Why Nutrition Studies Keep Contradicting Each Other

Why Nutrition Studies Keep Contradicting Each Other


[♪ INTRO ] It seems like it’s practically impossible
to get a straight answer on whether a given food or supplement is good for you. First they say red wine is good for you. Then there’s a headline announcing that
it doesn’t do anything, and wait, isn’t alcohol supposed to cause cancer? If you wanted to change up your diet to accommodate
all the latest news reports, you wouldn’t get very far before you’d run into all kinds
of contradictions. I mean, you can’t both drink and not drink
alcohol at the same time. And the problem goes deeper than the over-exaggerated
headlines on cable news. Often, the way nutrition research is done
makes it really hard to translate the results in to practical advice because of imperfect
comparisons. The effects of one compound might not be the
same as the effects of the entire food. What happens in animals might be different
from what happens in humans. And a food that’s good for you in some ways
might be bad for you in others But it is possible to untangle all that by
examining these studies more closely. You just need to know what you’re looking
for. Take what happened with raspberries not too
long ago. In a 2011 study, researchers in China found
that red raspberries could improve blood pressure. Annnnd then in 2013, a team in Finland found
that fresh berries didn’t affect blood pressure at all. There were plenty of differences between these
two studies, though — and plenty of reasons they might have had different results. The Chinese study used raspberry extract,
and was done on rats … specifically, a strain of rats prone to high blood pressure. Whereas the Finnish study used berry puree,
and the subjects were humans with symptoms that increased their risk of heart disease,
like high blood pressure. The first problem with comparing them is that
the other ingredients in the berries could’ve interfered with the effects of the compounds
in the raspberry extract alone. Then there’s the whole “humans vs other
animals” thing. One reason scientists use animal models is
that you can control everything about them. You can administer every speck of food they
eat, control how much they exercise, and monitor them day and night. Try to do that with a human and see how long
it takes to get punched in the nose. But that means in this case, the humans who
got the berries might have been doing or eating something else that negated the effects. Or hypertension-prone rats might be more sensitive
to the blood pressure-lowering effects of berries than normal, if somewhat unhealthy,
human beings. Comparing those two studies is a little bit
like comparing apples and oranges … or apples and raspberries, I guess. Different types of studies are important. It’s usually much easier and safer to test
things in other animals before moving on to humans, and scientists in all fields of research
rely on multiple lines of evidence to form conclusions. That’s how science works! But when it comes to nutrition, most individual
studies are intended as a piece of a larger research puzzle, not something for the home
consumer to take to the grocery store. Studies on humans might be easier to translate
to your life, but even those are fraught with complications. Like when a 2014 study on red wine contradicted
the findings of another paper from two years earlier. Both studies were specifically concerned with
a compound in wine called resveratrol, which is an antioxidant — meaning it helps prevent
potentially damaging chemical reactions in cells. In 2012, a randomized controlled trial by
Hungarian researchers found that adults who received resveratrol supplements showed an
improvement in a bunch of signs of cardiovascular disease. Randomized controlled trials, or RCTs for
short, are the closest you can get to a controlled experiment in humans without the aforementioned
nose punching and a whole passel of ethics violations. Participants are sorted into groups and statistically
randomized so the experimental and control groups are as uniform as possible. Then you give the experimental group the food
or supplement or specialized diet you’re studying, which should ideally be the only
thing that’s different between the two groups. And this RCT seemed to show that resveratrol
made a difference. But then, in 2014, an observational study
of adults in Italy didn’t find any effect of resveratrol on signs of cardiovascular
disease or mortality. Observational studies are different from RCTs. They aren’t really experiments — they
involve gathering data that’s already out there, in this case by interviewing people
about their eating habits and analyzing their urine. RCTs are usually thought of as the most rigorous
type of human study, but that doesn’t mean they’re always right and observational studies
are always wrong. The 2014 observational study found that while
participants had a lot of resveratrol in their diets, like from wine, the stuff might not
have reached a high enough concentration in their bodies to have any biological effect. So the lesson there might be that supplements
are more effective. Which brings us to a fairly infamous example
from the field of cancer nutrition. Beta carotene is a dietary precursor to vitamin
