bad science used in the name of nutrition

girlinahat

I thought this article may be of interest:

http://www.badscience.net/2007/02/ms-gillian-mckeith-banned-from-calling-herself-a-doctor/

not so much because of the individual targeted, but it gives a good expose on some of the ways the media is used to promote nutritional detail. Plus it told me to think carefully about what people like Mckeith writes.

to quote from the article:

The antioxidant story is one of the most ubiquitous health claims of the (TV) nutritionists. Antioxidants mop up free radicals, so in theory, looking at metabolism flow charts in biochemistry textbooks, having more of them might be beneficial to health. High blood levels of antioxidants were associated, in the 1980s, with longer life. Fruit and vegetables have lots of antioxidants, and fruit and veg really are good for you. So it all made sense.

But when you do compare people taking antioxidant supplement tablets with people on placebo, there’s no benefit; if anything, the antioxidant pills are harmful. Fruit and veg are still good for you, but as you can see, it looks as if it’s complicated and it might not just be about the extra antioxidants. It’s a surprising finding, but that’s science all over: the results are often counterintuitive. And that’s exactly why you do scientific research, to check your assumptions. Otherwise it wouldn’t be called “science”, it would be called “assuming”, or “guessing”, or “making it up as you go along”.

The problem is, that good recommendations - eat more fruit and veg - get swamped by the technical detail, and in the end we find ourselves veering away from good honest food into things created in a laboratory, and that can't be good.

registers

I thought this article may be of interest:

http://www.badscience.net/2007/02/ms-gillian-mckeith-banned-from-calling-herself-a-doctor/

not so much because of the individual targeted, but it gives a good expose on some of the ways the media is used to promote nutritional detail. Plus it told me to think carefully about what people like Mckeith writes.

to quote from the article:

The antioxidant story is one of the most ubiquitous health claims of the (TV) nutritionists. Antioxidants mop up free radicals, so in theory, looking at metabolism flow charts in biochemistry textbooks, having more of them might be beneficial to health. High blood levels of antioxidants were associated, in the 1980s, with longer life. Fruit and vegetables have lots of antioxidants, and fruit and veg really are good for you. So it all made sense.

But when you do compare people taking antioxidant supplement tablets with people on placebo, there’s no benefit; if anything, the antioxidant pills are harmful. Fruit and veg are still good for you, but as you can see, it looks as if it’s complicated and it might not just be about the extra antioxidants. It’s a surprising finding, but that’s science all over: the results are often counterintuitive. And that’s exactly why you do scientific research, to check your assumptions. Otherwise it wouldn’t be called “science”, it would be called “assuming”, or “guessing”, or “making it up as you go along”.

The problem is, that good recommendations - eat more fruit and veg - get swamped by the technical detail, and in the end we find ourselves veering away from good honest food into things created in a laboratory, and that can't be good.

I am glad you posted this, I keep on telling people to think for themselves what makes sense to them. I base most of my theories on common logic, and some people say "you're wrong, you have no evidence." I tell them, people who create studies, dr's also... can be misinformed." Studies can be misinterpreted.