Nutrition Skinny™

When you read or hear nutrition news or advice, your first impulse is to believe it and act on it, especially if it confirms something you already suspected, if the source seems credible (e.g.a national news wire, your fitness trainer, your doctor), or it's scary! There are a number of points to consider when you hear or read any piece of nutrition news, advice, or just information, and I will update this list as I think of additional points. Also, among my list of resources will be some articles on how to read nutrition stories.  But, as a start, here's some things you can do right now:

1. Consider the source. It's a sad fact but media (newspapers, magazines, book publishers, television networks, even some websites) are in business to make money. Attention grabbing headlines sell newspapers! Teaser ads on television get viewers to tune in. Oftentimes, the magazine, newspaper, or news network you look to for reputable nutrition information advertises products that claim to improve nutrition! Even more upsetting, a number of health professionals (some with impressive credentials) have "sold out," writing what they hope will be best-selling books based on completely baseless, sometimes dangerous ideas. And some television shows supposedly dedicated to health (such as the one named for its famous Harvard Medical School-trained host,) are little more than thinly veiled infomercials! If a television show host or guest seems to be touting a product, even if no brand name is mentioned (like green coffee bean or raspberry ketone extract), discount the information or ask your doctor about it. 
2. Look for reputable sources of information. True medical journals, the ones that health professionals read, publish only articles that have been reviewed by at least 2 to 3 experts in medicine, nutrition, and research methods. The reviewers consider the validity and reliability of the methods used to conduct the studies, the credibility and significance of the findings, and the appropriateness of the conclusions (meaning, did the authors attribute more importance or applicability to their findings than they deserved?).  But these journals are inaccessible to the general public; Even if you can go to the nearest medical library, these articles are not for the faint of heart! What should you do instead? A small number of medical schools publish periodic newsletters that digest and present readable versions of important health news, including importantly, the actual medical journals that are the sources of the information. Given the public's interest in nutrition, most of these newsletters are almost completely devoted to nutrition topics. I list these newsletters and their websites on my List of Resources page; subscriptions tend to be a bit costly but many libraries subscribe. Additional sources I recommend include the small number of magazines that devote themselves to nutrition and health topics and DO NOT accept advertising of any kind (see the List of Resources). If you hear or read a nutrition story or even a supposed fact but no source is provided, ignore it! 
3. Learn to chew those sound bites.  I doubt I'm alone that when I hear nutrition stories on the news, I listen. They always sound enticing, but years of practice born of disappointment, I've learned to pick out the important (dis)qualifiers: a) Were the subjects of the research lab animals (like rats, mice, dogs) or were they actual people? Research that was done on animals may provide some interesting ideas for future human research but virtually no lab animal is similar enough to humans to allow us to directly apply any animal research findings directly to ourselves. This warning applies even more strongly to studies done in cells or body parts in isolation (cell or tissue cultures, also called in vitro, meaning in glass). 
   b) If the research subjects were indeed humans, was it a randomized trial or an "observational" study? Randomized trials are studies in which a group of people is randomly assigned to receive either some experimental substance or a convincing placebo; ideally, neither the researchers nor the subjects are aware of what they are receiving until the randomized controlled trial, as it is known, is completed. Studies with no placebo control group are generally not credible. Observational studies are those that follow (observe) a group of people, sometimes an entire community as in the famous Framingham Heart Study, measuring certain things like food intake, blood pressure, cholesterol..., and then looking at the outcome of interest (e.g., heart attacks, death). Entire books have been written on the utility and difficulties of these study methods, but the bottom line is that randomized controlled trials are the Gold Standard of studies; they are the only studies that can demonstrate cause and effect. Observational studies show us interesting trends and possible associations, but they cannot prove cause and effect! This distinction is one of the most important and most poorly understood of all research concepts!  
   c) And so if what we are hearing about was a genuine trial, how many people were enrolled and for how long?  Studies that include only small groups of people (like 10 or even sometimes 50) or were conducted only for short periods of time may not be able to determine, believably whether a treatment is really better than the placebo. For a number of reasons that I will address at some point if people are interested, human nutrition trials are exceedingly difficult and costly to conduct. 
4. Consider the context. When you hear or read a story about the results of a new study, listen well and long enough to learn whether the results are put into some kind of context. Because of the difficulties I just described in doing nutrition studies, it is important to know what other studies have shown about the same type of treatment or product and whether the premise and the findings have a plausible scientific basis (in other words, do they coincide with what experts already know about how they body works?). If no context is provided that can help you decide whether this new information makes sense and applies to you, it is not worth considering, especially if it would mean discontinuing a medication your doctor has prescribed,  ingesting something that might interfere with a drug you are taking, or even just spending a lot of money!
5. Remember that "natural" does not mean it's better and that "dietary supplements" are not necessarily inexpensive superior alternatives to drugs. A product that is touted as "natural" may not only be useless, but actually may be harmful. Over-the-counter products such as vitamins, minerals, protein powders, plant extracts, and other "dietary supplements," are not governed by the same rigorous requirements to prove their safety and effectiveness as are substances sold as medications or even as foods. Once upon a time, the general public often turned to supplements, regardless of any evidence for their benefit, because they believed that there was no profit in manufacturing these products (and that this was why "big pharma" avoided them). Today, the manufacturers of dietary supplements are often subsidiaries of "big pharma," OR are even bigger, more profitable companies, themselves! Please remember this the next time you think you'd be better off trying that herbal product instead of the medication your doctor prescribed!