6 Biggest Myths About Food Busted

The other day while I was making zucchini bread, I cracked an egg and dumped it right down the drain. Total mistake. (With a baby who still wakes up multiple times a night, I’m still a little sleep deprived.) There was a time, however, when I intentionally washed egg yolks down the drain—and used only the whites—because I thought that egg yolks were bad for my heart.

Joyce Hendley tackles this food myth and 12 others in the September/October issue of EatingWell Magazine.

Here are the details of why you should go ahead and eat the yolks, plus highlights of other food myths that just won’t die.

1 of 6

Myth 1: Eggs are bad for your heart.

1 of 7

First Slide

Previous Slide

@

The Truth: Eggs do contain a substantial amount of cholesterol in their yolks—about 211 mg per large egg. And yes, cholesterol is the fatty stuff in our blood that contributes to clogged arteries and heart attacks. But labeling eggs as “bad for your heart” is connecting the wrong dots, experts say. “Epidemiologic studies show that most healthy people can eat an egg a day without problems,” says Penny Kris-Etherton, Ph.D., R.D., distinguished professor of nutrition at Penn State University. For most of us the cholesterol we eat doesn’t have a huge impact on raising our blood cholesterol; the body simply compensates by manufacturing less cholesterol itself. Saturated and trans fats have much greater impact on raising blood cholesterol. And a large egg contains only 2 grams of saturated fat and no trans fats. The American Heart Association recommends limiting cholesterol intake to less than 300 mg daily—less than 200 mg if you have a history of heart problems or diabetes or are over 55 (women) or 45 (men). “That works out to less than an egg a day for this population—more like two eggs over the course of the week,” notes Kris-Etherton. Related: Two Dozen Easy, Healthy Egg Recipes

Expensive dishes

Red Hook In The Blizzard

Threatened Fish and Shellfish

gadgets/slideshows/233346/slide_233346_1108830_small.jpg

Food Robots Around The World

World's Most Gut-Busting Meals

Doritos Locos Experiments

The Truth: Eggs do contain a substantial amount of cholesterol in their yolks—about 211 mg per large egg. And yes, cholesterol is the fatty stuff in our blood that contributes to clogged arteries and heart attacks. But labeling eggs as “bad for your heart” is connecting the wrong dots, experts say. “Epidemiologic studies show that most healthy people can eat an egg a day without problems,” says Penny Kris-Etherton, Ph.D., R.D., distinguished professor of nutrition at Penn State University. For most of us the cholesterol we eat doesn’t have a huge impact on raising our blood cholesterol; the body simply compensates by manufacturing less cholesterol itself. Saturated and trans fats have much greater impact on raising blood cholesterol. And a large egg contains only 2 grams of saturated fat and no trans fats. The American Heart Association recommends limiting cholesterol intake to less than 300 mg daily—less than 200 mg if you have a history of heart problems or diabetes or are over 55 (women) or 45 (men). “That works out to less than an egg a day for this population—more like two eggs over the course of the week,” notes Kris-Etherton.


Related: Two Dozen Easy, Healthy Egg Recipes

comments(1054)

Total comments: 1054 | Post a Comment

1 of 7

Rate This Slide

Rank #2  |  Average: 4

• 
  1
• 
  2
• 
  3
• 
  4
• 
  5
• 
  6
• 
  7
• 
  8
• 
  9
• 
  10

Current Top 5 Slides

loading...

Choose your Top 5 Slides

UserName

 | Become a fan

Picked These as the Top 5 Slides in the Slideshow

loading...

Top User Slides

← Prev|Next →

 | Become a fan

Picked These as the Top 5 Slides in the Slideshow

loading...

Users who voted on this slide

← Prev|Next →

loading...

More Food Myths Busted:

• It's important to fast periodically, to cleanse toxins from your body.


• I have a weight problem because I eat foods like wheat or dairy that my body can't process.


• You crave certain foods because you're deficient in one of the nutrients they provide.


