We like delving into bad  science takes around here.

And this time around, we’re going to put some bad health takes under the microscope. Some of these are recent viral  claims from social media, while others are old as the hills.

Now, there’s no shame in buying  into myths about human health. We’ve all been taken in by something questionable at one point or another. Whether because it seems to  make sense on the surface, or we’ve heard it so often  that it just has to be true.

But we are fans of regularly updating our beliefs. And then maybe sharing this video with your Facebook aunt or whoever needs to see it. So let’s tackle some health science takes and rate their truthfulness. [♪INTRO] We’re starting off strong with a  claim that’s been wildly shared on the Internet for a long time - that  soy-based foods can act like estrogen.

As high-protein, plant-based  options, soy-based foods and supplements have become super popular over the last few decades in the United States. But some people avoid soy because they think it will “feminize” men, whatever that means. People pushing this myth latch onto soy containing high levels of compounds called isoflavones, which are a type of phytoestrogen  produced by various plants.

Their chemical structure is similar to the estrogen produced in the human body. Ergo, some people think they would do all the things that estrogen does in the body. But they don’t.

While isoflavones can bind  to the same receptors as estrogen produced in the  human body, their structural differences mean they don’t bind as tightly, so they don’t trigger the same  effects as the human hormone. There are claims that soy can cause  issues like erectile dysfunction, or reduced testosterone levels or sperm count. And rodent studies in the 2000s  showed some reproductive effects.

But it turns out that rodent  bodies process the stuff differently than humans, so  it wasn’t a fair comparison. There was also a 2008 case  study of a man who reportedly developed enlarged breast tissue  after consuming soy regularly. But this was an unusual  one-off case of someone who reported drinking three  quarts of soymilk every day.

Subsequent studies have shown that  consuming multiple cups of soy milk or servings of tofu will not  cause someone’s breasts to grow. And crucially, a 2010 meta-analysis found that isoflavones do not reduce the  levels of testosterone in men, nor do they increase levels of estrogen. The thing is that all humans  naturally produce estrogen.

Even the most manly men. But alas, experts are still pushing  back against this persistent myth. We give it the red on the truth meter.

While it made sense to look  into the similarities between estrogen and isoflavones,  believing that eating soy can feminize someone is by-and-large bogus. We know that the microbes in the  digestive tract are important for health, and that food shapes that  community of microscopic critters. It’s also established that eating lots of fruits and vegetables is good for health.

Their varied nutrients don’t  only feed your human cells. They also feed your gut bacteria and help them thrive in a way that can benefit their host. A long-term study looked at lots  of people’s diets paired with stool samples to tease out the effects  on gut microbiome composition.

The ongoing study started over  a decade ago and continues to collect and analyze samples  from people all over the world. A 2018 article by these  researchers found that individuals who reported eating more than  30 types of plants per week had healthier gut microflora than those who reported less plant diversity in their diets. They didn’t only count fruits and vegetables, but also seeds, nuts, and whole grains.

These results made a splash on social media, leading to 30 plant challenges and tips on how to diversify your plant food menu. But the researchers themselves make it clear that 30 is more of a goal than a strict guideline. See, the 2018 study compared those people who reported eating more than  30 plants to a contrasting population that reported eating fewer than 10.

There’s just too big of a gap in the middle there to designate 30 as some kind of magic number. More like, the closer you get, the better. In addition to that, since  the data were self-reported, it’s possible people  subconsciously made their eating habits look a little better than they really were.

So we’re giving this solid yellow. If you tend to gravitate toward  the same apples, bananas, potatoes, and carrots, it could be  worth trying to add in more variety. But failing to hit 30 some weeks doesn’t necessarily mean you’re letting your gut down.

There’s a common belief that metabolism inevitably slows down over time. Often, when people think of metabolism, they are roughly thinking of  the resting metabolic rate, or the number of calories required to maintain a person’s basic functions  while awake but at rest. But metabolism is much more complex than that.

It’s basically all of the chemical reactions that keep you alive and doing what you do. Day in and day out, your tissues are breaking down materials from food and providing  energy for the work of cells. Some folks gain body weight as they get older.

We often hear that with age, we  burn fewer calories from food. But the years don’t take a direct toll on someone’senergy needs at the cellular level. Consider a 2021 study published  in the journal Science that looked at the metabolic  rates of over six thousand participants from around the world, ranging from a few days to ninety-five years old.

Controlling for body size,  the researchers found four specific phases of different levels  of cellular energy expenditure. They observed that infants are  churning through the most energy, which makes sense, given that their systems are the most busy growing and developing. Then it remains higher until early adulthood.

But rather than declining as someone approaches middle age and crosses the  peak of the proverbial hill, metabolic rate pretty much  plateaus at around age 20, and stays around the same for decades. These researchers suggest that  metabolism doesn’t start slowing due to the age of someone’s actual  body and organs until age 60. Even then it slows down very little  each year—around 0.7% per year.

Now, we do lose muscle mass as we age, and that leads to fewer calories  burned by the body overall. This is because muscle tissue uses more calories to maintain itself than the  same mass of fat tissue. The reasons for this muscle loss are complicated and are thought to be involuntary to a degree.

