Coffee is good for your heart! No, caffeine is bad for you! Eggs are fine, though! No, eating eggs is worse than smoking! ...Are you exhausted by the daily assault of conflicting health and nutrition information in the media? Skeptical about every new claim? You should be. As one critic puts it, health journalism is now based on "survival of the wrongest," and there are good reasons why consumers should be wary of what they read.
In the Columbia Journalism Review, David H. Freedman, contributing editor at The Atlantic and consulting editor at Johns Hopkins Medicine International, provides some explanations for why even health stories written by respected journalists in major publications often get it wrong. It's not always a matter of writers misinterpreting information or seeking a splashy story; often, the problem starts with the scientific study itself:
[S]cience reporters--along with most everyone else--tend to confuse the findings of published science research with the closest thing we have to the truth. But as is widely acknowledged among scientists themselves, and especially within medical science, the findings of published studies are beset by a number of problems that tend to make them untrustworthy, or at least render them exaggerated or oversimplified.
If journalists are passing along wrong findings and the media is picking up on the most attention-grabbing of these stories, it is the "wrongest of the wrong" that we see splashed across our homepages. A 2008 study of 500 health-related stories from large newspapers found that about two-thirds of the articles had major flaws, including exaggerating the effects of a disorder and failing to point out possible side effects of a treatment.
And while thinking about an article that uses studies to support an argument that studies are often wrong kind of makes us want to curl up in the fetal position and forget we ever heard the words "health journalism," we'll probably just take Freedman's advice instead: "Look at the preponderance of evidence, and apply common sense liberally."
It's a long read, but worth it for anyone who cares about promoting honest health information, not just the latest media fad.
• Read the article: 'Survival of the wrongest' at Columbia Journalism Review
What do you think? Are there health news sources you trust, or do you take it all with a grain of (dangerous! no, totally safe!) salt?
Related: "Experts Say ... " How Do You Handle the Barrage of Food and Nutrition Claims?
(Image: Darren Baker/Shutterstock)
How To Cook Fluffy, Tasty Quinoa
True Greek Recipe: Paximadi Bread Salad with Tomatoes, Feta and Capers
Good Food to Share 
The Big Book of Small, Cool Spaces 
Apartment Therapy Presents 
The Eight-Step Home Cure 
Monterey Pitcher fr...
Before & After: Emily Henderson Transforms a Senior's Studio Space
Monica & Austin's Charming Bungalow
I don't listen to them at all, they are mostly wrong. The reason is that food and metabolism are very complex and don't work the same for all people in all circumstances (climate, work, pregnancy, food availability, to name but a few), plus there is a social/psychological component, too (pleasure, stress, poverty...). So any attempt for generalization is very likely to fail.
As a sciency-type person (yes, I know this isn't actually a word), the problem I see is journalists often taking research and misinterpreting what is going on. When a researcher says "association" or "correlation" between two things, that doesn't mean a causal relationship. A lot of times, news stories seem to want to make that leap before the research is ready to really call it that.
Science is a process. It takes time, and when you're working with population studies, there are lots of outside variables at play. The researchers know this; they're working with what they can ethically do.
Because I'm a nerd (and a sciency person), I like to read the journal articles themselves and extrapolate for myself.
Here's another article that I think explains the whole phenomenon of "nutritionism" and an overwhelming focus on micronutrients and nutrition trends:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/28/magazine/28nutritionism.t.html
I deal with it by going with my own rule ~ everything in moderation, including moderation. This approach averages out the risks and the benefits while leaving in the joy in food.
Each person is different. Even two people suffering from the same symptoms will not respond the same to the same treatment or diet. It's what makes figuring out what is best for your own body so difficult, and having compassion for others who have chosen a different route so important.
I follow food issues writers who don't promote a black and white view of nutrition like Marion Nestle, Michael Pollan and Mark Bittman. I avoid nutritionism and am skeptical of anything that shouts out a health claim for any one nutrient or food.
