I missed the edit window, but thought of a couple other health myths:
SSRIs do essentially nothing for mild to moderate depression, they work about as well as placebo.
All those medical advances in the 20th century which focus on individual medicine did very little for life expectancy. Of the 30 or so years in life expectancy added in the 20th century, about 25 years came from public health like better nutrition, fewer toxins, vaccines, sanitation, clean water, etc. The other 5 years were from private medicine which includes all the drugs, surgeries and medical devices combined.
Not that those didn’t improve health span or quality of life, but life expectancy didn’t change much due to individual medicine.
Here is one I assume is a myth: Water is somehow better than other forms of liquid. I seriously doubt this is true, most liquids are about 95% water. Even milk is 87% water. I seriously doubt your stomach or intestines give a damn if your water comes from tap water or from milk or gatorade (or food or anything else).
Here is another one, but I don’t know how much of a myth it is yet: Creating a sterile environment free of pathogenic microbes is good for us. This ties into the public health thing earlier. Yeah, it is generally good to get rid of all the pathogens in our environment but there is now speculation that we have created an environment so sterile that our immune systems are malfunctioning, which is leading to an increase in autoimmune disorders. It is called the hygiene hypothesis, and there is some research (not sure how advanced) on intentionally infecting people with autoimmune disorders with parasites to help reregulate the immune system and stop it from attacking the host.
In general, you can’t lose weight even with a good diet without exercise, or have exercise be effective unless you improve your diet. There is no magic pill. I get asked this a lot.
I’m glad he clarified that. Otherwise he would have a hard time explaining how Michael Phelps can eat 12,000 calories a day during training but gain no weight. He burns an average of 500 calories/hour, 24 hours/day!
Missed edit window. The [12.000 calorie figure is incorrect](Bonci estimates that to support his 6-foot-4-inch, approximately 190-pound frame, Phelps’ rigorous training regime requires roughly 1,000 calories per hour while he is racing or training; she suggests he probably eats closer to 6,000 calories per day.), it should be ~7,000 calories per day and ~350 average calories per hour burned per hour, 24 hours per day.
I think basic calories in / calories out thinking is a signficant health myth. Ironically so, as it is usually advanced in a lets-all-just-cut-the-bullshit fashion in response to someone talking about a new diet.
Viewing the human body as a furnace, where all calorific content of food is processed in broadly the same way (ie burnt) would seem a childishly simple view of metabolism.
I wish people would stop claiming that urine is sterile, and by implication harmless and pathogen- free. Urine is sterile - **but **only in the bladder. So unless you’re medical personnel extracting urine directly from a bladder with a great damn big needle, you’ve never in your life encountered truly sterile urine. And new studies are beginning to doubt it’s sterile even in the bladder. Stop peeing on things, you guys.
These are the kind of things I was looking for, glad more are sharing with us.
Penn Gillette blasts this myth too in one of the episodes with Bullshit, and goes further with it saying many won’t get there no matter how much exercise or diet they choose. He really doesn’t like all of those health guru’s pushing their latest and greatest workout and diets, just do this in X amount of time, X amount of days, eat this and that, and you too can obtain amazing abs, or whatever kind of rock hard body you imagined. As he explains there are a certain lower percentage of people, who even if they had gotten out of shape, already had the genetics to begin with to benefit the most, while most are doomed to never be able to remotely achieve any of that, and others still generally should get something out of it. Some just hit the genetic jackpot.
There’s also an excellent show on PBS, The truth about exercise with Michael Mosley that I found really interesting; he does a good job of explaining how certain genetic tests can determine beforehand just how much each individual may or may not get out of exercise.
If that show claimed that there currently exists such tests that can do more than tell you one small sliver of information, then it may be guilty of creating a myth as well.
As far as exercise goes there is no reason to believe that health benefits of exercise are in aggregate less important for some than for others, even if one is more genetically well suited for sprinting rather than endurance running or body building than either of them.
Thanks for that link. Back to square one. That’s why I created the topic, to try to reasonably discern if such is the case or not, and after each reviewing what they want to look at, each can decide what is more likely they think true. It’s been over a year since I watched the show, but it seemed very convincing that their genetic test was a great predictor of who was going to benefit and who wasn’t at the time, and for the rest of us who were going to fall in between.
When I get time, I’ll try to see if it is still available for public viewing assuming anybody wants to watch it. It was at one time, but the latest video expired. I know of a few doctors now that are recommending this 3 minute a week of intense exercise program, my ex-gf being one that is also on it. Even that seems to be getting results.
