Are fad diets and nutritional claims mostly BS?

[southernhybrid]

I debated over whether to put this in the foods, science, social science, etc. sections, so instead I decided to put it here.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/29/sunday-review/cornell-food-scientist-wansink-misconduct.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fhealth&action=click&contentCollection=health&region=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=4&pgtype=sectionfront

Stanford, published a study titled “Is Everything We Eat Associated With Cancer?” He and a co-author randomly selected 50 recipes from a cookbook and discovered that 80 percent of the ingredients — mushrooms, peppers, olives, lobster, mustard, lemons — had been linked to either an increased or a decreased risk of cancer in numerous studies. In many cases a single ingredient was found to be the subject of questionable cancer claims in more than 10 studies, a vast majority of which “were based on weak statistical evidence,” the paper concluded.

Nutrition epidemiology is notorious for this. Scientists routinely scour data sets on large populations looking for links between specific foods or diets and health outcomes like chronic disease and life span. These studies can generate important findings and hypotheses. But they also have serious limitations. They cannot prove cause and effect, for example, and collecting dietary data from people is like trying to catch a moving target: Many people cannot recall precisely what they ate last month, last week or even in the past 48 hours. Plenty of other factors that influence health can also blur the impact of diet, such as exercise, socioeconomic status, sleep, genetics and environment. All of this makes the most popular food and health studies problematic and frequently contradictory.

In one recent example, an observational study of thousands of people published in The Lancet last year made headlines with its findings that high-carb diets were linked to increased mortality rates and that eating saturated fat and meat was protective. Then in August, a separate team of researchers published an observational study of thousands of people in a related journal, The Lancet Public Health, with contrasting findings: Low-carb diets that were high in meat increased mortality rates.

“You can analyze observational studies in very different ways and, depending on what your belief is — and there are very strong nutrition beliefs out there — you can get some very dramatic patterns,” Dr. Ioannidis said.

He and other experts have called for reform in nutrition science. They say that researchers should publicly register their study protocols beforehand to eliminate data dredging, share their raw data to increase transparency, focus on large randomized controlled trials to produce better results, and refrain from slicing and dicing large observational data sets into multiple papers that magnify weak findings.

Experts say that the problem extends to science journalists as well: Many reporters are encouraged to produce articles that get lots of clicks. That is another reason researchers and universities feel pressure to put out studies and news releases with exaggerated findings.

“I would say that we’re all drinking from the same well, and we’re all contributing to poisoning the water,” said Ted Kyle, an obesity expert who runs a health site called ConscienHealth. “At every step along the way there are folks who are culpable. I would suspect that we’re all complicit.”

The article in the link is very long, and it would help if others at least skim it. I'm pretty sure that the NYTimes allows nonsubscribers to read links.

Moving on. I've always been very skeptical of the claims made by nutritional studies and fad diets, as they come and go and frequently make confusing and contradictory claims. It always amuses me when I read the comments on a medical discussion board that I sometimes visit. Everybody seems to know the perfect diet for themselves and others. These discussions frequently become heated.

Have any of you based a current or former dietary pattern on so called nutritional research? What are your thoughts after reading the article in the link? My conclusion is that most nutritional research is bullshit, or at least should be taken with a lot of skepticism. So, I will continue to eat a varied diet with lots of plant based and a moderate amount of animal based foods. And, yes, I eat lots of carbs and even more sugar than most people think is healthy. My weight is normal and I'm pretty healthy after nearly 7 decades of life. I also think that genetics and many other factors as mentioned in the article make it difficult to do reliable research on diet. Unfortunately, this is also true in many other areas of science, but that's for a very different, more complicated discussion.

 

[Politesse]

I try to remember that there is a strong religious-ish angle to the claims people make about nutrition; the purveyor of a new diet is trying to make better people, not just better food, and this will always screw with your objectivity a bit. No "fact" in nutrition science is trustworthy if our instruments of data collection are strongly compromised.

 

[phands]

YES. Given the word "mostly".

 

[phands]

I try to remember that there is a strong religious-ish angle to the claims people make about nutrition; the purveyor of a new diet is trying to make better people, not just better food, and this will always screw with your objectivity a bit. No "fact" in nutrition science is trustworthy if our instruments of data collection are strongly compromised.

That's a good observation, Politesse. There's certainly a lot of faith in certain dietary fads or conventional wisdoms, even when they get overturned by actual research.

