Nutrition | Science | Critical Thinking

3 Things to Spot in Nutrition Articles: Critical Thinking for Foodies (Part 2)

We can learn from the mistakes of others. So, here are three mistakes made by “nutritionists” online.

Instagram? Facebook? Twitter? Maybe Snapchat? Whatever your preference, social-media can help us form networks, and for me, it’s led to real-world relationships. But it’s come at a price — the countless cries from nutrition quacks, trolls, and diet tribes…

Yes, nutrition science has limitations, like all the sciences — and yes, nutrition science can be complicated and underfunded.

But no! These issues do not give diet quacks the excuse to exaggerate and outwardly misinform us.

In response, here we follow up from the first article, and discuss three more ways to help distinguish between a quack and a legitimate expert. So, let’s get our critical thinking caps on and delve in.

1. They reference incorrectly or not at all.

Medium enables authors to include hyperlinks of source materials — it’s simple but essential.

For me, an article with no citations, can feel empty and barren, as if it has no value. Each day we are inundated by dietary health claims, often without references to a study’s origin. The basis for omitting sources might be to purposely mislead a reader. Maybe no research exists to support their claim? Or, a citation is excluded out of ignorance?

Whatever the motivation, no referencing is a clear sign of a quack.

You’ve probably noticed a lot of poor referencing while reading articles online. There are many scientific citation styles, but that is not the focus here.

I’m talking about simple mistakes quacks often make when citing studies. Putting aside the facts of the Mediterranean diet for a moment. Imagine an author wants to sell us on the Med-diet by stating it can increase the human lifespan.

A quack frequently cites news articles describing a study rather than reference the original research.

It’s clearly fine to cite or hyperlink news stories if an author tells their readers it is a news article of a study — and not the original research paper. What quacks often do, in an attempt to support their view, is refer to a news article as if it is a research paper. Doing this tells us that the original research paper has probably not been read, and the author is not trustworthy.

Without reading the original research article, it is next to impossible for anyone to wholly understand the findings.

Sadly, some news outlets are also guilty of discussing studies and not citing the original research. In the news article hyperlinked above, you may have noticed the full reference is on its webpage. That’s what we should expect, but there are news outlets and websites that, unfortunately, do not maintain this basic citation standard. We know better than to put our trust in such poor reporting.

It’s worth reminding ourselves that news articles often use shock tactics to get our attention. But, if you like nutrition content from news articles to help build general knowledge, that’s OK!

To help, I put together a quick guide to reading a news article on nutrition science, actions you might be instinctively doing already:

• Inspect the news article title for phrases such as “new study” or “research indicates,” it’s a quick sign the news article is reporting a study.
• Browse the document or web page for the full reference of the original research.
• No reference? It’s not trustworthy. Best move on.
• Reference included? You could check if it’s the correct reference by doing an Internet search or, read on, keeping in mind the tips from this article (and part one).

2. They state that research supports their claims when it does not.

Above, we considered how a quack might try to ‘sell’ you on the idea that the Mediterranean diet can increase the human lifespan. You probably noticed something with the study I hyperlinked?

To demonstrate a quacks actions, I cited an animal study, which means the results might differ if repeated in human studies.

Quacks often reference animal research because they just read news summaries or the conclusion of a research article.

Who has time to review study characteristics and methods to interpret the results? Most people don’t, a nutrition scientist has to. To be clear, the lab-based animal experiment in question is not bad research.

The ethical debate aside, animal studies, a form of basic nutrition research, can:

“help us understand biological networks, such as genome (DNA/RNA protein profiles), and how these networks affect metabolic responses to diet and food.”

Also, randomized controlled trials or RCTs are commonly misunderstood. A quack often cites small pilot and feasibility studies because they think they are full RCTs. Within the pyramid of experimental studies, RCTs are considered the “gold standard.”

In nutrition science, the RCT tests a diet treatment’s effect on a health condition or disease. By design, an RCT identifies if a treatment “works.” It does so by including control groups, blinding, and a significant participant sample to ensure there is statistical power.

Pilot and feasibility studies do, but not always, include randomization and control groups. They can not, however, tell us if a treatment is effective because they have a small sample size. The purpose of feasibility and pilot studies is to test if a treatment or diet intervention can be done on a practical level. If it is, then the study is considered feasible for a larger RCT.

The quack often sees ‘a randomized feasibility study’ and thinks it is a full RCT — then makes false diet claims.

3. They make definitive statements and over-promises.

In part one, we reviewed the ‘egotistical self-professed “expert.”’

Such people tend to proclaim that, without doubt, certain foods, supplements, or diets offer benefits with no downsides or risks. If you notice this, it’s time to trust the inner skeptic again, ignore the definitive statements. Relax and avert your attention. Maybe have some quiet time? Nice.

In part one, we reviewed the ‘egotistical self-professed “expert.”’

Such people tend to proclaim that, without doubt, certain foods, supplements, or diets offer benefits with no downsides or risks. If you notice this, it’s time to trust the inner skeptic again, ignore the definitive statements. Relax and avert your attention. Maybe have some quiet time? Nice.

Quacks also use the over-promise to convince us. They might quote old wives tales or ancient medicines. Often a quack is overt, but let’s consider something subtle.

The phrase, “an apple a day keeps the doctor away,” is suggesting that we should eat apples because they are “good for us” — but is that all?

On the surface, it seems like a harmless expression. Still, when we apply a critical eye, we notice that the phrase promotes a mystery force in action. Maybe something unique, as if apples are a super-food? So, do apples have exceptional qualities that keep us immune from disease? Of course not, but you already knew that.

There are many nutrients in apples linked to health benefits such as fiber and phytonutrients, but different foods have different qualities. Chicken, for example, contains B-vitamins and protein. These two nutrients in chicken are considered “essential” in that the human body needs them for necessary physiological functions. So, we have to consume protein and b-vitamins in our diet.

The fiber and phytochemicals in apples (and other fruits and veg) seem to have specific health qualities.

Still, they are not considered essential for human functioning, but there are important recommendations. So, being that nutrients in chicken are essential, is it a super-food instead of apples? Well, you know there’s no such thing, the point is that the notion of super-foods has been made up by quacks. Why?

They would like us to believe in the so-called “active nutrient” to convince us to buy an expensive, high-dose supplement.

You may have come across the term nutraceuticals, which is when high dose supplements are used like medicine or pharmaceuticals.

The sole purpose of medicine is to treat health conditions, and so too is the nutraceutical. One example is in the genetic condition called familial hypercholesterolemia. This condition causes blood lipids to be abnormally high. It is not routine, but to help lower triacylglycerides, a medical doctor might prescribe substantial doses of omega-3 fatty acids.

Hypercholesterolemia is one of the few situations when high-dose supplements can be justified, and only under medical supervision. So, what non-disease reasons are there for taking supplements?

Examples include pregnancy, and geography — for example, if we live in places with low sunlight exposure — like the UK! Generally, though, if we maintain certain eating behaviors and have no medical conditions, we can be healthy without the need for supplements.