Most likely TV shows like “Extreme Weight Loss” and “Biggest Loser”. Showing the contestants sitting with a nutritionist and making good food choices doesn’t make for good reality TV, so there’s a marked emphasis on exercise on those shows.
Plus, there’s been a lot of marketing by exercise equipment manufacturers and gym owners for decades now saying that exercise = weight loss, and there’s not any food manufacturers advertising “Eat less of our products for weight loss!” or “Serving size 27% smaller for weight loss!”
So people equate exercise with weight loss, and are generally ignorant of the fact that the human body is really efficient (why you’re fat in the first place), and that you have to devote a fairly significant amount of time to exercise to show results without diet control.
I haven’t found this to be true. I’ve lost weight numerous times just by changing my diet, no excercise change at all. And I’ve also seen some very athletic people who eat horribly.
I’ll stick by: If you want to lose weight change your diet, if you want to be in better shape/health then excercise.
I’ll give you that niacin has been shown not to be helpful, that there is insufficient data on fish oil and that use of statins for primary prevention of coronary disease, especially in those at low risk of heart disease and in women does not have the data that it does in other cases. In addition, there are many other factors besides LDL alone that govern cardiovascular risk. However, irrespective of actual cholesterol level, statins have definitely been shown to have a beneficial effect on prevention of cardiac disease in diabetics in patients without coronary disease but with coronary risk factors in patients with prior coronary disease and even in the general public.
Here are the latest recommendations:
The guideline recommends statin therapy for the following groups:
•People without cardiovascular disease who are 40 to 75 years old and have a 7.5 percent or higher risk for heart attack or stroke within 10 years.
•People with a history of heart attack, stroke, stable or unstable angina, peripheral artery disease, transient ischemic attack, or coronary or other arterial revascularization.
•People 21 and older who have a very high level of bad cholesterol (190 mg/dL or higher).
•People with Type 1 or Type 2 diabetes who are 40 to 75 years old.
(American Heart Association and American College of Cardiology guidelines November, 2013)
Again however, the reality is based on the limited definition of “benefit” - in this case defining benefit by degree of absolute change in VO2 max. VO2 max is a pretty good marker for the sort of aerobic capacity needed for endurance athletics. It is not the only benefit of exercise; it is not even the only marker that correlates with athletic performance. Which marker means more for athletic performance depends, of course, on what the athletic activity is, but more so even a high VO2 max does not correlate so great with endurance event athletic performance … by itself it does not mean enough. There is also lactate threshold, for example, which also likely has a genetically determined limit which likely plays into whether or not one is a high, low, or medium “responder” to different sorts of exercise*. And there is no reason to believe that the genes that determine the limit for one are exactly the same as the genes for the other … let alone for how much benefit exercise has in terms of slow twitch or fast twitch responses to exercise, or insulin sensitivity response, or response on visceral fat, or blood pressure, or risk for stroke or dementia … you get the idea.
It illustrates how many health myths get started though. One true statement that a media source takes out of context and overgeneralizes and overstates.
*Assuming lowish baseline fitness to begin and that regular moderate aerobic exercise will get anyone 75% of the way to their max, then someone with a high genetically determined upper limit will have a bigger absolute response than someone whose genetically determined limit is much lower.
And another example, beat to death in previous threads, where a media source takes a kernel of truth (that BMI is not a perfect tool in and of itself to determine “overweight” in individuals) and then distorts it into untruths.
BMI is far from mostly useless. It is, as noted by the cited article, an excellent (not perfect) tool for studying population risks (even if the lowest risks end up not correlating perfectly with what has gotten labelled as “normal” and might overlap slightly with what gets labelled as “overweight”). And very very few have so much muscle mass that they will be labelled “obese” by BMI and not actually be obese (yes, it takes the muscle mass of a bodybuilder like The Rock to get there, and few with a BMI much over 30 are built like that).
Few tools are perfect and the BMI is not in that list (it will also miss those with normal BMI who have little muscle mass and carry the fat they have all centrally) …mostly useless though? Nowhere close. A lie? No.
That’s why I created the topic, to try to reasonably discern if such is the case or not, and after each reviewing what they want to look at, each can decide what is more likely they think true. It’s been over a year since I watched the show, but it seemed very convincing that their genetic test was a great predictor of who was going to benefit and who wasn’t at the time, and for the rest of us who were going to fall in between.