In terms of general health, that's a little harder because so many studies contradict each other. I try to take away a general idea of an article and then observe my environment. See the cause and effect for something myself. Although, I do avoid "health news" on entertainment websites.
It's important to remember there is a good and bad to everything, including food. Some choose to focus on the bad some choose to focus on the good, but in the end its all about moderation.
I agree everyone is different, but my question is, how do I find out what is best for MY body? What nutrients does it need and what are the ones that are damaging to me? Who can diagnose and offer a solution that's best for me ?
The real problem with interpreting scientific literature is being able to understand the how the researcher analyzed the data. Even many scientists cannot do this at a sophisticated level. Therefore they make the mistake of taking the author's conclusions at face value.
Nobody is trying to mislead, but the general level of limited understanding of statistics and scientific methodology prevents journalists from reading research results with a critical eye.
This is the exact reason I can no longer watch the news. It seriously creates anxiety for me. So many stories of what you're doing wrong with your life and what is so wrong in the world. I can't do it. I choose to live in moderation. I swore off health news a while ago, and thats a shame. But its the only way I can live a happy life.
The problem, as stated, is with journalists not scientists. To understand the big picture of diet, metabolism, nutrition..etc we must inspect every minute detail so that we can put the bigger picture together.
Do we need to know what Zn2+ is doing when administered alone to understand what it is doing when we consume it in broccoli? Yes. Then, we need to use that information to create a picture, in concert with the hundreds of other chemicals in broccoli to truly understand what is happening. But, studying broccoli alone as a whole is useless, since broccoli content varies based on growing location, soil content, weather, preparation..etc. Instead, the approach is to understand the actions of single components, then slowly build upon this knowledge to create a true and encompassing picture of broccoli. This is true for caffeine to coffee, alcohol to wine.
As an example, look at apples: we know through scientists that sugar causes insulin production and in turn the formation of glycogen stores. We also know through scientists that fiber occupies the enzymes responsible for the metabolism of sugar. Put these together, and we know that sugar from fibrous fruit is digested more slowly and causes insulin plateaus rather than spikes. We know from THIS that eating the same amount of sugar from fruit rather than from fruit juice has differential effects on the development of Type II diabetes. This is still a vastly oversimplified explanation, but it illustrates the point.
Ignore nutritional information that's reported in the popular press. The vast majority of journalists are woefully ignorant about science and have no clue about how to properly interpret or report on the results of scientific studies. Your best bet is to educate yourself by reading as much as possible.
Also, avoid books and blogs that go overboard on talking about "toxins" and and how this food or that food will kill you/ make you live forever/boost your sex life/make your children grow horns and all of the other useless nonsense you'll find online and hear from "nutritionists" or overly zealous amateur nutritionists.
Michael Pollan has some of the best books ever written on nutrition and how we should eat. Start with his "Food Rules" or "The Omnivore's Dilemma" and go from there. "Eat Food. Not too much. Mostly Plants" and you'll be fine for life.
I love that journalists want to blame the studies for their incompetence. Not all studies are good, but you'll notice the story (this blog included) never mentions something called "limitations" of the study. That means the article nearly always screams that the finding I'd far more broad and conclusive than it really is.
Most scientists make it excruciatingly clear what the limitations and biases are within the study. But that's a problem for the reader if website articles (including here) do not bother posting a LINK to the STUDY.
It's a shame American high schools don't teach kids how to read a scientific study. Google the phrase (how to read a study) and learn if you want the inside good info.
I wrote about this a while back; I found two excellent tools for assessing science news: the baloney detection kit from Skeptic Magazine and Double X Science's Double-Take.
I also tend to find the link to the actual study, or to interviews with the scientists who did the study - you would be amazed how much better the information is in an executive summary than in a news article.
