Science and Health
Here’s Why I Take Scientific Info with a Grain of Salt.
How a good-looking scientific paper can confuse and mislead the public with invalid assumptions, generalizations, and unscientific tone
Context and Background
This article presents a case study that I conducted, reviewing a paper in detail. I triangulated my points with my peer review of the previous papers, my personal experience, anecdotes of adherents to the lifestyle discussed in the paper, and the public reviews of the paper.
I write many articles about my lifestyle choices, usually backed up by scientific papers. However, I never seek to impose my diet or any lifestyle upon anyone. We are all individuals.
My article today is not about whether a diet is good or bad. It is about the lack of scientific rigor and confusion created by the paper for laypeople seeking to make informed decisions from what is purported to be scientific information.
Respectful criticism is a foundational aspect of the development of science. I have no personal connection with this paper’s researchers, editors, and or reviewers. I sincerely respect all of them as a common courtesy.
In my opinion, ethical scientists can make mistakes like any other professional. None of us is perfect. I believe that ethical scientists have good intentions for society. I do not doubt their integrity.
However, I have concerns about their paper — as do several other scientists in my academic circles.
My article today does not criticize or praise a diet but rather shows how a sample of scientific papers can mislead people with confirmation bias and lack of rigor.
As a hard-learned lesson in my life, I don’t like and try not to consume scientific papers sponsored by companies with an agenda as determining factor for my decision-making.
I shared my personal mistakes in this article on the side effects of misleading information, which I naively consumed in my younger years and which caused me to suffer severely. I also shared how I addressed my entangled health conditions in this article.
Coming from a science and technology background, I still don’t understand how high-quality journals allow sponsored content without rigorous examination and disclaimers.
These journals are used by millions of people to obtain information and make lifestyle changes based on their insights. People trust these journals. They are not run-of-the-mill self-help articles on the Internet.
There might be exceptions for sponsored content, but I always take them with a grain of salt, as most of the sponsored studies I reviewed are wrong, misleading, and biased to the expense of science and the detriment of the consumer.
These researchers may be great scientists, and I do not intend to question their credentials and integrity. My points in this article are based on my scientific review as a consumer of information and reviews of other credible people.
Two academics reviewed the study, one from Brazil and another from Algeria, as shown in the screen capture in the reference section. The paper’s editor has a Ph.D. from the Institute for Medical Research and Occupational Health, University of Zagreb, Croatia, and the Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, The Ohio State University.
I am not into popularity in content visibility in scientific journals, but I was curious about the editor’s credentials and peer reviewers’ work and their impact on society from a content visibility angle.
This is not a criticism of the publishing team but just an observation of my review’s completeness while assessing the paper’s authority from peer-review processes and editing rigor perspectives.
I briefly share my personal opinion on why this paper at first did not resonate with me, and I then further discerned its infirmities.
The paper’s overtly biased conclusion from cherry-picked studies is:
“Foods and dietary components that typically increase on ketogenic diets (eg, red meat, processed meat, saturated fat) are linked to an increased risk of CKD, cardiovascular disease, cancer, diabetes, and Alzheimer’s disease, whereas intake of protective foods (eg, vegetables, fruits, legumes, whole grains) typically decreases. Current evidence suggests that for most individuals, the risks of such diets outweigh the benefits.” [emphasis mine]
This conclusion is problematic in that it sounds like comparing apples to oranges.
Why I Find the Paper Problematic
First of all, I practiced the Keto diet for over a decade. It was the first diet that created a bridge to a sustainable lifestyle by making me fat-adapted.
I shared the details of my previous suffering in an article titled 12 Entangled Health Conditions I Owned & Fixed By Myself: How I transformed my problematic health and fitness situations by methodical trials & errors.
Since I practiced this diet for many years and observed other people using the diet, I noticed that the definition of the ketogenic diet is patently wrong.
More disappointingly, the paper uses biased and narrow definitions of this diet which was further affected by their misunderstandings and misinterpretation of the topic, thus grossly misleading the consumer.
Before starting the keto diet, I conducted comprehensive research and found that the Keto diet saved the lives of millions of children who suffered from epilepsy, especially in the last century. This established dietary protocol is well documented in the medical literature.
For example, according to this scientific paper on Epilepsia, “to mimic fasting metabolism, the ketogenic diet was introduced by modern physicians as a treatment for epilepsy in the 1920s. The paper published in 2008 points out that over the past 15 years, there has been an explosion in use and scientific interest in the keto diet.” The protocol of the classical keto diet is still used in medical institutes in several countries.
