How are we caught in the trap of the importance of milk and carrots?
We all grew up on health tips that we dealt with as facts and axioms, and we passed on generation after generation, to come science and prove that what we thought a solid fact are just impressions are not scientifically groundless, here are some of the most prominent tips refuted by science:
The relationship of the islands to view
"Eating carrots strengthens eyesight," mothers still use that advice to this day to urge their children to eat carrots, which is popular all over the world as it preserves the health of the eyes and improves night vision, and most of them treat it as a scientific fact raised by generations and generations. Transfer to new generations, but the fact proved by science that the islands do not strengthen eyesight.
The link between sight and islands originated from a legend that emerged - according to an article published on Healthline - during World War II, where RAF pilots first began using radar to target and shoot down enemy aircraft, and to obscure the existence of radar technology and try to keep this new technology secret. The British government promoted targeted and misleading propaganda attributed to the accuracy of the pilots' vision, especially at night, to eating islands.
|The relationship between the power of vision and the islands originated from a British legend (Pixabee)|
This has led to a long-term publicity campaign promoting the islands for a better view to date.
This does not mean, of course, that carrots are unhelpful, but rather a rich source of beta-carotene, which is used to make vitamin A inside the body, and vitamin A helps the eye to turn light into a signal that can travel to the brain, allowing people to see in Under low light conditions, Emily Chew, deputy clinical director at the National Eye Institute, told Scientific American.
But this advantage is not unique to carrots, but it is more useful and influential in other foods rich in vitamin A, such as rice, marigold leaves and goat liver.
Milk is useful but does not strengthen bones
"Milk strengthens bones," a generational advice, until it came true or we thought so, until science proved that there is a link between eating milk and enjoying strong bones harder than it seems, but this of course does not mean that milk does not have many benefits.
The hypothesis that high milk consumption protects against bone fractures, denied by a 12-year research study by the Channing Laboratory in Boston, published in the American Journal of Public Health in 1997.
The study showed no evidence that eating more milk or calcium from food sources reduced the incidence of fracture, and found no significant difference in cases of fractures of the leg or thigh between those who drank a cup of milk a week or less, and those who took two or more cups a day .
Eating milk and milk products is good for bones, but that does not negate the search for other sources of bone strengthening, which contains calcium, the basic building block of bone and vitamin D, which helps the body to absorb and process calcium.
Calcium is found in dairy products, calcium-fortified orange juice, leafy vegetables and broccoli. It can be obtained from dietary supplements containing calcium after consulting a doctor. Exercise and getting enough vitamin D, either from food or through exposure to sunlight, Necessary to strengthen bones, according to the website "Webmd" competent.
Organic food is not perfect
"Organic foods are better for you," in the late 1990s organic products began to be promoted as completely chemical-free, making them more useful and more expensive than inorganic analogues.
Organic food is not perfect as we think
But this is completely inaccurate. Organic farming, like other forms of agriculture, uses pesticides and fungicides naturally derived from the environment to preserve the crop, but before rushing to judgment and assuming that organic pesticides are less hazardous to health, it must be known that by doing research on the toxicity of those Pesticides Many natural insecticides have been found to pose potential health risks, according to a scientific article on Scientific American.
So, there's no big difference between organic and traditional foods if you make a decision based on your health, according to a scientific study by Stanford University Medical Center. The study found that there is no strong evidence that organic foods are more beneficial or carry lower health risks than alternatives. Traditional.
The study concluded that organic foods are not pesticide-free, but may be contaminated by 30% less than their traditional counterpart in fruits and vegetables, stressing that the levels of pesticides in all foods fall within the limits of safety allowed.