even that all  processed foods are unhealthy, so to me it just sounds like logical leaps. it's one thing to say,  my general strategy is to avoid processed foods, cool, don't see a problem with that, or, in  general Ultra processed foods aren't great Staples. agree with that.

it's a completely  different statement to say "we know that this product is less healthy than that product" when  we lack the evidence for it. it's okay to say "we don't know", we should normalize saying "we  don't have the data on that yet, we're waiting". we don't have to rush to form an unshakable  opinion on every question before we go through the evidence, I know that's what  social media promotes, the algorithm, but I don't think that's very productive.

now, the  writer of the section offers a couple arguments, one is protein content, Which is higher  in cow milk than in Almond or oat milk, but for example soy milk has as much protein as  cow milk, depending on the brand it even has more, I just don't think protein content necessarily  equates with healthier product. now, if you have someone getting a substantial amount of their  protein from cow milk and they do a one-to-one swap, volume for volume, with oat milk and they  don't change anything else about their diet, yeah, you might run into some problems there, especially  if it's like a child, right? so I agree with that.

I just don't think it's as simple as "this food is  healthier, period". the scientist also points out many plant milks have added stuff like sodium  and added sugars. I think it's totally fine to point that out and to bear that in mind, it just  doesn't tell me which product is healthier.

which milk product leads to better health? I don't know.  happy to lean in either direction when the solid evidence comes out.

I don't consume either one so  I don't have a horse in this race. and I, honestly wouldn't surprise me if the data pointed in either  direction or if the data showed that they're about equal, none of it would blow me away. bottom line,  if the argument is that assuming plant milk must be healthier is not justified, then I agree.

myth  number six, white potatoes are bad for you. this is another one where I don't quite share the level  of confidence of the writer, to make this a top myth. in part potatoes get a bed rep because in  the west most people tend to eat them fried.

when method of preparation is accounted for, French  fries are associated with worse outcomes. as far as non-fried, baked or boiled or mashed potatoes,  I've seen a bit of mixed evidence, many studies don't show a significant effect but I've seen  one or two that show a statistically significant increase in, for example, risk of type 2 diabetes  with intake of non-fried potatoes. lots of uncertainty with this, very small effect, haven't  seen any trials pointing in the same direction, could it be the gravy or the sour cream or  whatever people put on potatoes?

absolutely. if I had to guess, a baked potato or a boiled potato  here and there in a healthy dietary pattern, I'd be surprised if it's a big deal but I'm not  at this level of confidence, I wouldn't put it as a top myth. open to being convinced though, if  there's a strong balance of evidence.

myth number seven, never give peanuts to small kids. right,  this used to be the recommendation but it changed, there was a fascinating randomized trial published  in 2015, giving little kids under one-year-old peanut products like peanut butter lowered their  risk of developing peanut allergy by several fold, it was a stunning result. as a result of this  trial and other evidence, the guidelines changed and introduction of peanut products early on is  now recommended, especially in kids with eczema and other hints that they might go on to develop  a peanut allergy.

there's even some evidence that existing peanut allergy can be put in remission  with a very gradual, very careful reintroduction of the allergen, of peanut proteins. we've  covered this in previous videos, there's some very striking evidence showing 74 percent of kids  with peanut allergies achieving remission after this treatment. obviously, if your child has  peanut allergy, don't start giving them peanuts on your own randomly without medical supervision,  all right?

this is a very specific, very careful process. I'm going to say that again, do not  give kids with peanut allergies peanuts on your own randomly without medical supervision. but in  general, introducing these foods early in life is now recommended and it's thought not only to not  be a problem but to actually reduce the risk of developing the allergy.

myth number eight, plant  protein is incomplete. this one was contributed by Christopher Gardner who is a Stanford professor  and we had him on not too long ago on the channel. we're not going to spend a ton of time on this  because we have a lot of videos going into this in detail, all plants contain all nine essential  amino acids, it's the proportion that varies, if your whole diet is one plant all day every  day, like in some developing countries, eighty percent of the calories come from wheat, yeah you  might run into problems, you might not get enough of some essential amino acids, otherwise, if you  have a diverse diet, some vegetables, some beans, some grains, and you're getting enough calories,  not a problem.

there are a lot of trials now looking at muscle growth which is a pretty high  bar for protein adequacy, and even comparing people getting all of their protein from plants  versus omnivores, they don't find a statistically significant difference in muscle growth as long  as people are getting enough protein overall. one amino acid that seems particularly important  is leucine so see our protein videos for more details on that. myth number nine, soy raises risk  of breast cancer.

yeah this is common one to hear, these concerns with soy and hormones stem from  the fact that soy contains phytoestrogens which are molecules that bear some resemblance to  mammalian estrogen, and we have a whole video on this looking at testosterone levels and man boobs  and all that. the key to this whole dilemma is that phytoestrogens are kind of like a two-faced  molecule, in some tissues they act like estrogen while in other tissues they do the opposite.  so we actually have to look at what happens in a living breathing human in order to know what  the health effect of the food is.

studies find, if anything, an inverse correlation between breast  cancer and consumption of soy and isoflavones, which are some of these phytoestrogens in soy, so  people eating the most soy, the most isoflavones, have, if anything, lower risk of breast  cancer, better survival rates and lower risk of recurrence. and the trials that have been  carried out looking at breast cancer markers also don't support the notion that soy or isoflavone  consumption promotes breast cancer growth. concerns about soy and hormones also stem from  some work in mice showing faster tumor growth, so it's just another example that animal research  can be very important for hypothesis generation but it doesn't necessarily reflect what happens in  a human so at the end of the day we want to look at human data.

I would summarize the evidence  conservatively, I would say the balance of evidence does not support this concern with soy  and breast cancer. and finally myth number 10, nutrition advice keeps changing. Professor  Marion Nestle explains that since the 1950s, dietary recommendations have been basically  similar on the fundamentals, not going overboard on calories and minimizing saturated fat and  added salt and sugar.

of course there's lots of research ongoing and nutrition scientists are not  unemployed and views on specific questions evolve, just like we saw with the peanut example  and timing of introduction for kids, but the notion that nutrition science as a whole,  the whole field keeps doing 180s every week, is just not true. headlines and social media can  give that impression but that's not an accurate reflection of how science in general evolves. now,  I've noticed a lot of people asking this question recently: if the guidelines have been the same,  essentially the same, for decades, and if we're getting sicker, at least in the west, especially  in the U.

S, doesn't that mean the guidelines are wrong? so we have a whole video addressing this  question coming very soon so stay tuned. so out of the 10 myths I agree with the authors on most  of them, there's maybe three or four that I have doubts about, I have questions.

let me know in  the comments how many you agree with.