An example is the recent research that essentially overturns the article of faith that reducing salt intake has an effect on blood pressure, which I posted here somewhere a while back. It turns out that you cannot eat enough salt in a normal diet to have a measurable effect. It's the change in dietary habits to reduce crappy foods, most of which use salt to enhance taste, that helps with BP. But, no matter how much evidence is presented, many people I mention this to get really upset, and refuse to believe it. The good news is that they at least won't relapse to the old bad eating habits, but faith over evidence is dangerous and stupid.

 

[skepticalbip]

...snip...

Moving on. I've always been very skeptical of the claims made by nutritional studies and fad diets, as they come and go and frequently make confusing and contradictory claims. It always amuses me when I read the comments on a medical discussion board that I sometimes visit. Everybody seems to know the perfect diet for themselves and others. These discussions frequently become heated.

My conclusion is that most nutritional research is bullshit, or at least should be taken with a lot of skepticism. So, I will continue to eat a varied diet with lots of plant based and a moderate amount of animal based foods.

We are apparently kindred spirits though my intake is probably heavier on animal protein - though, being a southern boy, I do like my veggies. I eat like the omnivore I am, whatever sounds good and is available when I feel hunger. This seems to have worked well with no health or weight problems for over seven decades now (likely due more to staying quite active and genes than diet).

My little brother is a very different story. He pays attention to "nutrition studies", will not eat red meat, and carefully monitors salt intake. A couple months ago, he added not eating anything white. He has had some health and definitely weight problems.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Have any of you based a current or former dietary pattern on so called nutritional research? What are your thoughts after reading the article in the link? My conclusion is that most nutritional research is bullshit, or at least should be taken with a lot of skepticism. So, I will continue to eat a varied diet with lots of plant based and a moderate amount of animal based foods. And, yes, I eat lots of carbs and even more sugar than most people think is healthy. My weight is normal and I'm pretty healthy after nearly 7 decades of life. I also think that genetics and many other factors as mentioned in the article make it difficult to do reliable research on diet. Unfortunately, this is also true in many other areas of science, but that's for a very different, more complicated discussion.

If you keep that up you are light years ahead of the pack. Fad diets are like those fad exercise machines. They're for your emotions primarily and that's how they're marketed. There's nothing exciting about eating a healthy balanced diet of whole foods, but that's the ticket, that and physical activity, proper rest and good company.

I pay attention to nutritional claims but I don't change my diet unless there is a specific problem FOR ME. For example I can bring on IBS symptoms by eating the wrong foods, so I don't do that. And by upping my intake of quercitin I feel better, so I eat capers, which I never used to do.

Just eat real whole food and a good balance that your body tolerates. Forget the fads.

 

[PyramidHead]

Yeah, they are mostly junk because nutritional science sucks. I don't know if it's because it's a fairly recent area of research or because it's too tied up in agribusiness, but the studies never seem to be properly controlled or designed. It seems the threshold for publishing nutrition science papers is not very high, and since everybody eats, it's easy for journalists to sensationalize the findings of even the most underpowered and irrelevant study. Consensus in the field moves very slowly and is never able to account for all the human variation. Like T.G.G. Moogly says, your body is pretty good at telling you what's good or not (though not in all cases).

 

[bilby]

Most diet and nutrition claims are marketing. Sales are important; Facts are not.

There is factual information about diet and nutrition out there, but the noise to signal ratio is so high that unless you are a professional nutritionist, or are getting your advice from one, you are almost certainly being exposed to more nonsense than sense.

Worse still, many people who portray themselves as 'professional nutritionists' are in fact hucksters and salesmen. The ordinary citizen is probably best off just ignoring the details, and eating a varied and tasty diet. If doing that makes you fat, eat less and move more. If you get sick after eating something, stop eating that thing. Otherwise, chill out - nobody's going to live forever anyway.

 

[PyramidHead]

Otherwise, chill out - nobody's going to live forever anyway.

Very true. In the end, the difference between a vegan and a carnivore is that one of them is dying in a slightly greener way and the other in a slightly redder way.

 

[TV and credit cards]

A bit of info from the Cleveland Clinic on low carb & protein sources.