A found in foods like carrots and sweet potatoes. A body of evidence from multiple observational
studies suggests that eating fruits and vegetables rich in beta carotene lowers the risk of lung
cancer. Which was the justification for a number of
clinical trials, including one in Finland in 1994 and one in the US in 1996, which gave
beta carotene supplements to smokers. Except, the smokers who got beta carotene
had a HIGHER rate of lung cancer. You really don’t want to give your study
population cancer, so this came as a bit of a shock. In the fallout, it was found that beta carotene
in high doses could actually act as a pro-oxidant — a compound that’s the opposite of an
antioxidant, and promotes chemical reactions that lead to cellular damage. So the observational studies showed that carrots
are good for most of us, but the clinical trials discovered that under specific circumstances,
high doses of beta carotene have a pro-cancerous effect. These findings weren’t exactly contradicting
each other … it was just another case of comparing the wrong things. So that’s another thing to look out for
with nutrition studies. When you dig into the details, findings that
seem contradictory might turn out to be building on each other. The final — and probably most important — question
to ask when you see a report announcing that something is good for you is, what does “good
for you” even mean? There’s no universally agreed upon definition
for it, and it’s never what researchers specifically set out to study. Trying to figure out whether something is
“good for you” is just too broad. Studies might look at rates of stomach cancer
after a certain number of years, blood glucose levels, cholesterol levels, or any of the
other incredibly specific markers related to cancer or diabetes or obesity or some other
health issue. Scientists who study nutrition call these
outcomes, and they’re probably the most important thing to look for in any nutrition
study. Going back to the wine example, red wine contains
a whole bunch of plant compounds that are targets for nutrition research — resveratrol
is just one of them. At the risk of stating the obvious, wine also
contains alcohol. And alcohol itself might actually be good
for you in some very specific ways. A 2002 analysis of several dozen studies of
the effects of wine and beer found that overall, wine drinkers were less likely to die from
heart disease, or to experience other, less fatal heart problems. But the association was there for beer drinkers
too. It was statistically weaker, but clearly the
effect wasn’t just coming from the special plant compounds in wine. This finding has cropped up more than once,
and there’s enough evidence that some nutrition experts might recommend light or moderate
alcohol consumption to help prevent cardiovascular disease. Does that mean alcohol is good for you? Well. I mean. It’s alcohol. Even if it helps your cardiovascular system,
it also messes with your liver, interferes with fetal development, increases the risk
for certain cancers, depresses your central nervous system and a whole list of other things. In some of these cases, the dose makes the
poison. The evidence points toward light or moderate
drinking having certain positive effects, but heavy drinking being bad in basically
every way. While alcohol is an extreme example, it’s
not hard to find cases where a particular food or nutrient has a positive effect on
some outcomes and a negative effect on others. These studies aren’t contradicting each
other because they’re not trying to answer whether something is universally “good for
you.” But when the findings show up in the news,
sometimes that nuance gets lost in translation. When it comes to nutrition research, there
are so many seemingly contradictory findings coming out all the time that even the scientists
publishing them need to step back and look at the evidence as a whole. That’s why the field is full of review articles
and meta-analyses. The process of science is pretty much always
this messy, but for some reason with nutrition it’s on public display. Maybe that’s because we want to be able
to justify our craft brew hobby by believing it’s healthy, or because we’re always
looking for ways to live longer and stave off diseases. Maybe it’s because what we eat feels like
the one thing we can control in a world full of unknown risks. But it helps to take every individual nutrition
study with a grain of salt. Not too big a grain, though — I just read
that salt’s bad for you. Or was it good for you? Thanks for watching this episode of SciShow,
which is produced by Complexly. For other awesome Complexly videos about nutrition
and health research, check out Dr. Aaron Carroll over at Healthcare Triage. [♪ OUTRO ]

100 comments

  1. Can someone tell me why beef and pork make me bloated and cause an overly acidic stomach? It's not caused by eating it once, but if I eat it for a few days in a row, I feel tired and my digestion seems to get worse. I think it extends to potatoes and bread too, though I can eat a lot of bread before that happens. On the contrary, it seems that I can eat fish, chicken and rice every day without suffering these consequences (though a shrimp overdose has more immediate and short-lasting consequences).
    I'm European BTW.

