40 years of federal nutrition research fatally flawed

SnicciFit

Conducted by the CDC and the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the NHANES is the primary source of data used by researchers studying the impact of nutrition and diet on health.

These limitations "suggest that the ability to estimate population trends in caloric intake and generate public policy relevant to diet-health relationships is extremely limited," said Archer, who conducted the study with colleagues at the Arnold School.

"The nation's major surveillance tool for studying the relationships between nutrition and health is not valid. It is time to stop spending tens of millions of health research dollars collecting invalid data and find more accurate measures," he said.



http://primaldocs.com/opinion/40-years-nutrition-research-fatally-flawed/



I think it's safe to say that a good majority (not all) of what we're told about nutrition is based on faulty evidence. The question is, what do YOU do about it? My suggestion is to do your own research, and then conduct n=1 experiments, where YOU are the experiment. Also, common sense (while not all that common) comes in handy.

Confuzzled4ever

what??? no.. just no.. hell to the no..

how dare we say anything about anything that affects us in a way that is contrary to what scientific studies say.

You must be crazy...

explosivedonut

I.... don't find this surprising. People underestimate how many calories they eat a day. Or overestimate how many they burn. Or both. The nutrition research isn't fatally flawed, in my opinion. Most people don't count calories. I know someone who is pretty overweight and who swears up and down that they have never eaten above 2000 calories a day in her life, but has a drink from Starbucks every day that is 500+ calories.

SnicciFit

I.... don't find this surprising. People underestimate how many calories they eat a day. Or overestimate how many they burn. Or both. The nutrition research isn't fatally flawed, in my opinion. Most people don't count calories. I know someone who is pretty overweight and who swears up and down that they have never eaten above 2000 calories a day in her life, but has a drink from Starbucks every day that is 500+ calories.

Ha! But I bet it has all kinds of "healthy" buzz words in the title like "skinny"

_noob_

but, but, I eat the grains that are recommended and avoid high fat foods and particularly saturated fats.

I also never eat red meat and a diet extremely low in cholesterol and never more than 125% of my DV of protein.

YOU MEAN I'M NOT DOING ALL I CAN DO TO PROTECT MY HEALTH?

yoovie

I dont really listen to the government or media or strangers for what to eat though.

I go by sesame street rules.

I make sure that most of the plate is vegetables and that i get all my vitamins and minerals, and that i have all my food groups and my food is a variety of colors, that sweets and desserts are special and not for all the time or everyday, eat within normal serving sizes, eat when im hungry, eat a good breakfast on days when i have to use my brain a lot, and dont swim on a full stomach.

and Im healthy and fit - so I think it is working.

ndj1979

from the article..."2.Just how much sugar and refined carbohydrates are being consumed by people who believe themselves to be health-conscious and making good choices"

< consumes carbohydrate and sugar and has no issues with either....

here we go again ...

Oh, and is it that shocking that Obese people would underreport what they are eating in a blind survey to make themselves appear to be eating healthy? I don't think anyone want to admit that they sit on the couch eating ding dongs and pizza all day....

SnicciFit

from the article..."2.Just how much sugar and refined carbohydrates are being consumed by people who believe themselves to be health-conscious and making good choices"

< consumes carbohydrate and sugar and has no issues with either....

here we go again ...

Oh, and is it that shocking that Obese people would underreport what they are eating in a blind survey to make themselves appear to be eating healthy? I don't think anyone want to admit that they sit on the couch eating ding dongs and pizza all day....

Doesn't EVERYONE eat carbohydrate & sugar? It would be difficult to avoid both all together. The quote is about HOW MUCH.

I think the point being made is that a lot of "health" or "diet" food is high in carbs/sugar and doesn't necessarily promote good health. It may not promote bad health, but definitely doesn't promote good health.

_noob_

considering how many MFP members complain about doing everything right and it still not working, underestimating 25-40% sounds about right

Mr_Knight

considering how many MFP members complain about doing everything right and it still not working, underestimating 25-40% sounds about right

^^^ Completely agree.

Francl27

considering how many MFP members complain about doing everything right and it still not working, underestimating 25-40% sounds about right

Then how comes that it's worked for so many people, if we're all underestimating our calorie intake by 25-40%?

ldrosophila

in for writing random articles about how data on hundreds of thousands people and multiple decades is flawed research

SnicciFit

considering how many MFP members complain about doing everything right and it still not working, underestimating 25-40% sounds about right

Then how comes that it's worked for so many people, if we're all underestimating our calorie intake by 25-40%?

