Professor Edith Feskens: “Nuance needed to debunk food myths”
Debunking food myths seems like a good thing and also makes for nice pelvic articles, but it has to be done carefully. Otherwise, one food myth will give way to another. That is the opinion of Professor of Global Nutrition Edith Feskens, affiliated with Wageningen University and Research.
“Food is an indispensable part of our lives and at the same time has been a subject of debate for many years. Because what one expert calls a nutrition myth, another calls healthy. The more traditional dietary guidelines sometimes seem outdated at a time when we prefer to focus on a diet without, for example, carbohydrates or with juices and shakes.New, revolutionary ideas are constantly emerging, which are then eagerly adopted and published.Scientists and media alike often make mistakes and do not look at what has been proven, but at what This causes unrest and confusion,” says professor Edith Feskens.
What is an example of painting a wrong picture about nutrition?
“Earlier this year, Tim Spector came out with his book spooned in. Some of the things in his book really shocked me. It doesn’t help when a renowned researcher says that certain things in the Wheel of Five are wrong. Spector does this mainly because he believes that food is personal. It is certainly good to see what suits a person, but that does not mean that the current dietary guidelines are not good for the average person. That is now being suggested and that is dangerous.”
Is there anything unambiguous about nutrition and health?
“Nutrition research is very complex, but there is certainly consensus about some things. Many saturated fats and trans fats lead to an increased LDL cholesterol level in your blood, which in turn can lead to cardiovascular disease. To prevent diabetes (type 2) and overweight must be tackled to be cured Salt raises your blood pressure – too high blood pressure increases the risk of cardiovascular disease The Wheel of Five is based on the best research available and is aimed at preventing diseases in society. It points everyone in the right direction. It may be slightly different for you, but that doesn’t mean it’s not healthy for the majority of people.”
Which food myths Spector wrongly debunks?
“Take eating fish. Spector argues that eating fish two to three times a week is not necessary for your health. He says it is better to think of it as a rare treat, because eating a lot of fish is not environmentally friendly and because there are farmed fish contain antibiotics and chemicals. All extremes are shown here. It is indeed certainly not necessary to eat fish two to three times a week. The Health Council recommends eating fish once a week. This protects against cardiovascular disease, especially if it’s oily fish (mackerel, herring, salmon, billy goat, sardines). You can then choose sustainably caught fish. Spector doesn’t add any nuances.”
Less water and more salt?
“With salty food and drinking water, Spector is also wrong. To start with the latter: he states that it is a myth that we have to drink one and a half liters a day. He only states this mainly from a sustainability point of view because a lot of bottled water is bought. That is indeed not good, but drinking tap water – at least in the Netherlands – is of course fine and also very cheap, making it a great alternative to sugary drinks.
As for salt, he states that 10-12 grams of salt per day should not be a problem, instead of the recommended amount of 5 grams. He says more and more studies are proving otherwise. I checked: those are bad studies. He also says you can take blood pressure lowering medication. I find that very strange, because you can also just prevent it.”
How can a renowned researcher say this?
“He is busy with person-oriented nutrition and the influence of everyone’s metabolism: what happens in your gut. Very interesting, but so little is known about it, that it is really too early to give advice about it. Meanwhile he undermines some well-researched advice. He’s certainly right that nutritional research is difficult. Long-term studies of diseases are scarce, so we often look at the shorter-term effects, such as on LDL cholesterol. This way you can get close to the truth come.”
Why do nutrition reports often go wrong?
“Scientists sometimes come to conclusions that are too bold. No wonder that journalists run away with that. Science must take responsibility for this and the media also has the responsibility to look at the bigger picture. I think journalists should be more critical, for example when discussing such a book. Ask other people about it, put nutritional research in a broader light.”
What are the dangers of nutritional myths?
“That you choose an extreme diet and eat one-sidedly. To be healthy, it is especially important that you have a varied diet that is easy to maintain. That starts with slowly replacing unhealthy products with healthy ones.”
Professor of Global Nutrition Edith Feskens is affiliated with Wageningen University and Research.