  2. Salt. Definitely necessary for biological function. Ca. 6g of NaCl per day. 20g per day won't hurt you if you're in good health overall. Especially kidney problem patients should keep a low salt profile.

  3. Talking about alcohol and health, I read a large meta study about this last year (I think it was released in 2016 or 2015, and I think it was Swedish). In this meta study they found that there was a big error in almost all the studies where they hadn't thought about that correlation doesn't mean causation. Their conclusion was that people who drank too much alcohol or no alcohol at all did so because of their mental or physical health, while those who were healthy in general drank small amounts of alcohol. So, instead of saying that small amounts of alcohol was good for you, their conclusion was that people with problems with their mental or physical health either started to drink too much or choose to not be drinking at all.

  4. Haha!!!! I just got a commercial that said "Don't believe everything you read about nutrition" before I watched this. That's funny.

  5. PLEASE DO A VIDEO ON GLIOMAS!!!!?!?!?!?!?! My grandmother had one, and I would like to know more about them. If you cannot DO A VIDEO ON GLIOMAS, will you at least let me know??

  6. Why so many negatives? The presentation was on point, concise, and simple to understand by the general population.

  7. Do u guys think it's okay to test such science problems on prison inmates who are serving life sentences or psychopaths/rapists etc? I believe "science subject" should be treated like a punishment for committing a crime of a certain degree. This would ensure a much rigid system and humanity would benefit from it as a whole.

  8. a glass of wine a day may not keep the doctor away, but it sure is nice to have a glass of wine every day.

  9. Another reason: independent scientists have been unable to replicate the results of many, many studies, i.e., a lot of studies are poorly conceived and improperly conducted, and the results are misinterpreted or outright lies.

  10. I once found two sources of effects of a chemical in dieta soda with all the research copy/pasted and the only detail changed was the end result (polar opposites.) One of them didn't have a publish date.

  11. And there’s so much that goes into this… Not all food is grown equally, and I’m not talking organic versus non-organic I’m talking about when it’s picked, how it’s watered, and even different varieties of tomatoes for example can be bred to have more amino acids or more vitamin C etc. And this goes especially true for supplements… For example the resveratrol and the wine study- The supplements are much higher dosages than a person would naturally get. And not all supplements are created equally, Some are synthetic, some are natural, some are more absorbable to the body, some stay in the system longer… There’s so many variables that makes nutrition difficult for sure. But we can’t see over years and years of study that a lot of times certain bandwagon trades such as the “low-fat diet “has not helped heart disease at all, and that any extreme is usually a bad thing. And that however you eat we can all pretty much agree that increasing your daily intake of fruits and vegetables is a pretty good idea.

    Another thing to consider is who is putting on the study- what are they getting out of it? Do they want to sell raspberry supplement? Do they want to sell you a cancer treatment? If there’s an ulterior motive, I would take it with even more of a grain of salt.
    And remember these big Pharma companies can’t make money if you heal yourself with food…

  12. Lesson: ignore observational studies since you cannot get Cause. Only well done RCT’s are worthwhile to take action from. Observational studies, aka empirical, aks epidemiological studies are like the fast food of science and comprise of over 90% of studies. Junk.