The authors of the paper-primarily discuss what is known in fitness communities with much disdain as “dirty keto”— for example, those who eat mostly fried bacon and eggs or other unhealthy processed meat.
On the other hand, for over a decade, the keto dieters I have known do not eat processed meat. They only consume healthy fat. People using the keto diet I have met in my circles, mainly health practitioners or fitness experts, are careful about the quality of fat and meat products they consume.
Dr. Eric Charles Westman, a medical doctor specializing in Obesity Medicine and Internal Medicine, Associate Professor of Medicine at Duke University, founder of the Duke Keto Medicine Clinic, and guest editor in Frontier, left a public comment that precisely aligned with my review of the paper.
Dr. Westman pointed out:
“Please note that these authors have never conducted research on a low carbohydrate, ketogenic diets, and in my view have done a very poor job in giving a balanced review. I am a Guest Editor here at Frontiers in Nutrition on articles that provide a different view on low-carb diets. Please take a look at these articles.”
As Dr. Westman highlighted, I also read the book by Gary Taubes titled The Case for Keto. Mr. Taubes, a reputable science writer, mentions many physicians use carbs-restricted diets now in their practices with excellent results. In addition, Dr. Westman’s patients get better, as he mentioned in many online health forums. However, the paper ignores these real-life scenarios. Gary Taubes is not just another science writer. His rigor is acclaimed in scientific communities, and I greatly respect his work. His work is similar to another science writer Nina Teicholz, author of the best-selling book The Big Fat Surprise: Why Butter, Meat, and Cheese Belong in a Healthy Diet.
“With forensic journalistic rigor and in compelling prose, world authority Gary Taubes analyses the bad science behind our nutritional dogma. This groundbreaking read offers hope to anyone wishing to prevent or reverse diabetes or obesity — as well as anyone wanting to eat more healthily — and will fundamentally change our habits around food forever. A revelatory expose of the bad science behind conventional weight loss advice, arguing for low-carb high-fat diets, from the bestselling author of The Case Against Sugar.” Source GoodReads
These two exceptional science journalists, Gary Taubes and Nina Teicholz, radically changed my views on science and the scientific process of journal articles.
They both forensically investigated the science literature and showed us dirty linens stink and give scientists a bad reputation. I honestly wish Gary and Nina would review this paper and challenge publicly the misguided perceptions created by this poor paper.
The paper significantly missed reviewing the lipid hypothesis in cardiovascular disease, which has been dismissed in the medical literature. In addition, the saturated fat hypothesis published in the peer-reviewed literature was not included.
When I review a scientific paper, I always check the tone of the researchers. Scientists should keep an unbiased and dispassionate view of the topic. They use a neutral tone.
On the other hand, the authors of this paper portray the opposite of these scientific values. Their bias is obvious in the writing tone. As other reviewers of the article have found, the tone of the paper did not sound scientific to me.
I know that the ketogenic diet is not just about eating unhealthy fat and processed meat. In fact, healthy practitioners of keto diets recommend healthy fat and meat. Reducing carbs does not require cutting vegetables. I know many vegan-keto dieters.
I don’t follow a plant-based diet due to my intolerance to carbs and plants affecting my autoimmune condition, but I know that it is possible to have a keto diet as a vegan or vegetarian.
Plants have minimal carbs and don’t break the keto diet rules. For example, you can find 101 low-carb recipes for a 100% plant-based ketogenic diet in this book titled The Keto Vegan.
I did not read the book, but my vegan family members and friends who follow the ketogenic diet loved the recipes. I respect every diet and lifestyle.
Conclusions and Takeaways
My overall impression of the paper is that the authors have picked and chosen studies that notably back up their biased opinions to take advantage of the public’s propensity to suffer from confirmation bias. Some of the studies are pretty old and of poor quality.
Their discussion about cholesterol promotes discredited historical thought. I understand that medical opinion is changing on the importance of the various measures, and it is a highly complex area.
I noticed that their caution regarding Type 2 diabetes is typical of mainstream medicine however is not backed up by new thought leaders. I certainly agree that there must be diligent caution regarding kidney disease and pancreatitis, which can be life-threatening — it may not be possible to predict who will react in this way.
From my review of the literature, the biggest obstacle to people maintaining a low carbohydrate diet seems to be the cost. For example, good-quality protein is expensive in many countries.
Consequently, it goes against the political views that citizens should increase the consumption of red meat for the planet’s sake. This is a heavily debated and arguable point in scientific, environmental, and political communities.
My purpose is not to pick holes in the paper by looking at every statement. However, I highly recommend it to be viewed with caution by consumers until established scientists, who can see through the poorly substantiated areas in the paper, have the opportunity to chime in.