The age-old health maxim “everything in moderation” does not, in fact, hold true for everything. Smoking, for instance. And Twinkies. Some things you’re better off avoiding altogether. But for the food category that’s been a source of controversy in recent years — we’re talking about carbohydrates — moderation may indeed be best for most people. A new population study found that adults who consumed a moderate amount of carbohydrates had a lower than average risk of early death, while those eating either a low-carb or a high-carb diet had an increased risk. What’s more, for people on lower-carb diets, the source of protein and fat mattered. With so many of today’s popular weight-loss diets replacing carbs with protein or fat, this is important news. Those people on lower-carb diets who consumed more plant sources of protein and fat (such as beans, lentils, and nuts) had a lower risk of early death, while those who ate more animal sources (such as meat and cheese) had a higher risk. Like all population studies, this research shows a correlation but doesn’t prove cause and effect. It does, however, add to the already abundant research on the power of plant foods, which tend to offer an array of nutrients and health benefits. (We’re talking whole plant foods — juice and processed plant foods like chips don’t count!) Lentils and beans, for instance, are a fantastic source of not only protein and carbohydrate but also fiber, which is essential for good health. Fruits and vegetables contain not just vitamins and minerals, but also phytonutrients, whose benefits we’re just beginning to understand. Rather than adopting an unusual diet, aim for balance and focus on the quality of the foods you eat.

Source: Dietary carbohydrate intake and mortality: a prospective cohort study and meta-analysis

 

[southernhybrid]

Most diet and nutrition claims are marketing. Sales are important; Facts are not.

There is factual information about diet and nutrition out there, but the noise to signal ratio is so high that unless you are a professional nutritionist, or are getting your advice from one, you are almost certainly being exposed to more nonsense than sense.

Worse still, many people who portray themselves as 'professional nutritionists' are in fact hucksters and salesmen. The ordinary citizen is probably best off just ignoring the details, and eating a varied and tasty diet. If doing that makes you fat, eat less and move more. If you get sick after eating something, stop eating that thing. Otherwise, chill out - nobody's going to live forever anyway.

Some of it has to do with marketing, but the article that I linked discussed the pressure that scientists who research nutrition are under to produce more research and print more articles. I don't know if this is true in all of medical/health research, but I have found huge amounts of contradictory information in medical articles that I read in addition to what we see in nutritional research claims. I'm not saying that medical and nutritional research shouldn't be important, but the methods that are currently used must be improved if they are to be taken as valid. Not all of this is due to marketing. I think more of it has to do with poor methodology as well as personal bias.

 

[Shake]

As far as nutrition relates to weight loss, I've had my best successes when I did not actually cut anything completely out, but rather just monitored my portion sizes, ate less of the bad stuff, and exercised more. As others have said here though, staying away from stuff which doesn't agree with you is a good policy, IMO.

 

[southernhybrid]

As far as nutrition relates to weight loss, I've had my best successes when I did not actually cut anything completely out, but rather just monitored my portion sizes, ate less of the bad stuff, and exercised more. As others have said here though, staying away from stuff which doesn't agree with you is a good policy, IMO.

That's pretty much my own idea about nutrition and how I've kept my weight down for the past 20 years. Most Americans have no idea what a normal portion size consists of anymore. I blame restaurants for part of this, not just fast food restaurants. Now that chain restaurants are required to include the calorie content of their meals, it's astonishing how many calories most of the meals have. I don't think most people seem to care but I've been a calorie counter since my teens. I've added a lot of high fiber foods because the calories in high fiber foods are absorbed at a significantly lower rate than foods that are low in fiber. I will never and have never followed a drastic diet of any kind.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

A bit of info from the Cleveland Clinic on low carb & protein sources.

The age-old health maxim “everything in moderation” does not, in fact, hold true for everything. Smoking, for instance. And Twinkies. Some things you’re better off avoiding altogether. But for the food category that’s been a source of controversy in recent years — we’re talking about carbohydrates — moderation may indeed be best for most people. A new population study found that adults who consumed a moderate amount of carbohydrates had a lower than average risk of early death, while those eating either a low-carb or a high-carb diet had an increased risk. What’s more, for people on lower-carb diets, the source of protein and fat mattered. With so many of today’s popular weight-loss diets replacing carbs with protein or fat, this is important news. Those people on lower-carb diets who consumed more plant sources of protein and fat (such as beans, lentils, and nuts) had a lower risk of early death, while those who ate more animal sources (such as meat and cheese) had a higher risk. Like all population studies, this research shows a correlation but doesn’t prove cause and effect. It does, however, add to the already abundant research on the power of plant foods, which tend to offer an array of nutrients and health benefits. (We’re talking whole plant foods — juice and processed plant foods like chips don’t count!) Lentils and beans, for instance, are a fantastic source of not only protein and carbohydrate but also fiber, which is essential for good health. Fruits and vegetables contain not just vitamins and minerals, but also phytonutrients, whose benefits we’re just beginning to understand. Rather than adopting an unusual diet, aim for balance and focus on the quality of the foods you eat.