• Grazing on mini meals throughout the day keeps your metabolism stoked and helps you control your weight better than eating fewer, larger meals.


• Carbohydrates make you fat.


• Anyone can benefit from a gluten-free diet: it can give you more energy and even treat autism.


• Calories eaten at night are more fattening than those eaten early in the day.

What food myth are you sick of hearing people defend?

By Nicci Micco

Nicci Micco is deputy editor of features and nutrition at EatingWell and co-author of EatingWell 500-Calorie Dinners. She has a master's degree in nutrition and food sciences, with a focus in weight management.

Related Links from EatingWell:

• 5 "Bad" Foods You Should Be Eating


• 10 Expert Food Rules to Follow


• 5 Food Myths Busted: Grocery shopping mistakes that are costing you money and quality


• Get a free trial issue when you subscribe to EatingWell Magazine and sign up for our free e-newsletters!

 

Follow EatingWell on Twitter: www.twitter.com/eatingwell

Comments

[onalimb]

10:41 AM on 10/25/2010

Hum... seems like the HFCS, micro manufactures & incredible edible egg people put out their funded research for this list.

[Ljilja]

08:59 AM on 10/21/2010

I am still not sold on the microwaves. I would rather not take the chance, plus I just don't like what they do to the taste of food.

http://graciouslivingdaybyday.com/

[laurelei23]

08:31 PM on 10/20/2010

You can bet that in five years every single one of these "busted myths" will be busted all over.

I no longer trust the doctors, the food police, or the food industry to tell -- or even know -- the truth. I do almost all my own cooking, just pulled two loaves out of the oven an hour ago. And avoid processed food. If there's processing to do, I do it. Maybe I won't live any longer, but at least I'll eat well and enjoy it.

[Horus45]

10:06 AM on 09/27/2010

See what Dr. Weil says about HFCS.
Besides making you fat, HFCS causes Pancreatic cancer to grow faster.

http://www.drweil.com/drw/u/QAA400798/High-Fructose-Corn-Syrup-A-Cancer-Threat.html

[Hematite]

03:23 PM on 09/29/2010

That is a misrepresentation of the UCLA study, which looked at the effect of fructose, not HFCS, on rat pancreatic cancer cells in culture. There is only slightly more fructose in HFCS than in sucrose. Even assuming that HFCS is worse than sucrose is based on this slight difference in fructose content, it only could be a little bit worse and not as bad as honey or agave nectar, both of which contain more fructose than HFCS. In fact, there have been no studies showing that HFCS is worse than sucrose. This includes the recent "Princeton study."

[Levi Wilson]

02:07 PM on 10/13/2010

There are two studies. One implicates glucose in stimulating growth of cancers. The other implicates fructose in stimulating metastasis.

[Jim Infantino]

05:48 PM on 09/21/2010

Call me crazy, but doesn't Myth #5 somewhat contradict Myth #3?

#5
“The longer and hotter you cook a food, the more you’ll lose certain heat- and water-sensitive nutrients, especially vitamin C and thiamin [a B vitamin].”

#3
“Raw foods are unprocessed so nothing’s taken away; you don’t get the nutrient losses that come with cooking,”

[Matt-S]

05:06 PM on 09/22/2010

Errr #5 says some nutrients are lost with cooking. #3 says some nutrients are lost with cooking. What's the problem ?

[Hematite]

04:30 PM on 09/21/2010

There is an irony and a lesson here: the fact that HFCS is in everything today is at least partly the result of two previous food panics: the cane sugar panic of the 80's, when fructose was being pushed as a healthy alternative to sucrose because of its lower glycemic index, and the fat panic of of the past 30 years, which has caused food producers to add extra sugar to their products to compensate for the loss of flavor from reducing fat.

Now we have an HFCS panic. What unintended consequences will that have? How many people reading about the evils of HFCS will just start consuming the same amount of sucrose or some other sugar, because it happens not to have the word "fructose" in its name, and how will that affect health, and what new panic will it engender?