  13. What a fantastic video! Particular outcomes of individual nutrition studies are regularly presented, often in ways that even distort the outcome of that individual study, by people with something to sell–be it a diet book or program or just a click bait headline. The answer for us consumers is really quite simple: stop eating crap, eat more fruits and vegetables and consume fewer animal products. If you do those three things you can gleefully, and healthfully, ignore the looneys who tell you that eating bacon all day is the path to good health or that eating one egg is the same as smoking 5 cigarettes and let the scientists get on with their messy, but ultimately gloriously enlightening, process of moving nutrition science forward.

  14. Well, it's basically because the meat, egg and dairy industries want you to believe that their products are healthy, and they have a lot of money…

  15. The "moderate alcohol consumption is good for you" finding is debunked in the meantime as an example of how the question you're asking inherently flaws the selection of people you examine: the seemingly positive effect of moderate alcohol consumption was a statistical flaw coming from the effect that after dividing a random selection of people into non-drinkers, moderate drinkers and hard drinkers those groups were actually not comparable as the non-drinkers group contained people whose health condition was so bad that they did not drink any alcohol due to that bad health condition. These people decreased the average health condition of the non- drinkers so much that the group turned out worse healthwise as the moderate drinkers. Selecting a non-drinking group and a moderately drinking group of people with the same average health conditions and observing them over some years results in what you would expect: every bit of drinking is bad for you (but moderate drinking does only moderate damage to your health).

  16. So, to summarize, if you are a bad researcher, go do nutrition studies, you will do all right by the field standards. In my opinion, it should be called clown's science. Except, it won't make you laugh.

  17. About the study on alcohol and cardiovascular issues: ascorbic acid is commonly used in good quantities to brew at least wine, and I wouldn't be surprised to learn that, it is also used in beer, but more rarely. People speak about its usage on the internet, anyway. And it is a vital component of the maintenance of cardiovascular tissues, and most people are quite deprived of the stuff. But well, I'm just a random viewer with no diploma, so…

  18. I am a Cardiothoracic Surgeon who studies nutrition since it has direct effect on my patients. I have found a study that is one the most comprehensive and well done studies that I have read. It is called “The China Study” which is an unfortunate title because China was only part of this illuminating research. Its findings are basically saying that a Plant Based Diet is what humans thrive best in. Have you research this book by Dr. T Colin Campbell, PhD and Thomas M Campbell II, MD ? Society would benefit greatly by its precepts. George C. Robinson

  19. There should be a study on who sponsors these nutrition studies. This mess may be caused by economic interests, and then most of these studies are actually fake.

  20. the way these studies are done also sucks and are usually funded by the certain food company as well

    also different fruits that grow in different place react to people differently especially in their home countries vs other countries

    what we need to do is stop saying sugar is horrible for you when its not its the fake sugars and HFCS and HFCS is a GMO that should be illegal like in most other countries

    for the few that dont have GMOs illegal they have HFCS very regulated and try to get corporations to use sugar over HFCS

    thx for this ha bisky vid i go by what my body wants and now that they add plastic and fish bladders to some wines i have been done with wine for awhile

  21. It has been said a hundred-million times before, all things in moderation. Water is good but drink 4 gallons and you end up in the ER.

  22. humans aren't rats, dogs, cats, rabbits, pigs, or monkeys……
    As a quick example, if we tested chocolates on dogs, then it wouldn't have made it to human testing because it makes dogs very ill… But the same chemical that causes dogs to be ill, is benign in humans.
    likewise, dogs aren't affected by salmonella when they eat raw meat, but humans get very very ill if they consume salmonella laced meat.

  23. You look tired or stressed in this video Olivia. Are you allright?

    Love your smile and quirkiness. You're a great presenter and among my favorite with Michael and Hank.

  24. you seem to cover every question one can have about our world, and thank you for that!
    the only question i have and cannot really google (i tried researching, but no results) is WHY it became so trendy to YOLO, live a moment, becoming one with the universe, etc.
    I mean, it's a very fine concept but it became so mainstream these days! where are the roots of it? what's the story?

