The Myths About Nutrition Science

David Lightsey

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2019
• ISBN:
  9781000731125
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Medicine
• Subtopic: Nutrition, Dietics & Bariatrics

Many nutrition science and food production myths and misconceptions dominate the health and fitness field, and many athletes and active consumers unknowingly embrace a myriad of what can be deemed "junk science" which has now infiltrated many related science fields. Consumers simply have no reliable source to help them navigate through all the hype and fabrication, leaving them vulnerable to exploitation.

The aim of The Myths About Nutrition Science is, then, to address the quagmire of misinformation which is so pervasive in this area. This will enable the reader to make more objective, science-based lifestyle choices, as well as physical training or developmental decisions. The book also enables the reader to develop the necessary critical thinking skills to better evaluate the reliability of the purported "science" as reported in the media and health-related magazines or publications.

The Myths About Nutrition Science provides an authoritative yet readily understandable overview of the common misunderstandings that are commonplace within consumer and athlete communities regarding the food production process and nutrition science, which may affect their physical development, performance, and long-term health.

1
THE CONSUMER/ATHLETE'S SOURCE OF NUTRITION INFORMATION

Who Is Reliable?

Counterfeit science has become prevalent in all areas of the sciences, and it can be argued that unreliable information plagues the nutritional sciences more than most. Nutrition “science” has become so contradictory that one must learn to take every new “study” which declares to enlighten us about some purported nutritional health threat or benefit with a large grain of salt.

There are several factors why most athletes and active consumers find the process of acquiring good information in this area so problematic, contradictory, and confusing. First, the average athlete or active consumer gives too much credibility to the advice provided by unqualified sources, such as the media, which will be discussed separately in Chapter 2, as well as friends, the supplement industry, gym personnel, magazine articles, much of the internet, books, and personal trainers, as well as most coaches. The second factor are those who seek advice from those who should be good resources—such as certified athletic trainers, certified strength and conditioning coaches, and exercise physiologists, as well as registered dietitians—who may in fact not be good sources of information due to the lack of professional training from their respective programs of study, as well as failing to pursuing continuing education from appropriate sources.

Following, I will briefly discuss the problems and value of each potential resource of nutrition science information.

Friends

This resource is essentially the blind leading the blind. Unless the friend happens to have a formal degree in the area, the athlete seeking information from a friend is highly unlikely to receive it, but instead, obtain potentially dangerous information, especially among teenage males. As an example, several years ago, I had a student attending my class, who, during his senior year in high school, was being recruited by several Division I college football programs as a running back. This all changed one afternoon during his senior year while working out with his teammates in the weight room. He had already ingested what he had stated was his pre-workout drink which had already “amped him up quite a bit.” Regardless, he succumbed to the advice of his friends he was training with and tried several other versions of similar products, which soon after led to a heart attack in the gym before completing his workout, and then a stroke on the way to the hospital. This obviously put an end to his football pursuit. The details of his blood pressure at the time of the incident were not available, but there is certainly a logical assumption which can be made: that the resulting high blood pressure from the supplements, in combination with the heavy lifting, played a significant role in the incident.

Here is a bit of advice for those reading this book: many teenage males are making lifestyle decisions in environments where you have a combination of raging testosterone, undeveloped intelligence, no wisdom, and the desire to assume any risk, believing they are immune from the potential consequences. Combine that with often no adult male supervision, and this can be summed up as a disaster just waiting to happen. As a result, teenage male athletes are far too likely to pursue the boundaries of behavior which can be potentially disastrous to themselves or others, so they are not a wise choice for seeking guidance from.

The Supplement Industry

The supplement industry, for the most part, is a modern version of a snake oil salesman. The Cambridge Business English Dictionary describes a snake oil salesman as “someone who deceives people in order to get money from them.”¹ Wikiquote describes a snake oil salesman as “someone who knowingly sells fraudulent goods or who is himself or herself a fraud, quack, charlatan, and the like.” The Free Dictionary describes a snake oil salesman as “someone who sells, promotes, or is a general proponent of some valueless or fraudulent cure, remedy, or solution.” Just take your pick, because they all apply to most of the supplement industry. If the supplement industry relied on the facts and truth, most of its market would not exist.

