Posts

7 Nutrition Myths These Dietitians Are Busting

When people learn I’m a registered dietitian/nutritionist (RDN), they almost immediately start venting their frustrations about food issues. “Every day it’s another thing you can’t do or eat.  One day a food is good for you, the next day it’s bad for you.”  Since confused consumers make no changes, I always try to bust their myths and misinformation.

While consumers may be confused about food fads, RDNs are not.  They’re fed up with them.  They’re trained to spot hype, fads, and myths around a blind corner and it annoys them to no end. I asked some RDNs who have particularly good communications skills to tell me which popular nutrition fads really grind at them.  Here’s what they said:

Carbo-phobia!

Mindy Hermann, MBA, RDN, said straight up, “I wish people would stop thinking carbs are the devil.”  She’s had it with a near universal demonizing of these essential macros. 

Sure, most people eat too much added sugar, but she’s right that all carbs seem to be lumped together, whether it’s whole wheat bread or soda.  “Today it’s keto, yesterday it was Paleo, so many others before,” she said.  “I’m tired of all the iterations of high-protein, restricted carbs.”

Plant “Milk” Deserves No Halo

Nutritionally, plant-based diary alternatives just can’t hold a candle to the nutrition in real milk, according to Salge Blake, EdD, RDN, FADN, professor of nutrition at Boston University and the host of the hit health and wellness podcast, SpotOn! In addition to being a dynamite protein source, “Cow’s milk is chock full of vitamin D, calcium, and potassium, three nutrients that many Americans are falling short of in their diets.”  Dairy alternatives only have these nutrients if they’re added, and they often aren’t.  Unfortunately, says Salge Blake, “plant-based milks may also contain added sugars, adding calories and no additional nutrition to your glass.” 

Salge Blake also sees the affordability of real milk as a win-win.  “When it comes to your wallet, plant-based milks can be at least twice the price of cow’s milk.  For the nutrients and the money per gulp, you can’t beat low fat or skim dairy milk.”  If you’re allergic or vegan, soy is the closest alternative.  Be prepared to pay though.

Stop Kicking The Canned Foods!

Shari Steinbach, MS, RDN, spent years working directly with consumers as a retail dietitian in supermarkets, is fed up with canned foods getting dissed when they offer so many advantages:

  • Sustainability: “90% of cans are recycled and they can be recycled indefinitely.” Linings are safe, with 90% containing none of the controversial BPA.
  • Convenience: They have a long shelf life and that helps prevent wasted food and wasted food dollars.
  • Nutrition: “You can cut 40% of the sodium in canned beans and veggies just by rinsing and draining them,” Steinbach says. Since 9 in 10 people don’t eat enough vegetables, “Canned beans and tomatoes count,” towards scoring enough of this critical food group, and are a, “convenient, nutritious way to balance your diet.”

Want her recipe for quick, veggie-loaded, chili using canned ingredients?  “Here’s a favorite simple chili recipe that I made this week”:

  1. Brown 1 pound of lean ground beef;
  2. Drain and add 2 cans of chili-seasoned beans and 2 cans of undrained diced tomatoes.
  3. Season to taste with cumin or chili powder. “Serve with a green salad and whole grain crackers. Enjoy!”

Don’t Panic If It’s Not Organic

That’s advice from Leslie Bonci, MS, RDN Owner of Active Eating Advice, who is fed up with food elitism.  I see her point.  I spent decades working with low-income families who will never be able to afford organic food.  They shouldn’t worry.  They can still put delicious, nutritious food on the table. 

“What do we even mean when we say clean?” Bonci says, because “clean eating” has no definition.  That leaves every definition up to whomever is spewing it and that’s a perfect recipe for consumer confusion, fear, and doubt.  Instead, Bonci favors creating “an enabled table where foods of all price points have a place.”

White Foods Are Bright Foods!

Liz Ward, MS, RDN, Author of Better is the New Perfect is bugged by all the attention given to putting “only the most colorful fruits and vegetables on your plate.”  Forget colors, she says.  “Instead of worrying about what types of produce are “best,” simply include the types you like, no matter how pale,” Ward advises.  Besides, white, brown, and tan produce, such as mushrooms, cauliflower, potatoes, and bananas, are just as worthy as their brighter counterparts,” are loaded with nutrition.

“And while we’re at it, can we stop shaming starchy vegetables, such as corn, potatoes and peas? They are packed with nutrition and starch is a form of energy.”  It’s true, these foods are hugely important to so many food cultures and have sustained people for thousands of years.  Empty calories they most certainly are not. 

One Diet DOESN’T For Everyone?  Seriously?

“The nutrition belief that I hope goes to its final resting place in 2020 is that a single diet plan, or way of eating, is right for everyone,” declares food anthropologist and nutrition communications consultant Robyn Flipse, MS, MA, RDN.  Looking ahead, Flipse feels personalized nutrition, not fad dieting, holds the most promise in the years ahead.  