  25. Good video but missing a load of things:
    #1 a large number of "Scientific" Studies these days are bought and paid for by corporations – pharma, food etc. Results tend to favor what these guys want to hear.
    #2 You don't need the media or scientists at all to figure out what's good for you! Zero confusion can be achieved by some simple deductions.
    #3 Anything will have a toxic effect at a certain dosage – even things we can't live without, like water.
    #4 Balance is definitely the key, but this statement isn't very useful on its own: Balance yes, but which foods? This is, happily, where it gets very simple:
    #5 You just have to look at what the human body subsisted on in nature, before denatured factory food became available. Animals in the wild never get sick, other than physical injury. Only those fed by humans do get sick. Or those that live in environments humans have altered and polluted.
    #6 Look at what we were able to feed ourselves with, before industrial production of food became prevalent. If you ingest mostly packaged food from the American and European food Mafia, you become a customer of the pharma Mafia in short order. Its that simple.
    #7 Since we already know that our intestinal system matches that of herbivores, we know that meat is suboptimal – meat spends too much time in your system, causing heavy loads of bacteria and various other problems. If you think you must have meat to live, you'll just have to accept that you'll be less healthy to a variable degree, depending on individual constitution and other habits.
    #8 If you can't follow the "natural food" train of thought, try the next one:
    #9 The last thing our corporate overlords want to do is pay an employee who retired at 60 Years old or pension for another 40 Years, while they're not working. Do you really believe it to be in the interest of the food industry to keep you healthy? Do you believe its in the interest of the pharma industry to keep you healthy, where every healthy person is a lost customer?
    #10 Remember those industries are not separate, they are owned by the same banks. ~20 global banks control ~140 major corporations, which includes the media. They work together in concert, mostly. And the most advantageous scheme for them is, that you should keel over soon after retirement – preferably from cancer, so they can use high cost Chemo-therapy to get you to kick the bucket and for the charges, take your family home from you, that you paid off throughout your working life. There is absolutely zero interest in curing cancer. If there's something good against it, it won't be publicized.

  26. Perform tests on controlled groups of people like children, prisoners, nursing home patients. The real problem with conflicting data is the source of funding and the individual biases of the researchers. Until we address the problems with ethics in the scientific community we wont be able to fully understand the data we are presented with.

  27. You make NO mention of industry funding at all and the ensuing conflicts of interest. And for Pete's sake, there's NO J-curve for alcohol consumption. Drinking a tiny bit every day isn't somehow magically healthier. A proper review of the research has clearly shown that healthy non-drinkers have the lowest all-cause mortality. You have to separate out the people who were wrongly classified as non-drinkers, but merely quit drinking after contracting diseases. BTW – The alcohol industry has crazy lobbying power and they've funded plenty of studies designed to create very specific perceptions.

  28. Onions are suuuuper healthy, but thanks to my IBS I can go ahead and sit on the toilet for ages the day after I ate a bit, and I’ll have cramps at least as bad as period cramps for the rest of the week. So anyway, it really depends on the person, eh?

  29. Because of course scrutinizing every molocule of everything that goes into our body is a fine use of the limited time we have on this earth.

  30. Nah, god created us this way and we are supposed to die a horribly and painfull death.
    Amen

    JK i don't belive in any god..

  31. This truly enlightened me, is like what happened when we were thinking on how to help my uncle with terminal cancer. Some stuff was good for one thing but bad for the kidney disease & antioxidants are worse if you already have cancer… Was horrible & sad & then you understand why is so hard to cure .

  32. This is a really good video though. As someone who has an interest in science based herbalism it is really important to look at the contexts and methodology of various studies to get the right idea. Instead of just being like "Bleh it's all quackery" like NO plenty of medicines are refined from plants in the first place come on!
    It's complex.

  33. Our team is [seeking|looking for} highly motivated [individuals|entrepreneurs] to help us kick off the launch of our new DNA Nutrition company. When you join our team, you will receive $8,000 worth of Eric Worre training included at no cost. If you are interested in learning more, please post "info" for more details.

