How to Spot Nutrition Fakes: Your Guide to Informed Choices

Spreading such unverified advice harms your health and your wallet. People start avoiding nutritious food, spending money on “miracle” remedies, and even beginning to ignore evidence-based medicine.

Social media only fuels the spread of fakes: fear, “cures” for incurable diseases, loud slogans like “never eat this again!” attract far more attention than scientific explanations. The complexity of scientific information and lack of time push people to seek simple answers, which pseudo-experts are all too happy to provide.

In this article, we’ve compiled typical manipulations, “red flags”, a self-checklist, and a list of reliable sources to help you detect false information in the field of nutrition.

Download PDF

Unrealistic promises and “miraculous” results

In reality, sustainable changes in health require time, effort, and a comprehensive approach. No competent specialist will promise miracle results like “lose 21 kg in a month“. Rapid weight loss typically happens due to loss of water and muscle mass, not fat, and often leads to nutrient deficiencies, a worsened metabolism, and rapid regain of the lost weight.

Even more dangerous are claims of “miraculous cures” for serious illnesses using “natural” remedies. A well-known example includes myths that certain foods, like baking soda with honey or potato juice, can treat or prevent cancer.

Neither baking soda nor potatoes, their juices, nor other food products cure cancer. Some studies suggest that baking soda may enhance the effectiveness of chemotherapy. However, this topic requires further research. On the other hand, excessive consumption of baking soda has been well studied: it can raise blood pressure and harm the cardiovascular system.

Categorical “never”

In nutrition, where individual physiology, lifestyle, and cultural habits play a huge role, absolute claims like “always do this” or “never do that” are rarely justified. A well-founded recommendation should consider a person’s needs, condition, preferences, and possibilities. A healthy approach is about flexibility, not rigid dogmas.

An example of such “black-and-white” thinking is the demonization of dairy products. Although they are often blamed for inflammation and bloating, a meta-analysis of 52 studies showed the opposite: dairy consumption is associated with reduced markers of inflammation in the body.

The same applies to the often demonized vegan diet; with proper planning and awareness of its “weak spots” (like possible B12 deficiency), it can be a complete and self-sufficient nutritional approach.

Two other well-known “monsters” are gluten and sugar. Except for people with gluten sensitivity, it is completely safe for others. Excess sugar is indeed harmful, but in moderate amounts for a healthy person, it is not “poison”.

Lack of transparency about advertising

Experts sometimes promote products or diets without disclosing their financial interests. If a “guru” insists that you “absolutely must” take a specific vitamin or detox tea, it’s worth wondering whether it’s a genuine concern for your health or just a basic desire to sell you something.

For example, the aggressive promotion of vitamin B6 is often driven by commercial interest without medical justification; most people do not have a deficiency of this vitamin.

Before taking anything, consult a doctor. They’ll determine whether you have a deficiency and if you need supplements at all. Remember: the foundation of good health is regular food. We can get most nutrients from what we eat. Replacing food with supplements, as some influencers suggest, is not recommended.

Appeal to nature (“natural = healthy”)

Anonymous accounts chasing reach often undermine evidence-based medicine by hyping up the benefits of “natural products”. You’ve probably seen clickbait posts like “Doctors don’t want you to know this because they’d lose their jobs“. We’ve long been debunking similar “folk” myths, for example, that onion and milk decoction cures coughs, colds, and varicose veins, or that wormwood can “kill” 33% of cancer cells in the human body.

The argument that “natural” automatically means beneficial is often used to promote products, such as various “detox teas“. There’s nothing wrong with occasionally drinking such tea as a supplement to a healthy diet (especially if it tastes good). However, it’s important to remember: your body doesn’t need “detox programs”; we already have efficient cleansing systems. The liver, kidneys, and digestive tract work constantly without fasting or teas. A truly effective “detox” is unfollowing accounts that promote an unhealthy relationship with food.

Misuse of scientific terms

Pseudo-experts often abuse science-like terminology without explanations to give their claims an appearance of authority. Phrases like “insulin spikes” or “toxins in the body” sound serious, but they’re just fear tactics without specifics.

This also includes clichés like “it’s pure chemicals!” or “it’s unnatural!” Everything around us is chemistry, including water, air, and all the food we consume. Such scare tactics distract from evaluating a product’s composition, origin, and health impact.