**That should have said "finding IS far more broad and conclusive". Sorry.
Re: health people get frustrated when hearing about coffee, eggs etc. the way around this is to remember those yucky fruits and vegetables have always been the top recommended foods by experts. There is no miracle food.
James Watson (famous DNA researcher) recently warned about antioxidants, of all things. This just shows why "super diets" are a scam. There is no miracle food. Coffee will never be found to cure everything.
Eat what you know is healthy and you can say you did your best. And do not forget the one thing every scientist agrees is a nearly flawless fountain of youth. Exercise.
I really enjoy science news, but I'm not a scientist. However, I've read enough to know that the "you should be eating 10,000 grams of soy protein a day OR ELSE!" stories are clearly mangled science at best, total quackery at worst. A long time ago I decided to focus on physics and space exploration when I want a diverting bit of scientific news, and leave nutrition alone. Want to know how to be healthy? Eat traditional cuisines that were eaten widely by peasants without daily access to lots of meat. These people survived and had flocks of children. They died in accidents, of infections, in floods, in wars--they didn't get fat and develop diabetes.
I stopped taking this kind of thing seriously as I'm seeing the conflicting reports too. Though what I DO tend to agree are stories that seem to build on earlier evidence, correlating things that make sense, like reduce out dependence on excess red meat consumption, reduce fats, stop smoking etc, stuff that has been proven in both the science labs, and in real life, but other than that, these latest "research" articles, I just ignore.
My stance is, just about everything eaten in moderation won't kill you and really at the end of the day, I would rather just enjoy the food. :-)
Eat like your great-great-grandmas did. Whole, unprocessed food, plenty of vegetables and fruits, not too much sugar, plenty of pastured and grass-fed dairy and eggs, and not too much meat (grass-fed and pastured when you do eat it), and whole grains. Organic whenever you can get/afford it.
Easier said than done, I know, but that's the only way I can think of to eat truly healthily. People who ate like that and spent plenty of time outdoors and working hard are among some of the longest-lived people in the world.
Alas, getting back to that point in our food history is nearly impossible. Still, a worthy endeavor.
The only thing I do think is common sense is to reduce sugar and caffeine intake. I already don't consume caffeine at all (except negligible amounts in decaf tea and chocolate), but cutting down on sugar is hard. Ditto bread, which I love dearly. I'd rather have homemade bread and sweet cream butter than meat or candy any day. Unfortunately, that means I can eat an entire loaf by myself over the course of a day. Not good.
Also cutting back on the amount of food consumed, especially bready things, meat, and cheese. But I've already resigned myself to being chubbier in the winter than in the summer.
I think the media takes new studies and flashes only bits and pieces of the actual study in the news. All these types of new findings don't mean you have to make a change in your daily habits. Just because they found out cranberries are healthy, doesn't mean go and guzzle down a gallon of cranberry juice. A great place for nutrition news is the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics website - eatright.org. This is run by the nutrition professionals in the US - the ones making up the dietary guidelines and myplate. They are unbiased medical professionals with the public's interest in mind. As a dietetic intern, I know that RD's and the eatright.org website are THE places for nutrition news and information.
Maria Tadic
http://beanafoodie.com/blog
I just eat whole foods, in a wide array of colors, mostly plants, and organic/wild whenever possible. That seems to work for me.
Oh, yes. And try to eat with the seasons. Your body does want more and heartier food in the winter, you silly mammal, it's try to keep you warm! When the warm weather comes around it'll remind you that there are fresh young greens out there, don't worry.
@Emmi, Watson's findings are even more startling than your run-of-the-mill contradictory food news because after saying that anti-oxidants may cause cancer, he goes on to say that the current popular direction for cancer research is all blarged up.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/01/09/us-usa-cancer-watson-idUSBRE90805N20130109
@Akay, thanks for the link. Careful, he didn't say antioxidants cause cancer. He said that with existing cancers, oxidating radicals encourage cancer cells to destroy themselves. Chemotherapy hinges on it; so taking high doses of antioxidants may hinder that process.
