Did you hear about the study in the news today?

pierinifitness
pierinifitness Posts: 2,231 Member
A great article ny Jeff Novak, MA, RDN

“Health information today is much more commonplace than ever before. Every day, if not every hour, we hear of another new study or report on health. These reports can be very confusing because if you listen to them, one day (or hour) something is good and the next day (or hour), it’s bad.

In trying to understand all of this conflicting and confusing information, it’s important to realize that real science doesn't work this way and/or change its mind every day (or hour), even though the media wants us to think it does. According to them, one day coffee is good and one day coffee is bad. One day chocolate is good and one day chocolate is bad. One week eggs are bad and the next week eggs are good.

What's a person to do?

The truth is that this kind of information just keeps the public dazed and confused. They throw their hands up in frustration thinking that no one really knows anything, so people just continue doing what they were doing all along. Or they use this confusion as an excuse to do whatever they want to do and to continue indulging in any bad habits they may have. After all, no one really knows. Right?

Wrong.

Outside of the media hoopla on these topics through its various outlets, a real scientist and student of health should not be swayed by the results of any one study — ever.

The reason is that true science is really a slow-moving unfolding of information that builds on what is known and adds to it, little by little, over time. It also looks for and acknowledges its own flaws and weaknesses. It makes conclusions based on established and proven methods that deal with methodology, power, strength and levels of significance. It doesn't suddenly jump from one place to another every time a new study comes out. Eggs didn't go from bad to good this week and neither did coffee.

But media outlets — including the internet, social media, health magazines, videos and more, even some health care professionals, thrive on this endless flow of (mis)information. They also thrive on presenting it in a way that creates endless doubt and confusion, which is very good for readership, advertisers, and product sales. Unfortunately, because of human nature and the way our minds work, people are drawn to these types of "reports" and the faulty conclusions presented on a daily, if not hourly, basis these days.

This flow of ever-breaking, conflicting, unsubstantiated “news” is not good for true science or for your health as these reports and the confusion they create rarely, if ever, address the primary problems causing the majority of our health problems. They act as little more than distractions because as long as people continue to argue over or focus their energies on these ancillary issues, they miss putting their real time, energy and efforts into doing what we know really works and what really matters.

Remember, studies overt the last few decades, have repeatedly shown that less then 5% of Americans follow the basic healthy lifestyle habits (with regard to smoking, alcohol, body weight, activity and diet) and less then 1% follow the basic minimum nutrition guidelines of a healthy diet. Yet up to 90% claim they consume a healthy diet and over 1/3 of those say they consume a very healthy diet.

With regard to health, decisions about what we eat and how we live should be based on a logical and reasoned analysis of the overwhelming majority of evidence as evaluated and supported by the majority of the research studies. It should not be based on any one study (or two), especially when the study has just come out and especially if all we have read (or know) is a mass media account of the new study. Sure, you can always find a study or article that appears to say the opposite or support an opposing view, but we have to look closely at it, how it was done, the methodology, the statistical analysis, how the results were interpreted, who funded it, its strength and limitations, and the totality of the evidence to date. And, of course, our own biases, which we all have.

While some may think my perspective and the conclusions I draw (with which you are welcome to disagree) are alternative, holistic, complimentary, hygienic, natural, vegetarian, vegan, etc., to me, they are just simple, conservative, basic commonsense guidelines and principles of good health that are supported by sound science — and not just today's passing headline.

In Health,
Jeff’

Replies

  • craigmandu
    craigmandu Posts: 976 Member
    A great article ny Jeff Novak, MA, RDN

    Sure, you can always find a study or article that appears to say the opposite or support an opposing view, but we have to look closely at it, how it was done, the methodology, the statistical analysis, how the results were interpreted, who funded it, its strength and limitations, and the totality of the evidence to date. And, of course, our own biases, which we all have.

    No one is going to do this outside of a scientific group. People believe "whatever" the mass media tells them... there is a overarching belief that "someone" must be fact-checking and "validating" that what is reported is good, true, and in the best interest of the public...and the sad reality is none of that is actually true. Media reports what aids their propagandist messages, they omit contradictory information where it doesn't suit them, and they "explain" what they have just reported in a way to further reinforce their particular agendas.... much of which is aimed to support those that advertise with them.

    The bottom line is no one "knows" what "sound science" is in relation to what they eat, how they eat, or how much they eat...and that will not get better as 90% of us are just too lazy to invest the time to find out or understand what we are "told"....

  • lemurcat2
    lemurcat2 Posts: 7,885 Member
    Good piece, and reminded me of this one: https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/03/science-compared-every-diet-and-the-winner-is-real-food/284595/

    Some relevant bits:

    "Flailing in the swell of bestselling diet books, infomercials for cleanses, and secret tips in glossy magazines, is the credibility of nutrition science. Watching thoroughly-credentialed medical experts tout the addition or subtraction of one nutrient as deliverance—only to change the channel and hear someone equally-thoroughly-credentialed touting the opposite—it can be tempting to write off nutrition advice altogether. This month we hear something is good, and next we almost expect to hear it’s bad. Why not assume the latest research will all eventually be nullified, and just close our eyes and eat whatever tastes best?"

    The argument of the people discussed within is that we actually know more about diet than the media reports obsessing about the latest little thing would allow.

    This, by Katz from the Atlantic piece and Mark Bittman, makes the same basic point:

    http://www.grubstreet.com/2018/03/ultimate-conversation-on-healthy-eating-and-nutrition.html

    "Really, we know how we should eat, but that understanding is continually undermined by hyperbolic headlines, internet echo chambers, and predatory profiteers all too happy to peddle purposefully addictive junk food and nutrition-limiting fad diets. Eating well remains difficult not because it’s complicated but because the choices are hard even when they’re clear."

    (I would not make all the statements in the last piece, as I talk about nutrition differently, but the basic point quoted and general advice is IMO good.)
  • psychod787
    psychod787 Posts: 4,088 Member
    I like Jeff... lol
  • kshama2001
    kshama2001 Posts: 27,888 Member
    lemurcat2 wrote: »
    Good piece, and reminded me of this one: https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/03/science-compared-every-diet-and-the-winner-is-real-food/284595/

    Some relevant bits:

    "Flailing in the swell of bestselling diet books, infomercials for cleanses, and secret tips in glossy magazines, is the credibility of nutrition science. Watching thoroughly-credentialed medical experts tout the addition or subtraction of one nutrient as deliverance—only to change the channel and hear someone equally-thoroughly-credentialed touting the opposite—it can be tempting to write off nutrition advice altogether. This month we hear something is good, and next we almost expect to hear it’s bad. Why not assume the latest research will all eventually be nullified, and just close our eyes and eat whatever tastes best?"

    The argument of the people discussed within is that we actually know more about diet than the media reports obsessing about the latest little thing would allow.

    This, by Katz from the Atlantic piece and Mark Bittman, makes the same basic point:

    http://www.grubstreet.com/2018/03/ultimate-conversation-on-healthy-eating-and-nutrition.html

    "Really, we know how we should eat, but that understanding is continually undermined by hyperbolic headlines, internet echo chambers, and predatory profiteers all too happy to peddle purposefully addictive junk food and nutrition-limiting fad diets. Eating well remains difficult not because it’s complicated but because the choices are hard even when they’re clear."

    (I would not make all the statements in the last piece, as I talk about nutrition differently, but the basic point quoted and general advice is IMO good.)

    Thanks! Will send to my mom, who is a fan of Mark Bittman. You may recall she is worried about "Sugar is toxic" type headlines, despite consuming very little added sugar.