Selective quoting of research (cherry-picking)

Cherry-picking is a practice where only convenient data is selected to support a certain point of view, while opposing results are ignored. This approach undermines trust in science and can lead to dangerous decisions.

For example, some media or bloggers cite a study showing harm from a product, while ignoring others with opposite conclusions. The result: sensational headlines like “Dark chocolate cures depression“. However, conflicting data in science is normal — one study is often just part of the bigger picture.

Cherry-picking can be unintentional or deliberate, for political or commercial reasons. For example, in the 1960s, the U.S. sugar lobby funded studies downplaying sugar’s harm to the heart and shifting the blame to fats.

To spot cherry-picking, consider whether information is presented from multiple sides and whether risks and limitations are mentioned. If something contradicts what you previously knew, it’s best to double-check.

References to preclinical trials

The problem isn’t the experiments themselves, but that their results are sometimes presented as sufficient evidence about the human body. In fact, animal studies and in vitro tests are only the initial stages, to be followed by clinical trials.

In 2016, Yoshinori Ohsumi received the Nobel Prize in Medicine for discovering autophagy in yeast, a process of cellular renewal during nutrient deficiency. Some nutritionists then used this to argue for intermittent fasting in humans. But Ohsumi emphasized that his experiments concerned only cells, and full clinical trials are needed to draw conclusions for humans.

Correlation ≠ causation

A statistical link between two phenomena does not mean one causes the other. As the saying goes, the rooster crows before dawn, but that doesn’t mean the sun won’t rise without it.
A notable example is how media covered a study on the connection between ultra-processed food and mortality. Some outlets shared results from a meta-analysis of observational data, which did not study causal relationships, under alarming headlines like “Sweets found to be deadlier than fentanyl“.

Look out for cautious phrasing like “may be linked to”, “may increase/decrease”. A good article usually includes references to primary sources, allowing you to verify the information.

Conventional wisdom

If a recommendation contradicts the consensus of most experts, it is likely to be false. Not necessarily, of course. But it should at least raise a red flag for you.

For example, the currently popular carnivore diet completely eliminates plant-based food. On TikTok, its followers call it a cure-all for everything from acne to infertility. But medical associations do not support this approach and caution that such a diet can lead to deficiencies in fiber and vitamins and increase the risk of heart disease.

Or take regular potatoes. Medical consensus is that potatoes are a good source of complex carbohydrates, potassium, and fiber. But toxic diet culture has discredited this wonderful product; you’ve probably heard phrases like “potatoes make you fat!” or “potatoes are empty calories“. The myth about their harm is as old as time and, fortunately, does not reflect reality. Again, let’s remember the golden rule: there is no bad food, only context, quantity, and balance.

To check whether a piece of advice is scientifically grounded, refer to authoritative sources (listed below).

Practical self-checklist

• Who is the author? What is their education? Do they comment on a narrow list of topics within their expertise or on everything?
• Where is this information from? Is it a credible source or a resource with a questionable or unverified reputation?
• Are there references to scientific sources? If so, were peer-reviewed human studies conducted?
• Are simple solutions offered? Are “miraculous” or instant results promised?
• Are extremes or fear tactics used? Does the post trigger strong emotions?
• Is there transparency about advertising or financial interest?
• Does the information align with the medical consensus position?
• Are there manipulations in how research results are presented?

Where to find reliable information about nutrition and health (non-exhaustive list)

• Ukrainian resources: Ministry of Health of Ukraine, Public Health Center
• International organizations: World Health Organization (WHO), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), National Health Service (NHS), National Institutes of Health (NIH), European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), European Society for Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism (ESPEN)
• Professional associations: Dietitian/Nutritionist associations with appropriate accreditation (in Ukraine — Association of Dietitians of Ukraine)
• Scientific databases: PubMed, Cochrane Library 
• Reliable medical resources: WebMD, Mayo Clinic
• Authoritative scientific journals with transparent peer-review processes, high impact factors, and indexing in international scientometric databases such as Scopus and Web of Science: Nutrition Reviews, The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition, JAMA
• Universities conducting scientific research in medicine/nutrition: University of California, Davis; Harvard University; University of Cambridge