A really great resource for scientifically sound nutrition information is the Nutrition Action Healthletter. ( http://www.cspinet.org/nah/index.htm ) As a dietitian, I encourage people to exercise their most valuable weapon- common sense- when reading studies that are diet and health-related.
I decided to just follow Michael Pollan's food rules. Which can be boiled down to: Eat real food, mostly plants, in moderation. I believe that all the science in the world and various interpretations of it, won't dispute those three rules.
Plus one for the Nutrition Action newsletter that eaturveggies links. *Great* resource. Sound analyses. I love the "food porn" section (worst commercially-available foods).
I had a professor in grad school tell us, "you can get statistics to say just about anything you want them to". And since food studies are very often funded by the food industry, those 'results' can be misleading.
Instead of listening to specific recommendations, I like the broader ones--like Pollan's Food Rules (which I add to a bit)-- "Eat Real Food (that tastes delicious!), Not So Much, Mostly Plants"
@ChefJenny —
You got there before I could with your mention of the funding of studies. Which is a topic that is NEVER, EVER, EVER mentioned in the popular press.
As Mark Twain said [and I'm paraphrasing here] there are lies, damn lies, and statistics.
As far as food goes, less meat is where I'm heading, and if I get a sudden craving for something (I get a HUGE craving for grapefruit about once a year...) I listen to my body and feed it grapefruit until the craving passes. Do I know why I crave it? Nope. The same thing for salt. I use very little salt, but when I get a craving for something salty like salted nuts I'll eat them. Pay attention to what your body is telling you.
The idea that funding influences studies is a myth. Sure, some studies are big conspiracies and lies. But the vast majority are not. If a newly minted (and broke) Ph.D. is going to study some endangered species in Belize, you'd better bet they're going to hit up the World Wildlife Fund for money; and the WWF would benefit from the knowledge so they know how better to protect certain species.
Same with food studies. If food interest groups hear someone is doing research relevant to their message, they might offer money. But they usually offer all of it up front (otherwise the researcher would not be able to get the resources they need) so the researcher doesn't have much motivation to fudge the results.
Also remember, to lie and fabricate results is a very serious offense in the scientific community, with consequences if you get caught. Most researchers have no interest in going that route.
@Emmi:
You say "The idea that funding influences studies is a myth." Not so. Here's a link to a wiki article you might find enlightening. A brief snippet:
"Disclosure of potential conflicts of interest (COIs) is used by biomedical journals to guarantee credibility and transparency of the scientific process. Conflict of interest disclosure, however, is not systematically nor consistently dealt with by journals which publish scientific research results. When research is funded by the same agency that can be expected to gain from a favorable outcome there is a potential for biased results and research shows that results are indeed more favorable than would be expected from a more objective view of the evidence. A 2003 systematic review studied the scope and impact of industry sponsorship in biomedical research. The researchers found financial relationships among industry, scientific investigators, and academic institutions widespread. Results showed a statistically significant association between industry sponsorship and pro-industry conclusions and concluded that "Conflicts of interest arising from these ties can influence biomedical research in important ways".[3] A British study found that a majority of the members on national and food policy committees receive funding from food companies. [4]"
Marion - thanks for the quote. I hate to be pedantic now, but you've pointed out one area of research (biomedical) that does have some internal problems; especially Big Pharma. Since some studies there are self-funded (and they have tons of money to pay their own scientists) I'd say it's not really the same as maybe a smaller group of nonprofits or independent scientists studying nutrition, biology, ecology etc.
Have you read Ben Goldacre's new pharma book? Shocking.
But I wouldn't necessarily put tons of stock in Wiki (although if it's from another source, their sources are often quite good).
Bottom line: if Nestle, Merck or Exxon for example self-funded with their own scientists, yeah I'd be suspect. But it's like farmer's markets. If you can find smaller independent scientists or nonprofits they're more likely to be in it for the knowledge. Seriously, that's not a naïve statement. We can't paint most of them with the same brush.