  34. So, it's basically, if not contradictory, virtually impossible for even a pretty smart person to keep track of, let alone us common rubes, and a healthy diet is about as out of our hands as everything else in our lives, and we are all hopelessly powerless in every possible way while being just sapient enough to have the seeming capability of control tantalyzingly dangled in front of our noses.

    Good to know.

  35. vid was okay – there are some moments you kinda mumbled (like the top lip doesn't move) – open your mouth and move your lips more, this will help with projection and pronunciation.. you have a lovely smile – own it

  36. Hey Olivia,  consider some of the gibberish that is being spread over butter vs margarine. What is butter? Butter is a suspension of milk solids in fat. what is margarine? Margarine is a suspension of milk solids in fat. So what's the difference? By law since 1943 (US) butter must contain animal fat, specifically dairy fat. margarine is a more general, generic term and butter is a form of margarine. so margarine can contain any type of fat, including walrus fat, should you so choose. To be realistic, heart-healthy margarines such as Promise or ICBINB are made with plant fats. Plant fats are liquid at room temperature so we call them oils. To make them more solid they are partially hydrogenated. However even after hydrogenation they still contain less than 1/3 the saturated fat of butter. And, like butter, they contain zero trans fat (read the friggin' labels!). So, bottom line, is that heart-healthy margarines are much better for your health than butter and neither is "one molecule away from being a plastic".

  37. Look, here's all you need to know about nutrition sciences:
    Eat and drink whatever the hell you want. If you feel sick, change your diet and see what happens. Repeat for as long as needed.

  38. 7:30 well…just like we need salt…it could also cause hypertension when consumed regularly in large dosage.
    Thats why large consumption of vitamins, except maybe vit c, will be harmful to human body such as too many carrots might turn you orange.

  39. I'm old enough to remember several changes in official medical "wisdom": Margarine being healthier than butter until it was "decided" it wasn't. Coffee, chocolate bad for us, then not so bad. Red wine, as shown here. I now eat cautiously but without absolute policies. Better to stay sane and die a few months sooner than to agonize (unhealthy) over diet, methinks. I'm 78.

  40. Crappy observational epidemiological studies based on food frequency questionnaires, finding weak correlations and reporting them as causitive. See Prof John Ioannidis

  41. It's because various food industries sponsor research to push their specific products! And alcohol producers are no exception.

  42. Studies once showed that you're damned if you do.
    Then meta-analysis later indicated that you're damned if you don't.
    But new data is convincing scientists that the damnation cannot be avoided, nor sugar-coated.

  43. So many people cant imagine how insanely complicated nutrition is. Theres literally an infinite amount of variables, many of which we dont even understand yet. Just play around with diets until you find what works best for you.

  44. You neglected a fourth consideration: the source of funding for the research. What can you expect when in the 70s, Dr. Stephen Kreitzman at Emory University was funded to do a study on the effects of white sugar. The source: Coca Cola.
    There's also a severe problem with isolating substances for testing. For example, some additives may be restricted to 50 parts per million (ppm) when added to food. This is based upon tests to determine the safety of that additive alone, as described early in this video. However, the total of some 400 micro-additives adds up to 1,500 ppm in food for human consumption. The big problem is that interactions between two or more additives that produce adverse effects are constantly being discovered. An example is the caution regarding consuming grapefruit when taking statins. There is yet to be a study that compares a diet free of additives with a diet that includes the 1,500 ppm of additives; the FDA will explain they can't do that study because it would be too expensive.
    One other concept worthy to note: Western medicine is obsessed with "normal" values in blood, with weight, height, and longevity. Here's the problem: "normal" blood sugar, blood pressure, weight etc. is not normal; it is in reality "average." You may be aware that the "normal" weight in charts today is quite a bit higher than the charts of 20 years ago. Another years ago event occurred in California in the 1970s. There was concern about strontium-90, a radioactive element, contaminating milk and vegetation. The "normal" level at the time was zero ppm according to the laboratories. When workers went to have their blood taken to determine if they had strontium in their bodies, they found levels unexpectedly high. After a few months of similar results, the labs were suddenly reporting a normal level range from 0 to something greater than zero. The real normal is zero; their "normal" was adjusted to reflect the average levels they were finding.