From 1988–1990, Jerry Attaway, M.Ed., who at the time was the physical development coordinator for the San Francisco 49ers, and I worked on a project for the National Council Against Health Fraud, addressing the deceptive marketing methods used by the sports supplement industry to fleece and exploit the typical misunderstandings of most athletes.

The investigation resulted in the publication of a paper with the same title in the National Strength and Conditioning Association Journal in April 1992 entitled “Deceptive Tactics Used in Marketing Purported Ergogenic Aids.” This paper, as well as other work I was doing at the time, led to a 1996 appearance on Dateline NBC called “Hype in a Bottle,” as well as a CBS Evening News appearance regarding the steroid issue in Major League Baseball, and later a book called Muscles, Speed, and Lies—What the Sport Supplement Industry Does Not Want Athletes to Know in 2006. All this highlighted the fact that for the supplement industry to survive, it must develop a fabricated market for most of its products, and to do so requires deceptive marketing methods, which misinforms consumers rather than informs them. These practices include, but are not limited to, the following:

• Misrepresenting clinical studies or taking them out of context.
• False, exaggerated, or purchased endorsements.
• Unreliable testimonials often provided by athletes who are clearly using steroids.
• Patent misrepresentation. Patents do not indicate the product has been proven to be effective or safe, just different, which most consumers misunderstand.
• False advertising.
• Fabricating research or omitting relevant facts.
• Stating the product has been university tested when in fact it has not been.
• Claiming their research is not for public review due to the “proprietary” blend of ingredients.

Before considering advice from the supplement industry, consider the wisdom that there are certain situations where “no advice is better than bad advice.” I believe this phrase applies to this industry. The liability of supplements chapter will further illustrate this point.

Gyms and Personal Trainers

Gyms are essentially an extension of the supplement industry. They often rely on in-house supplement sales to enhance their profit margins by utilizing the same misinformation developed by the supplement industry. Gym staff are largely poorly educated in this area and have a limited science background. Personal trainers who are only “certified” lack the understanding necessary to be a reliable source. In 2013, researchers from Florida International University published “Sports Nutrition Knowledge and Practices of Personal Trainers” in the journal Community Medicine & Health Education.² They assessed the sports nutrition knowledge and practices of 60 personal trainers from 14 different fitness centers in South Florida, as well as 69 personal trainers at the annual National Strength and Conditioning Associations conference. They found that the average knowledge score of personal trainers was 59.7%. Now, if you were a student of mine, I would of course round this percentage up to your advantage for a “D” grade in the course, but either way, this individual would not be someone I would seek out for guidance in this area. Now, I am not embracing this research study from Florida International University as my only source of reasoning for my position on personal trainers. It only supports what I have heard personally from this population group for 30 years, many of whom have been my own students.

Magazines

As with the general media, magazines face the same associated problems of unqualified journalists with no science background attempting to write informative articles on subjects they may have little to no understanding of. This is not to say that there are not journalists who can produce good work in this area, which there are, but, as with the media in general, this is far more of an infrequent occurrence than a common occurrence: uncommon enough to make most magazines an unreliable source. Magazines can produce good work, but the reader essentially needs a degree in the field to know when the information is reliable, as I state in Chapter 2. However, even when the journalist has a background in science, it does not always guarantee good investigative journalism or the prevention of fabricated, fearful headlines which exaggerate what the raw data states.

Let me illustrate this issue using what is considered by most consumers as a very reliable source of objective information on many subjects: Consumer Reports (CR). Unlike my point made previously, whereas most magazines utilize journalists with no science background, the three following examples of shoddy science journalism comes from writers with science backgrounds. The first article was produced by CR staff and the remaining two by specific CR staff who are reported to be “scientist turned journalist.”

On September 17, 2017, CR published the article “5 Vegetables That Are Healthier Cooked.”³ CR tries to make the case that five vegetables—carrots, mushrooms, spinach, asparagus, and tomatoes (which botanically is a fruit)—are better for you if cooked vs. eaten raw. CR initially states that the tips they provide will “unleash their full potential in terms of nutrition.” Is this statement true, or is it just another spin on an irrelevant issue to attract readers?

• Carrots: CR states “cooking ignites this veggie’s cancer-fighting carotenoids,” by increasing the “concentration of carotenoids by 14 percent.” First, it is true that carotenoids are one of the many plant chemicals which are associated with reduced cancer rates among those who consume them. However, this is an association, not a cause-and-effect relationship. It is the synergistic effect of the many thousands of plant chemicals that appear to be responsible for this effect, and not the isolation of any specific one, as I will repeat many times in this book. To state that just because cooking increases the concentrations of carotenoids from carrots will “ignite” carrots’ cancer-fighting potential is a spin. Obtaining more of any plant chemical does not necessarily equate with improved health. The carrot already provides more than enough carotenoids in any state of ingestion. Just because you purportedly ingest 14% more is meaningless. More does not mean better; it’s just more.
• Mushrooms: CR states “a cup of cooked white mushrooms has about twice as much muscle-building potassium, heart-healthy niacin, immune-boosting zinc, and bone-strengthening magnesium as a cup of raw ones.” This statement can almost qualify as a bad riddle. Before you continue reading, stop for a moment and re-read what CR just stated. What is the glaring problem with this statement? It is related to one simple word: cup. CR really is comparing the nutrient content of a cup of cooked mushrooms, which has likely four times the number of mushrooms per cup, to a cup of raw mushrooms? What CR should have done was compare the actual number of mushrooms cooked vs. raw, not the volume of them. A mushroom is 92% water by weight, so when you cook them, the volume is significantly reduced—so of course a cup of cooked mushrooms will have substantially more nutrients. This is common sense.
• Spinach: CR states, “The leafy green is packed with nutrients [true], but you’ll absorb more calcium and iron if you eat it cooked.” This is blamed on the oxalic acid in spinach. Oxalic acid is commonly believed to bind with both minerals and prevent their absorption. However, this would only apply to the two minerals contained in the spinach and not from other food sources you may be having with your meal, such as milk for the calcium and any meat item or beans for your iron. Additionally, there are some data indicating that the oxalic acid in spinach may not actually prevent the iron absorption. A study done in 2008, using iron isotope absorption in humans, concluded, “Our results strongly suggest that oxalic acid in plant foods does not inhibit iron absorption.” This study was published in the European Journal of Clinical Nutrition and conducted at Institute of Food Science and Nutrition, ETH Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.⁴
• Asparagus: CR states, “Cooking these stalks raised the level of six nutrients, including cancer-fighting antioxidants.” The value of antioxidants individually has been overemphasized for well over a decade. They are important, but all plants contain them, and they are readily supplied by any plant-based diet, cooked or otherwise....

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title
• Copyright
• Contents
• List of Figures
• List of Tables
• Acknowledgements
• 1 The Consumer/Athlete's Source of Nutrition Information: Who Is Reliable?
• 2 The "Health News": Why the Media Are Unreliable
• 3 Chemophobia and the Boy Who Cried Wolf
• 4 The Fabricated Organic Food Market
• 5 Obesity: Whose Responsibility Is It? The Blame Game
• 6 Protein Needs of Athletes: Seven Misconceptions
• 7 Three Reasons Supplements Will Not Benefit Most People
• 8 Antioxidant Supplements: Another Magic Bullet, or False Icon for Better Health and Performance?
• 9 Supplements: Are You Playing Russian Roulette With Your Health?
• 10 Anti-Inflammatory, Detox, and Ketogenic Diets
• 11 Genetically Engineered Food: "Frankenfood" or Immensely Beneficial Technology?
• 12 Miscellaneous Myths and Misinformation
• Index