Over time, cells get less  efficient at making enough of the proteins needed to maintain muscle mass. This is going to happen whether you  like it or not over the decades. But it’s not entirely or even mostly inevitable.

Another big reason people lose muscle with age is a reduction in physical activity  and not enough protein intake. You can do something about a lot of it. Someone who regularly does  weight bearing activities and eats enough protein to support their muscle mass is likely going to be better off.

Of course that’s easier said than done, and can require resources and support. With all that said? There has to  be more than just that going on.

Because the researchers in the  2021 study controlled for loss of muscle mass, and still found  a decline in metabolic rate. So there’s still more going on  that we don’t understand yet. We give this a yellow on the truth meter.

Yes, age takes its toll on the body. But it goes to show that  staying stronger for longer is so helpful for quality of life as people age. Certain corners of the internet  claim that all artificial food coloring is toxic to  kids and should be eliminated.

Worries about exposure to synthetic food dyes have made the rounds for the last 50 years. One specific concern has been that some artificial food dyes are linked to behaviors associated with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity  Disorder, or ADHD, in children. There have been a slew of natural and artificial food colorings throughout history.

Sometimes these are shown to be unsafe and banned, and safety guidelines have  become much stricter over time. As of 2025, there are eight synthetic  food colors approved in the US, and few of them have been called out for these possible neurobiological effects. One red dye is known in the  United States as Red number 40.

Another, Red number 3, was pulled  by the FDA in January of 2025, though for reasons unrelated to hyperactivity. The concern about ADHD and  red dye started circulating after a 2007 study that looked at  children’s behavior after consuming a drink with either a mix of artificial  food colorings or a placebo mix. A subgroup of the subjects  who received the artificial colors showed slightly more  signs of hyperactivity.

But there were issues with the study. The coloring mix contained not only Red 40 but also other dyes and a preservative, so it doesn’t make sense to  single out a specific dye there. Also, the symptoms of hyperactivity  were measured in several ways, but there isn’t a lab test for ADHD.

That’s at least partly because ADHD and associated behavior are tricky  to measure and diagnose. Some activists and experts point out  that there’s also ableism at play. Kids have been hyperactive since long before there were artificial food  dyes, and there just isn’t anything inherently wrong with that.

And much of the evidence  linking hyperactive behavior with dyes is based on the  observations of caregivers. Scientists are still pinning  down how these chemicals might be causing hyperactivity, including  the golden rule of toxicology that “the dose makes the poison.” One legitimate takeaway is that some kids seem more sensitive than others  to these artificial colors. We give this one laying somewhere  in between red and yellow.

If parents notice a behavioral  difference in their kids, it’s probably fine to avoid artificial colors. But for kids who aren’t sensitive to  them, red dye is not going to affect how hyperactive they are unless  it comes in something caffeinated. And it’s certainly not going to give someone ADHD.

Another popular social media claim is that the chemicals in sunscreen might cause cancer. One big sunscreen fear is  about the presence of benzene, a chemical that’s widely used  as an industrial solvent. It is also a known carcinogen linked to leukemia.

Some sunscreens have even been  recalled because of benzene, but crucially, it was a contaminant, not an ingredient that was intentionally added. It’s also worth noting that benzene  can be in the air and water, especially in highly-polluted areas,  and it’s generally a bad thing. By contrast with mass-produced  sunscreen, sunlight has that all-natural halo, and exposure  to it can seem downright healthy.

But whether something is natural or human-made has no inherent bearing on its safety profile. Benzene is also naturally-occuring— it’s released in volcanic eruptions, from burning wood, and from crude oil. And sunlight is a proven carcinogen.

Not only do we not have evidence that chemicals in sunscreen cause cancer, we do have evidence suggesting that these false  claims are leading to real harm. Surveys are showing that younger  Americans are more likely to believe that sunscreen itself is more  dangerous than daily sun exposure, and though a connection hasn’t  been proven yet, younger people are being diagnosed with skin cancer at more advanced stages than before. Homemade sunscreens are a  trend, but experts recommend against it because most people don’t have the means to make a sunscreen that actually works.

So we’ve been known to say, technically, nothing actually gives you  cancer. It’s not a binary, where you don’t have cancer, then something flips the switch and boom, cancer. It’s more like an inconceivably  intricate set of many switches involved in different ways,  contributing to the development of hundreds of types and way  more subtypes of cancers.

Things that flip those switches are everywhere, so it’s about minimizing our exposure to them. And you know what we know, for sure, definitely one hundred percent flips those switches? Sunlight.

So... just wear sunscreen We’re giving this the lowest score  of them all — a red, a solid red. While there’s no evidence that  sunscreen itself contributes to someone developing leukemia or other cancers, it is proven to help prevent  cancer from sun exposure. So, to round up: It’s fine to eat soy.

A diversity of plants are good for your tummy, but don’t stress about hitting a certain number. Aging slows you down, but you can take steps to slow down the slowing down. Red dye is probably not  something to freak out about, and sunscreen is good.

And most of all, it’s pretty easy to  expose yourself to oversimplified, exaggerated takes on the internet. A little research and critical  thinking go a long way and that’s why we’ve got your back. [♪OUTRO]