Source: Dietary carbohydrate intake and mortality: a prospective cohort study and meta-analysis

When I started reading I thought, here we go again - carbs, carbs, carbs, like all carbs are the same. Good to see the differences made clear.

I wonder if we'll ever see a controlled study where people are allowed to eat all the food they want with the stipulation that it has to be real food, not processed stuff like chips and salami. And then test monitor for weight gain and other factors. Just speaking from experience the junk food tastes so good that even if not hungry I can keep stuffing myself. Real, whole food however does not have the same allure. But when I'm hungry the real stuff tastes great and goes down just great.

Another thing I've discovered is that salt doesn't matter in a real whole food diet. At least in my case I can pile it on with no change in BP, weight, etc.

 

[Underseer]

I debated over whether to put this in the foods, science, social science, etc. sections, so instead I decided to put it here.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/29/sunday-review/cornell-food-scientist-wansink-misconduct.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fhealth&action=click&contentCollection=health®ion=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=4&pgtype=sectionfront

Stanford, published a study titled “Is Everything We Eat Associated With Cancer?” He and a co-author randomly selected 50 recipes from a cookbook and discovered that 80 percent of the ingredients — mushrooms, peppers, olives, lobster, mustard, lemons — had been linked to either an increased or a decreased risk of cancer in numerous studies. In many cases a single ingredient was found to be the subject of questionable cancer claims in more than 10 studies, a vast majority of which “were based on weak statistical evidence,” the paper concluded.

Nutrition epidemiology is notorious for this. Scientists routinely scour data sets on large populations looking for links between specific foods or diets and health outcomes like chronic disease and life span. These studies can generate important findings and hypotheses. But they also have serious limitations. They cannot prove cause and effect, for example, and collecting dietary data from people is like trying to catch a moving target: Many people cannot recall precisely what they ate last month, last week or even in the past 48 hours. Plenty of other factors that influence health can also blur the impact of diet, such as exercise, socioeconomic status, sleep, genetics and environment. All of this makes the most popular food and health studies problematic and frequently contradictory.

In one recent example, an observational study of thousands of people published in The Lancet last year made headlines with its findings that high-carb diets were linked to increased mortality rates and that eating saturated fat and meat was protective. Then in August, a separate team of researchers published an observational study of thousands of people in a related journal, The Lancet Public Health, with contrasting findings: Low-carb diets that were high in meat increased mortality rates.

“You can analyze observational studies in very different ways and, depending on what your belief is — and there are very strong nutrition beliefs out there — you can get some very dramatic patterns,” Dr. Ioannidis said.

He and other experts have called for reform in nutrition science. They say that researchers should publicly register their study protocols beforehand to eliminate data dredging, share their raw data to increase transparency, focus on large randomized controlled trials to produce better results, and refrain from slicing and dicing large observational data sets into multiple papers that magnify weak findings.

Experts say that the problem extends to science journalists as well: Many reporters are encouraged to produce articles that get lots of clicks. That is another reason researchers and universities feel pressure to put out studies and news releases with exaggerated findings.

“I would say that we’re all drinking from the same well, and we’re all contributing to poisoning the water,” said Ted Kyle, an obesity expert who runs a health site called ConscienHealth. “At every step along the way there are folks who are culpable. I would suspect that we’re all complicit.”

The article in the link is very long, and it would help if others at least skim it. I'm pretty sure that the NYTimes allows nonsubscribers to read links.

Moving on. I've always been very skeptical of the claims made by nutritional studies and fad diets, as they come and go and frequently make confusing and contradictory claims. It always amuses me when I read the comments on a medical discussion board that I sometimes visit. Everybody seems to know the perfect diet for themselves and others. These discussions frequently become heated.

Have any of you based a current or former dietary pattern on so called nutritional research? What are your thoughts after reading the article in the link? My conclusion is that most nutritional research is bullshit, or at least should be taken with a lot of skepticism. So, I will continue to eat a varied diet with lots of plant based and a moderate amount of animal based foods. And, yes, I eat lots of carbs and even more sugar than most people think is healthy. My weight is normal and I'm pretty healthy after nearly 7 decades of life. I also think that genetics and many other factors as mentioned in the article make it difficult to do reliable research on diet. Unfortunately, this is also true in many other areas of science, but that's for a very different, more complicated discussion.

If I don't hear it from my doctor, I assume it's another stupid fad from the alternative medicine crowd.

For fuck's sake, those disgusting morons are giving bleach enemas to children with autism, and you want to get their advice on what to eat?