Leah McGrath, MS, RDN, corporate dietitian for Ingles Supermarkets, couldn’t agree more.  “It seems like every year we have a new ‘hot’ diet,” she says.  “However, just like our fingerprints,  we should want to and  deserve to individualize our eating plans.” 

Flipse continued, “The one thing we’ve learned from the decades of fad diet trends we’ve endured is that none of them have delivered on what they promised because they have all overlooked our metabolic differences.”  They also tend to be extreme, which is probably why people burn out on them. 

Flipse admits that we still lack the scientific tools to allow us to tailor nutrition to each person’s needs.  Unfortunately, when consumer demand gets ahead of the science, charlatans see an opportunity to market all kinds of pseudo-scientific gimmicks.

Plant-Based Doesn’t Mean Plants-ONLY

This one is mine.  I’ve written about it before and everyone in 2019 seemed to be jumping on this bandwagon.  Thing is, there’s no universal definition of “plant-based!” 

What it DOESN’T mean is vegan.  Eating a plant-based diet doesn’t automatically guarantee your diet is balanced or healthful, either.  Living on soda and chips is a fully “plant-based”, vegan diet.  And it ain’t balanced.  A huge salad with 10 different veggies, some nuts, and crumbled feta or parmesan cheese or a couple of ounces of beef or salmon is not vegan – but it IS plant-based.  Flipse put it best, “I tell people if 50% or more of what they eat is plants, then they have a ‘plant-based’ diet.”

Organic: The Answer To Cancer Prevention?

If anyone tells you they have the definitive answer, they’re misleading you.

Growing foods conventionally usually – but not always – involves the use of some pesticides when there’s a need to control harmful bugs, plant viruses, fungi, etc. that damage either the whole plant or the edible portion of it.  These compounds are expensive, so farmers tend not to use them unless absolutely necessary, and then in the least amount possible for the needed benefit. 

Organic crops are thought to be grown without pesticides, but there are hundreds of pesticides approved for use on organic crops.  Most are organic ones, but in certain circumstances, as with a particularly difficult to control pest, USDA has rules in place to allow limited use of a few dozen synthetic pesticides is allowed, and the food produced can still be labeled “organic”. 

But Is Organic Food Healthier?

Twice the price,
but twice the benefit?

“Healthier” has no formal definition, but let’s say it means you have a lower risk of developing cancer, since that’s a highly desirable outcome by everyone.  Would eating organic food make you less likely to develop cancer?

This recent study wanted to find out.  It was a prospective study – meaning that it went on for years before results were determined.  As part of a large study involving 68,946 French participants, all volunteers “self-reported” the frequency of consumption of organic foods.  Responses about consumption were multiple choice and ranged from 1 (“most of the time”) to 7 (“never”), with an option for “I don’t know”.  Demographic information was also gathered, including about household income.  This was interesting, because the top household income bracket was US $3,100, hardly “upper income” even in 2009, when the study launched.

The Good News: Organic Eaters Had Less Cancer

More frequently eating organic foods was “associated” with lower your cancer risk.   Key word, “associated”.  It’s the bane of my existence because it is often interpreted as “cause-and-effect,” a very wrong assumption. 

Why?  This study was “observational”.  These types of studies aren’t designed to evaluate cause-and-effect.  They can only generate a hypothesis that clinical studies could then evaluate for more direct conclusions.  This study is incapable of making such conclusions.

Photo: www.inkmedia.eu

The not-so-good news: the benefit of eating organic was minimal, at best.  The risk of getting cancer went down only 0.6% — that’s 6/10ths of one percent, and only for the most frequent eaters of organic food.  Even then, the benefit may be less than reported. Read on… 

Limitations of the Study, A.K.A. the “Fine Print”

The authors responsibly called out a fairly lengthy list of limitations of this study, and why the results need to be seen with caution:

  1. The participants were volunteers who were “likely particularly health conscious individuals”, therefore limiting the application of the results to the general public.
  2. The questionnaire used asked about frequency of consumption but not quantity.    Also, possible misclassification of organic foods, “cannot be excluded.”
  3. Follow-up time was short – an average of only about 4½ years.  Cancer can take many years to develop and it’s unclear what the diets of these participants were prior to participation.
  4. Possible “residual confounding resulting from unmeasured factors or inaccuracy in the assessment of some covariates cannot be totally excluded.”  This means there is a lot they didn’t measure or that they couldn’t measure accurately. 
  5. They could not exclude the non-detection of some cancers. 

Cut-To-The-Chase-Nutrition Takeaways

  • Will eating organic food help prevent cancer? Not based on this study.
  • Organic food is expensive, and thus out of reach of many, even if they can find it.
  • Organic doesn’t mean pesticide-free. 
  • Focus on this: A mountain of research showing the health benefits (including cancer risk reduction) of eating plenty of fruits, vegetables, beans and whole grains, was done using conventional foods!