Honestly, for me, it wasn't about calories. It was macros and food quality.

etoiles_argentees

Conducted by the CDC and the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the NHANES is the primary source of data used by researchers studying the impact of nutrition and diet on health.

These limitations "suggest that the ability to estimate population trends in caloric intake and generate public policy relevant to diet-health relationships is extremely limited," said Archer, who conducted the study with colleagues at the Arnold School.

"The nation's major surveillance tool for studying the relationships between nutrition and health is not valid. It is time to stop spending tens of millions of health research dollars collecting invalid data and find more accurate measures," he said.

L
http://primaldocs.com/opinion/40-years-nutrition-research-fatally-flawed/



I think it's safe to say that a good majority (not all) of what we're told about nutrition is based on faulty evidence. The question is, what do YOU do about it? My suggestion is to do your own research, and then conduct n=1 experiments, where YOU are the experiment. Also, common sense (while not all that common) comes in handy.

Perfect.

_noob_

considering how many MFP members complain about doing everything right and it still not working, underestimating 25-40% sounds about right

Then how comes that it's worked for so many people, if we're all underestimating our calorie intake by 25-40%?

averages...some eat so little overestimating 25% still puts them in a deficit. And weight is more than just bodyfat...especially early in your journey

ndj1979

from the article..."2.Just how much sugar and refined carbohydrates are being consumed by people who believe themselves to be health-conscious and making good choices"

< consumes carbohydrate and sugar and has no issues with either....

here we go again ...

Oh, and is it that shocking that Obese people would underreport what they are eating in a blind survey to make themselves appear to be eating healthy? I don't think anyone want to admit that they sit on the couch eating ding dongs and pizza all day....

Doesn't EVERYONE eat carbohydrate & sugar? It would be difficult to avoid both all together. The quote is about HOW MUCH.

I think the point being made is that a lot of "health" or "diet" food is high in carbs/sugar and doesn't necessarily promote good health. It may not promote bad health, but definitely doesn't promote good health.

I took it to read that if you were consuming sugar and carbs that this was not "healthy"...when in fact a diet of moderate carbs is needed for an active lifestyle...but perhaps, I read too much into it.

ldrosophila

considering how many MFP members complain about doing everything right and it still not working, underestimating 25-40% sounds about right

Then how comes that it's worked for so many people, if we're all underestimating our calorie intake by 25-40%?

averages...some eat so little overestimating 25% still puts them in a deficit. And weight is more than just bodyfat...especially early in your journey

^5 for using the word journey

ndj1979

considering how many MFP members complain about doing everything right and it still not working, underestimating 25-40% sounds about right

Then how comes that it's worked for so many people, if we're all underestimating our calorie intake by 25-40%?

Honestly, for me, it wasn't about calories. It was macros and food quality.

so you can eat more calories than you burn, have great macros and food quality, and still lose weight??

lessac

I may be rather sleep deprived yet I'm still baffled.

How is the science flawed? Exactly how a misreported calorie intake remotely has anything to do with thermogenesis?

Your NHANES sounds like a nation-wide Family Feud, nothing but a big survey. A survey that no one cared enough to do the math and crosscheck until now. Must be a big relief that the real science revolves around lab reports and cross-disciplinary knowledge rather than hearsay.

mustgetmuscles1

Only proves that a lot of people lie about what and how much they eat. Under-reporting is a problem even with trained people.

I think there are flaws in things like the food pyramid and the RDA's but this article does not seem to address those specifically.

etoiles_argentees

Yes, NHanes is ridiculous . But they make it easy to see how research in weight is so wrong.

Mr_Knight

considering how many MFP members complain about doing everything right and it still not working, underestimating 25-40% sounds about right

Then how comes that it's worked for so many people, if we're all underestimating our calorie intake by 25-40%?

The comment specifically references people for whom it is *not* working.

SnicciFit

considering how many MFP members complain about doing everything right and it still not working, underestimating 25-40% sounds about right

Then how comes that it's worked for so many people, if we're all underestimating our calorie intake by 25-40%?

Honestly, for me, it wasn't about calories. It was macros and food quality.

so you can eat more calories than you burn, have great macros and food quality, and still lose weight??

Possibly. I think it depends on if you're talking strictly about weight loss or if you're getting into fat loss vs. weight loss. But, I might have been in a deficit anyway (hard to know for sure since everything is just an estimate as far as calorie intake & burn goes), but I didn't concentrate on reducing calories. I concentrated on macros and food quality.