Emmi, you make a very valid point. However, most of the studies that are cited in the news media aren't from smaller independent scientists or nonprofits, and the vast majority of readers won't dig down to find who funded, etc.
(I'm also annoyed by the bogus health claims that are made in TV ads... "95% of physicians recommend our mattress..." I'm the sort of freak who reads the small print to discover that the mattress company funded the "study.")
It is so overwhelming to stay on top of all of it. Now I live in Southeast Asia, and I'm constantly worried about labor standards and how the people who produce the food we eat are being treated. At least when it comes to health, I think that making sure there is lots of variety in our diets and eating everything in moderation is the best, and simplest, way to stay healthy.
Marion - Ha! That's right, and I'm the same way. You know the inserts in aspirin bottles, the ones with the micro-fonts? I read those. And it's scary how small those sample sizes are. TV advert "studies" forget it, they are either set up first party by the company or they cut and pasted some nonsense from a remote study.
We perused a furniture store one day and the salesperson was spouting some "study" nonsense, I could barely keep my mouth shut.
@Jess S - I'm friends with a 3rd generation coffee farmer in the Philippines, I don't think people realize the challenges people face there. Luckily my friend hasn't been bothered by the government (yet) and he practices shade growing coffee and Agroforestry (intercropping) so it's great for the environment. Plus the folks who use those methods almost never experience total crop failure. I hope some day we all buy from these farms.
Best wishes.
I only trust studies that link to the actual study, but even then everything sounds a little sketchy to me. And most of the time I don't have time to skim studies, so it's only for answers I truly care about.
My best tip for getting good scientific information is to get as close to the source as possible. Ignore the headlines and go straight for the link to the journal article or conference write-up or, second best, official press release. Like Emmi said, studies are written up in a way that makes it very clear what their methods and limitations are, and they're not trying to grab people with a shocking statement like journalists often do.
Second tip is to not make drastic changes based on one study. Accuracy and validity are improved as studies are repeated, diagnostics and measurements are improved, etc. That takes time. Meta-analyses can be informative but it takes time to accrue that much data. Longitudinal studies are awesome, but they REALLY take time.
Third tip is to just be sensible and use your intuition. I know that's the opposite of the scientific method in a way, but as we've pointed out there are constraints on the scientific method. If you eat a variety of whole foods, sleep enough, and exercise, you'll probably be fine. Or you'll get hit by a bus but that will have nothing to do with your diet. :-)
This is why a blog like thekitchn should not write about "health" issues. You do not have a trained journalist who can distinguish between a flawed experience and a trustworthy experiment. You do not have a trained journalist who can decipher what the results from a trustworthy experiment actually means. I often see you recommending some health tips based on some articles you have read, and you are doing more disservice to your readers than help. Sports and nutrition fields are replete with pseudoscience and tons of unreliable experiments because the fields are still nascent and so much money is involved in those fields (supplements and vitamins). It is hard for someone like me who has experience in this field for a long time to see what's real or not unless I actually see the actual report.
So, please, you are very good at writing about general cooking topics, so stick with it. Health and nutritional info may look relevant to cooking, but it requires completely different set of knowledge, understanding, and skill sets to write about.
The evidence overwhelmingly shows that eating lots of fruits and veggies is good for you. I'm not exactly clear on why that's so difficult for folks.
I stick with the Paleo/Primal crowd. The amount of research and review of articles is fantastic, and a constant push for understanding the causation and physiology of food is about as close to perfect as you can get. The understanding surrounding the Paleo/Primal approach is also constantly evolving as new research is performed and our understanding broadens (i.e. Robb Wolf's recent change regarding low carb, Mark Sisson's updates to the Primal Blueprint etc.).
Iridium (#77?), I couldn't agree more with you.