By Sam Yang - Get similar updates here
The baby boomers need to listen to their grandparents and we need to stop taking dietary advice from the baby boomers. Somehow temporarily we got confused about diets and thought certain real foods were bad and processed foods were better...
"Remember when eggs were bad for us before they were good for us? Or when certain heart disease was the devil’s bargain we made for loving a good cheeseburger? You may be excused for the vertigo you experience from all the flip-flops, twists and turns written over the years about the goodness or badness of any number of foods. For all of the “scientific” studies of nutrition and health, the bottom line is that we know something about the food we eat. But truthfully, the science behind what we ingest and how it affects our health is in its infancy.
There are numerous reasons why we are get conflicting information, partly because of how some journalists interpret scientific reports. Most reputable research papers are broken down the same way. There is an introduction/background, a methods section explaining how the research was performed, a results section, discussion/conclusion, and finally a summary. Journalists for the most part, not being scientists and on tight deadlines, read only the summary, which may have less scientific jargon and be more readily digestible than the rest of the paper. Many a journalist has fallen prey to accepting the summary without delving into the particulars. The result is a headline that screams Coffee Is Great for Your Health! when it should have said Coffee Is Great for Your Health—If You are Middle Class, Have Health Insurance, Don’t Smoke, Exercise, and Your Parents Don’t Have Cancer!
The problem is not always the journalism. Some studies are deeply flawed. Other studies cannot be duplicated and are therefore discredited. Sometimes the sample of people studied is too small. And then there are the studies sponsored by industries that have vested interests in the outcome."