Debunking Nutrition Myths: A Critical Analysis
Unveil the truth behind common nutrition misconceptions through a detailed examination of errors made by nutritionists. Explore the controversial topic of antioxidants and evaluate the validity of claims such as the pomegranate's ability to prevent wrinkles. Understand the impact of observational studies and confounders on research findings, and dissect the transition of scientific discoveries from the lab bench to mainstream media. Case studies shed light on the role of leading nutritionists in dispensing advice based on research, highlighting the nuances of interpretation and potential biases.
Download Presentation
Please find below an Image/Link to download the presentation.
The content on the website is provided AS IS for your information and personal use only. It may not be sold, licensed, or shared on other websites without obtaining consent from the author. Download presentation by click this link. If you encounter any issues during the download, it is possible that the publisher has removed the file from their server.
E N D
Presentation Transcript
THE NONSENSE DU JOUR Somesh* Yongjia James
LE OVERVIEW - "Four key errors" made by so-called "nutritionists" - The case for/against antioxidants.
THE POMEGRANATE STORY PREVENTS WRINKLES NO OFFICIAL STUDIES SPECIFIC CLAIMS THE BULLSHIT IDEA
OBSERVATION OR INTERVENTION?
OBSERVATION VS INTERVENTION
Study was done BUT OBSERVATIONAL LEADS TO ...
confounder is an unobserved exposure associated with the exposure of interest and is a potential cause of the outcome of interest.Confounders lead to bias that distorts the magnitude of the relationship between two factors of interest.
FROM THE LAB BENCH TO THE GLOSSIES
Curcumin The maount of it in each amount of tumeric.
Case Study - Britain s Leading Nutritionist , Dowden - Advice given based on research : =>Eat more olive oil: Protection against skin wrinkling - Matches research findings? => Research was OBSERVATIONAL STUDY - CONFOUNDING VARIABLES at play
Lessons Learnt - Careful with extrapolating results from observational study => CONFOUNDERS may affect results
What is CHERRY PICKING Supressing evidence To ignore evidence that may contradict their data Only using the data that support your stance.
Why is it bad? The idea of using all the information at your disposal instead of only those that might be useful to you. Here s an example ..
Waste Type Recycling rate (%) CONSTRUCTION DEBRIS 99 Ferrous metal 99 Scrap tyres 92 Wood 79 Paper/cardboard 51 Glass Food 19 Food 13 Textiles/Leather 8 PLASTICS 7
The Case of Antioxidants The free radical theory of ageing
The Case FOR Antioxidants - Higher beta-carotene intake => lower risk of cancer - Case-control study and cohort study
The Case AGAINST Antioxidants - 2 large trials of antioxidants => 30,000 participants high-risk of lung cancer to receive beta-carotene, vitamin E => CARET Study - Apparent harm instead of benefit with use of antioxidants
Why dont we know about this? (Public Ignorance) 1) Unexpected finding 2)Food supplement industry s publicity gimmick 3)Media s inability to challenge industry s claim 4)Paralysed by confusion
TAKE HOME MESSAGE Never bullshit your way through life. A Good research is grounded on true data and not bullshit.