Meanwhile, the skin cancer, unsafe playgrounds and ever present child abduction panics continue to reduce childrens' access to the outdoors, and the growth of structured after-school activities and the absurd excess of homework brought about by the "our schools our failing" panic is eliminating play and exercise, assuring decades of future panic about obesity, regardless of what we eat.

[Moper]

05:07 PM on 09/23/2010

Very well put. We are so reactionary and non-proactive! Fanned.

[DavidMG]

10:19 AM on 09/21/2010

The book "American Wholefoods Cuisine" lays out a 'wholefoods philosophy' which says essentailly: 1. Stick with foods that humans have eaten historically, 2. eat them intact (whole) and 3. in great variety. The book has been in print since 1983 so it seems to be doing something right..

[Hematite]

10:53 AM on 09/21/2010

And "Chariots of the Gods" came out in 1968 and it still is in print, too.

[DavidMG]

01:43 PM on 09/21/2010

I couldn't understand your gratuitous sarcasm until I checked your profile. FYI we are two of the few (perhaps only) vegetarian proponents whot do not have a problem with of grass fed/organic meat - preferably in limited amounts..

[Hematite]

08:38 PM on 09/20/2010

The amount of scientific ignorance shown in the comments here is appalling. It's not just that people have such strong opinions on subjects about which they know nothing, but also the elaborate defenses they have set up to guard their opinions from anything that challenges them. Believing something strongly doesn't make it true, even if you have a Youtube video to support your belief. If you don't know the difference between fructose, glucose, HFCS, and sucrose, you might at least consider the possibility that your opinions on the subject o sugar could be better informed.

[zymos]

09:09 AM on 09/21/2010

Flagged as "Abusive"??
The truth hurts...

[Ribozymes]

03:25 PM on 09/26/2010

People have strong opinions because they do not have access to facts, uncertainty prevails. Companies and proponents of products have to provide the necessary links to the documents giving the evidences of safety so that the public can check. Social responsibility includes giving adequate information about the researches done on the nature and safety of the product.

[Rapier]

07:41 PM on 09/20/2010

Is the logic on the egg myth a little confusing? Either cholesterol intake has an impact, or it doesn't. Either the AHA is correct in limiting cholesterol intake to less than 300mg or it is not. Which one is it?

[judyinAK]

11:37 PM on 09/20/2010

That is a good question. But I don't think anyone really knows. The workings of the body are not completely understood, so when this article makes blanket statements about microwaves, eggs, or corn syrup, the author sounds very confident but the reality is that we completely know the effect of these things on our bodies. There are many factors involved and I would have liked to be reminded of that in this article a lot more.

[judyinAK]

11:47 PM on 09/20/2010

we DON'T completely know the effect of these things on our bodies...oops

[Joey Gil]

06:56 PM on 09/22/2010

It's simple arithmetic. Your body has a set point of cholesterol. If you eat an egg with cholesterol, your body makes less of it, so your blood cholesterol stays at the set point. But if you eat more cholesterol than your body needs, you'll be over the set point.

So don't eat an excessive amount of eggs. If you eat under the recommended amount, there's no difference between that and not eating eggs cholesterol wise. Either way, you'll be at the body's setpoint.

[Tony Ellis]

05:56 PM on 09/20/2010

Quite apart from the dangers of consuming too much refined sugar, HFCS is made from genetically modified (GMO) corn which has huge health risks (see http://www.nongmoshoppingguide.com/SG/AboutGMOs/index.cfm). These kind of articles are part of an ongoing campaign conducted by shills for agro- business to make HFCS appear safe. It's not. Of course, it's your choice what you eat, but at least do some research first on the potential dangers of ingesting any kind of GMO foods.

[Matt-S]

01:28 AM on 09/21/2010

There are dangers to non-GM foods too. Consider how many people have allergies to non-GM foods. Do you have any evidence (scientific studies please) that GM foods have any *unique* dangers, that do not occur in non-GM foods?