  45. There is definitely a reason to justify yet another study when a flaw exists in a study that was vague or downright wrong. do the study correctly and it wont be needed to run again,hard to get money for a study that doesn't need to be refined.

  46. A very good presentation, showing just how convoluted nutritional studies are.
    How does THIS study grab you, though? http://inhumanexperiment.blogspot.com/2009/09/two-brave-men-who-ate-nothing-but-meat.html

    Not only were the participants monitored EVERY DAY, but they took all their meals in the lab. Yes, they were allowed to go home, but one cannot really "cheat" on this diet without it quickly being detected.
    This is the only study I have found so far that I actually trust. In the links you will find the clinical report and I did read the follow-up somewhere, when the men had reverted to a "normal" diet. Both had put on weight and showed other signs of deterioration.

    I've gone full-on carnivore and now suffer no more from cramps of any kind, nor do I have indigestion, bloat, arrhythmia, blood pressure fluctuations, headaches or flatulence. But that's just me. Other people may react differently.

  47. The Bible actually says that wine is to be drunk in special occasions like celebrations it makes the heart marry, so basically use it once in a while for like a wedding or something but, even think becoming drunk is obviously sinful. Just another reason the Bible is true 😁. Thanks for this info, I will keep tryin different things and experimenting I realized I had a allergy to dairy which I can only assume will cause problems with weight loss if you are consuming something that is toxic to you. So I wonder if I eliminated everything my body has allergies to would I naturally lose weight? Just eating the foods I want? Do my allergies to certain foods cause weight gain I love dairy and eat it often perhaps if I cut it out completely would I lose some of the weight would I feel better? Bread is also something high in carbs but, it never causes me to become sick. I wonder honestly.

  48. Really, there are four things that have plenty evidence and are good for you:

    1) Don´t be obese
    2) Excercise, sport or any kind or workout
    3) Friendship, social life, social contact
    4) Don't smoke

  49. Wrong! A quantum nutricionist could solve all this problems. With this professional its possible to drink and not drink alcohol at the same time. Its simply quantum physics.

  50. Doesn't help when media outlets over-hype certain studies to make headlines and therefore sell more (newspapers, increase viewing figures). Also those with an agenda only promote certain studies so get more followers on their diet/health plan

  51. Because the food industry, who funds these studies, stand to benefit from muddying the waters and has a lot to lose if they don't do it. They use these studies simultaneously as ads for their products as well as to intentionally obscure the truth.

  52. The answer to your question, "Why" is very simple.
    Drug companies pay for roughly 75% all "studies".
    So while some studies are done to try to understand what nutrition is or should be, drug companies are trying to obfuscate what the facts are.
    Hence the reason for the conflicting results.
    Since many illnesses have been successfully treated nutritionally [see pubmed.gov for the studies] the drug companies have to try to hide the facts behind less than optimal studies.
    By making the situation unclear, difficult to understand, usually with conflicting, confusing and ambiguous results, the drug companies can continue to amass grossly obscene profits at the expense of the ignorant.
    One study conclusively showed that statins only benefit ~1% of the patients that take them; another study showed at least 17% of statin users developed a permanent muscle wasting disease.
    Yet doctors still prescribe some 23 billion dollars worth of statins each year.
    Pubmed.gov has huge numbers of studies show that there a number of natural treatments for cancer.
    If those were used instead of the drug companies' products, it's possible many more lives could be saved.
    But that would be at the expense of the drug companies's profits. [Typical year's worth of leukemia drugs costs $130,000US.]
    So there you have it, sports fans; the drug companies are incredibly corrupt, killing 100s of thousands of people a year just to keep those profits flowing into their bank accounts.
    Any questions?
    Have a GREAT day, Neighbors!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *