4 Unequivocal Lies We've Been Told About How Food Affects Our Health
by Amy Leisner
There are certain health platitudes that you’ve heard more times than you can count — probably from your parents or a teacher or some “expert” on Good Morning America. “Margarine is healthier than butter.” “Drinking milk will help you grow.” We’ve all come to accept these ideas as truth.
Which, of course we did.
They were presented in scientific studies by seemingly-credible sources. And who has the time, resources, and mental energy to research every single piece of health advice, especially those that have been accepted for a full century?
But fewer myths illustrate the power of good marketing quite like breakfast. We’ve all been told that “breakfast is the most important meal of the day” on countless occasions.
But is it? And what other lies have we been fed?
Is breakfast really “the most important meal of the day?”
The most important? Really? Where did this come from?
This particular health myth started in 1917 (which should tell you all you need to know about its accuracy — penicillin wasn’t even discovered yet). An article printed by an American dietician named Lenna Cooper appeared in Good Health magazine, which was published by the Battle Creek Sanitarium in Michigan. Seems credible, right? Welllll, this sanitarium just happened to be run by one Dr. John Harvey Kellogg. Yes, that Kellogg.
Cooper wasn’t just an independent dietician who conducted an unbiased study. Instead, she was a devout follower of Dr. Kellogg, mentored and influenced by his food and lifestyle philosophy. To quote her August 1917 study, “less attention is usually paid to breakfast…yet in many ways, it is the most important meal of the day, because it is the meal that gets the day started.”
And somehow, that vague, factless statement launched a century-long movement.
Dr. Kellogg, a prominent Seventh-day Adventist, used religion to bolster his claims about breakfast. And to his credit, it was perfect timing. There was a healthy-living fad sweeping the nation, and cereal was the breakfast of choice at the popular sanatoriums of the time; these sanatoriums taught people about the health benefits of a vegetarian lifestyle and eating bland, whole wheat foods to counter illness. Kellogg also believed that masturbation was the “greatest evil” and dull, healthy foods like corn flakes could prevent it. Not only was eating cereal for breakfast the healthy choice, but it was also the “moral” choice.
Kellogg also pushed the narrative that eating a light and healthy breakfast would make you a better and more efficient worker. And you know what Americans loved even more than being right in the eyes of the lord? Being a hard worker. Starting your day by doing the “right” thing and having that bowl of flakes made people feel accomplished and better about themselves.
And Kellogg wasn’t the only person profiting off of America’s newfound obsession with breakfast. Edward Bernays, a man who worked for the Beech-Nut company, persuaded 5,000 doctors to sign off on the idea that eating a heavy breakfast was healthier. Why? He wanted to sell more bacon. It worked.
Is it any wonder, then, why the idea of breakfast as the most important meal of the day is so ingrained in our culture?
So is breakfast…not the most important meal of the day?
The truth about breakfast is far more complicated. While plenty of studies since 1917 have demonstrated the potential benefits of breakfast—from energy to cognitive function—others have shown that delaying breakfast (or skipping it altogether) might lead to a greater calorie burn throughout the day and a better chance of losing weight.
Advocates of Intermittent Fasting (or, IF)—a popular diet that includes eating only during a short window of time each day-- have touted the health benefits of skipping breakfast, arguing that it improves blood sugar control and insulin sensitivity.
And since all of these studies create endless confusion and diverging opinions, it’s clear that there’s no real consensus that breakfast is definitively THE most important meal of the day, which flies in the face of our conventional wisdom.
What else have “They” been lying about?
How breakfast became “the most important meal of the day” is not only an interesting story; it also shows us how some studies can be utter and absolute bullshit.
As we’ve seen, all it takes are the right people with the right connections and enough money to conduct a study that conveniently lines their pockets. So if you’re someone who looks to these established pieces of health advice as a guiding light in your wellness decision-making process, it’s time to dig deeper into the sources of these studies, and maybe even turn up the bullshit-meter just a little.
And since you’re now probably questioning everything you’ve ever learned about health, you might be wondering what other preconceived bubbles we can burst. Here are a few more examples of commonly accepted health myths, the “studies” that they stemmed from, and the motives of the people funding those studies.
You know how fat supposedly causes heart disease? The sugar people decided that.
Back in the 1960’s, the sugar industry-funded research to show that sugar wasn’t so bad, and instead claimed that fat was the real health culprit. The “Sugar Research Foundation,” which was, of course, a sugar industry-funded group, had one major job: disassociate sugar with heart disease. And it worked like a charm. They proudly published their findings in the New England Journal of Medicine in 1967. And, not-so-shockingly, there was no disclosure of the origins of their funds (i.e. the sugar industry). This skewed research has made an impact on peoples’ diets and health for generations.
Think that working out is the best way to lose weight, rather than changing your diet? The soda people decided that.
Instead of addressing all of the health issues that are linked to sugar, Coca-Cola paid scientists to come up with a solution to the obesity crisis, suggesting that “to maintain a healthy weight,” people should “get more exercise, and worry less about cutting calories.” Their funding allowed scientists to spread this idea throughout medical journals, at conferences, and the scariest of the scary — on social media.
They even created a non-profit organization called the Global Energy Balance Network to push their agenda. This project launched as cities and schools began taxing or banning sugary drinks, and Coke sales were tanking. Are we surprised that they want you to believe that exercise is the answer to combating obesity, and that consuming 39 grams of sugar in one regular-sized can of Coke has little or nothing to do with it? No, we are not.
Milk: it does a body good. Right? The dairy industry decided that.
Specifically, the findings of a doctor named Jonathon Maguire. His research suggests that cow’s milk is “essential” for getting enough vitamin D (but what about the sun, Doc?) and that cow’s milk is “required” for proper human development. Sorry, but it’s a bit hard to believe we’re getting unbiased research about cow’s milk from someone who was awarded a $90,000 grant from the Dairy Farmers of Canada.
Is a skewed study going to be our ultimate demise? Welp, in the midst of a pandemic that’s killing thousands, legitimate science and verified facts are more important than ever.
And it’s frustrating and confusing that our typically-reliable sources may have ulterior motives. So how can you seek out the truth?
First, look at the timing. Like the Coke study, for example. If you’re hearing headlines about an industry that was once booming and is now tanking, but then suddenly see a “study” come out supporting it, this should raise some questions.
Take note of the details. What were the parameters of the study? How big was it, and how long did it last? Was it performed on humans or rats?
And most importantly, who’s the beneficiary? Who’s funding it? Is the study aimed at solving a true public health crisis, in which the main beneficiary is the public? Or does the study just establish that we should buy a specific product? Do the authors of the study have other associations or potential biases? Will someone start selling more of something because of this study? Are there less-biased follow-up studies that support the findings, especially studies from other countries and institutions? If it is exceptionally industry-specific, this could be a good reason to question the study’s validity.
Think critically.
But.
This is also not reason enough to disbelieve everything you read from legitimate sources and fall down a Youtube rabbit hole of anti-mask conspiracy theories. Theories and “facts” espoused by random people on the internet with zero legitimate credentials and unproven sources should also bear the same level (if not much more) scrutiny.
Amy Leisner is a Long Beach-based freelance writer who covers wellness for The Candidly. You can find more of her articles here.