My guess is that due to the political situation, poor-quality papers that criticize ketogenic diets may win over those that promote them.
However, politics and science are two different disciplines serving different goals in society.
Frankly, the situation with this paper reminds me very much of the promotional hype over margarine in the 1980s, backed, of course, by margarine companies at the expense of dairy farmers. However, recent studies have reversed this advice significantly.
Furthermore, I disappointedly read an article on this platform from a writer whom I highly respect. The writer used the term “Disease-Promoting Disaster,” in critiquing the keto diet article, using this problematic paper as the main source for his article.
The article has ended up as a sensation rather than a credible information source; therefore, I decided to add my perspectives here.
Even though the article was written with quality language, the content is misleading for the readers.
I have no hard feelings about this author for his article because the paper he cited is so biased and flawed that anyone with no academic and scientific background can easily believe the misinterpretation and misrepresentation in the mentioned scientific paper.
Even Frontier, as an esteemed publication, published this poorly written paper.
The smart generation of the next century powered by artificial intelligence and quantum computing will most likely ridicule the scientists of the 21st century who confuse the public.
Due to the reasons mentioned in my article, I firmly believe that this confusing paper should be removed from this prestigious journal as it does not benefit society.
Therefore, with due respect to researchers, peer reviewers, editors, and the journal owner, keeping this paper published in the scientific journal will not benefit global citizens and the next generation.
Obesity has become a global health issue. Many scientists believe that it is preventable, but millions of people suffer from it for various reasons, especially political ones.
Here is food for thought to conclude why I focus on rigor in scientific articles in the nutrition field, which is problematic globally. According to World Health Organization, WHO:
“Worldwide obesity has nearly tripled since 1975. Thirty-nine million children under the age of five were overweight or obese in 2020. Most of the world’s population live in countries where overweight and obesity kills more people than underweight.”
Many papers in nutrition science confused me, but I found the answers and insights to this trend in the best-selling books of Gary Taubes, Nina Teicholz, and Dr. Jason Fung who articulated the reasons for our suffering in rigorous detail.
I strongly believe that insulin resistance is the elephant in the room. In my opinion, every scientist who studies nutrition science should first read the books of these three authors who did the heavy lifting for aspiring scientists.
Here is my perspective on keto diets.
I also shared my research and experience on cholesterol. It is not the bad guy!
Here is what happened to me after eating lots of fat.
I end my story reflecting on my 15 years of diet (keto-carnivore) with intermittent fasting in the one-meal-a-day plan, which helps me thrive.
Thank you for reading my perspectives.
Sample Health Articles from My Collection
Science-Based Therapeutic Value of Expressive Writing for Mental Health
I post like these on Euphoria.
I also write about valuable nutrients. Here are the links for easy access:
Boron, Urolithin, taurine, citrulline malate, biotin, lithium orotate, alpha-lipoic acid, n-acetyl-cysteine, acetyl-l-carnitine, CoQ10, NADH, TMG, creatine, choline, digestive enzymes, magnesium, hydrolyzed collagen, nootropics, pure nicotine, activated charcoal, Vitamin B12, Vitamin B1, Vitamin D, Vitamin K2, Omega-3 Fatty Acids, and other nutrients that might help to improve metabolism and mental health.
About the Author
I am a technologist, postdoctoral researcher, author of several books, editor, and digital marketing strategist with four decades of industry experience.
I write articles on Medium, NewsBreak, and Vocal Media. On Medium, I established ILLUMINATION, ILLUMINATION-Curated, ILLUMINATION’ S MIRROR, ILLUMINATION Book Chapters, Technology Hits, SYNERGY, and Readers Hope publications supporting 16,500 writers on Medium.
You can join my publications requesting access here. You may subscribe to my account to be notified when I post on Medium. I share my health and well-being stories in my publication, Euphoria.
If you are new to Medium, you may join by following this link. A small part of your membership fee will not only support my writing, but your reading times can support many great writers on this platform. Opportunities for readers and writers are endless on this platform.
References
I attached some public comments by other reviewers of the paper. This is the link to the paper where these comments are taken. I took screen captures for future readers of my article to keep the context as Frontier might take these valid concerns seriously and remove this misleading paper, in my opinion.
You might find more information about my professional background. I write about health as it matters. I believe health is all about homeostasis.
If you are a writer, you can join Medium, Vocal Media, and NewsBreak as a writer and monetize your content while inspiring a large audience. Repurposing your content on these platforms can save you time and increase your income.
You can join my six publications on Medium, contributed by 16K+ writers, as a writer requesting access via this weblink.