SnicciFit

I may be rather sleep deprived yet I'm still baffled.

How is the science flawed? Exactly how a misreported calorie intake remotely has anything to do with thermogenesis?

Your NHANES sounds like a nation-wide Family Feud, nothing but a big survey. A survey that no one cared enough to do the math and crosscheck until now. Must be a big relief that the real science revolves around lab reports and cross-disciplinary knowledge rather than hearsay.

I think the point is that these "results" are what all nutrition education is based on. Pretty scary, IMO.

TigerBite

I dont really listen to the government or media or strangers for what to eat though.

I go by sesame street rules.

I make sure that most of the plate is vegetables and that i get all my vitamins and minerals, and that i have all my food groups and my food is a variety of colors, that sweets and desserts are special and not for all the time or everyday, eat within normal serving sizes, eat when im hungry, eat a good breakfast on days when i have to use my brain a lot, and dont swim on a full stomach.

and Im healthy and fit - so I think it is working.

Sesame Street FTW!

brower47

considering how many MFP members complain about doing everything right and it still not working, underestimating 25-40% sounds about right

Then how comes that it's worked for so many people, if we're all underestimating our calorie intake by 25-40%?

Honestly, for me, it wasn't about calories. It was macros and food quality.

so you can eat more calories than you burn, have great macros and food quality, and still lose weight??

:laugh: That's what I got from that too.

SnicciFit

considering how many MFP members complain about doing everything right and it still not working, underestimating 25-40% sounds about right

Then how comes that it's worked for so many people, if we're all underestimating our calorie intake by 25-40%?

Honestly, for me, it wasn't about calories. It was macros and food quality.

so you can eat more calories than you burn, have great macros and food quality, and still lose weight??

:laugh: That's what I got from that too.

Again:

Possibly. I think it depends on if you're talking strictly about weight loss or if you're getting into fat loss vs. weight loss. But, I might have been in a deficit anyway (hard to know for sure since everything is just an estimate as far as calorie intake & burn goes), but I didn't concentrate on reducing calories. I concentrated on macros and food quality.

ndj1979

considering how many MFP members complain about doing everything right and it still not working, underestimating 25-40% sounds about right

Then how comes that it's worked for so many people, if we're all underestimating our calorie intake by 25-40%?

Honestly, for me, it wasn't about calories. It was macros and food quality.

so you can eat more calories than you burn, have great macros and food quality, and still lose weight??

:laugh: That's what I got from that too.

Again:

Possibly. I think it depends on if you're talking strictly about weight loss or if you're getting into fat loss vs. weight loss. But, I might have been in a deficit anyway (hard to know for sure since everything is just an estimate as far as calorie intake & burn goes), but I didn't concentrate on reducing calories. I concentrated on macros and food quality.

well I disagree..if you have perfect macros and eat quality food but still eat 500 calories over maintenance a day, you will gain weight, and you will gain fat, even if you are training like a beast....if you are not training like a beast, then you will really pack em on...

Charlottesometimes23

I may be rather sleep deprived yet I'm still baffled.

How is the science flawed? Exactly how a misreported calorie intake remotely has anything to do with thermogenesis?

Your NHANES sounds like a nation-wide Family Feud, nothing but a big survey. A survey that no one cared enough to do the math and crosscheck until now. Must be a big relief that the real science revolves around lab reports and cross-disciplinary knowledge rather than hearsay.

I think the point is that these "results" are what all nutrition education is based on. Pretty scary, IMO.

I must say, under-reporting of energy intake is well known (and well published on) and as much as possible, is adjusted for. This recent article explains it in relation to the NHANES data. http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/97/4/848.full#T1
Underreporting seems to be most prevalent in those with a higher BMI.

It's important to note that caloric intake is a very minor aspect of the NHANES study, which you can access here. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nhanes/about_nhanes.htm They also use it for childrens' growth charts, micronutrient status etc etc.

It is absolutely not correct to say that the results discussed in the PLOS One article (ie. raw caloric intake data) is what all nutrition education is based on. In fact, NHANES data (on many different measures) makes up only a very small aspect of the evidence used for developing for example, the Australian Dietary Guidelines, which is promoted as best practice in nutrition education here in Australia.

My take is that the Primal Docs article was being a little dramatic about something that is well known and certainly accepted as a flaw in epidemiological studies such as these. To say that "It is only now, after 40 years, however, that the robustness of the survey itself and the data obtained from it, has been seriously looked at." is incorrect. It's certainly been looked at, analysed and accepted as a flaw.