[Moellis]

06:41 AM on 09/21/2010

The American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM) reported that “Several animal studies indicate serious health risks associated with GM food,” including infertility, immune problems, accelerated aging, faulty insulin regulation, and changes in major organs and the gastrointestinal system. The AAEM asked physicians to advise patients to avoid GM foods. You can read their position paper here: http://www.aaemonline.org/gmopost.html

[Ainsaade]

04:05 PM on 09/20/2010

HFCS may be calorie for calorie the same as sugar, but it's dangerous because it's insidious - has about 20 different names, and you find it in absolutely everything that's been processed, even things that aren't meant to be sweet. Also, when it's put in a processed food, it's not a teaspoon full or two, it's a whole lot more. So yes, when you compare sugar and HFCS side by side, they're the same calorically, but it's a misleading comparison.

[Hematite]

02:26 PM on 09/21/2010

THIS is a good argument against HFCS, although cane sugar can (and has) been overused in the same way. Making something sweet is a cheap way of giving it taste crudely good, and helps make up for the lack of flavor that often happens when fat is reduced. I've noticed that low calorie foods are especially likely to be pumped full of sugar.

[Ainsaade]

02:52 PM on 09/21/2010

Exactly. If you look at 2% milk vs. nonfat, or 2% yogurt vs. nonfat, the nonfat has zero fat but more carbs, which eventually turn into fat anyway. And that's only one example.

[TaurusRose]

03:46 PM on 09/20/2010

Sorry Nicci Micci, your question should read

"What food FACT are you sick of hearing DEBUNKED"???

[Vanessa Belle]

02:55 PM on 09/20/2010

"Acute fructose does not stimulate insulin (or leptin).

"No recepetor for fructose or the beta cell that makes insluin so the insulin does not go up, if the insulin does not go up then leptin doesn't go up, if leptin doesn't go up then your brain doesn't see that you ate something. Therefore you eat more."

Dr. Robert H. Lustig, "Sugar the Bitter Truth"

[Vanessa Belle]

03:01 PM on 09/20/2010

typo .. "receptor"

[Joey Gil]

07:00 PM on 09/22/2010

That only holds true for pure fructose. HFCS has almost 50/50 fructose and sucrose, like table sugar. So that's a good reason to stay away from pure fructose, but not a good reason to stay away from HFCS anymore than regular table sugar.

[Joey Gil]

07:10 PM on 09/22/2010

sorry, meant 50/50 fructose and glucose.

[Hematite]

07:48 PM on 09/22/2010

Which is the essential point so many here are missing. Using studies showing the bad effects of fructose to argue that HFCS is worse than sucrose is like using studies showing the bad effects of alcohol to argue that whiskey is worse than rum.

[adamsmith431]

02:54 PM on 09/20/2010

Thanks for the information.
cheap cars for sale

[Vanessa Belle]

02:48 PM on 09/20/2010

"Fructose is a poison."

"Fructose does suppress ghrelin" (ghrelin is the hunger hormone) and as a result we eat more.

"Fruostose consumption changes the way your brain recognizes energy all in a negative fashion. So that you basically think you're starving. Your brain gets the signal that you are starving even though your fat cells are all generating signals that say I am full."

From Dr. Robert Lustig, "Sugar the Bitter Truth" video.

[flipsmack]

03:52 PM on 09/20/2010

A small toke of some herb provides the same set of circumstances. Only everything seems to taste better. ;)

[Hematite]

08:41 PM on 09/20/2010

And he said it in a video. That makes it extra-true.

[Vanessa Belle]

08:52 PM on 09/20/2010

"Robert H. Lustig, MD, UCSF Professor of Pediatrics in the Division of Endocrinology"

And your credentials? No need to answer.

Your point is pointless.

Here is the link for anyone interested:

"Sugar the Bitter Truth"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

[Levi Wilson]

02:23 PM on 10/13/2010

Actually, Lustig's research is quite compelling. He also makes the case that fructose is metabolized by the liver in the same fashion as alcohol, in other words, like a toxin. Thats why we now have conditions like non-alcoholic cirrhosis of the liver.