Statistics Confuse Nutrition Studies
One study finds this, then a separate study finds that: Here’s why nutrition research is inconsistent so often.
It’s no secret that nutrition research frequently contradicts itself. One moment eggs are healthy, then shortly after some study says you should steer clear of them. One day red meat is bad news for your health, and then follow-up research finds that you need not slice steak from your diet. According to a report in The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, the discrepancies in findings in nutrition studies may come down to the use of statistics.
The most common ways to study the health implications of the foods we eat typically yield misleading and often confusing results, say the study authors. For instance, most studies have different approaches to controlling for the rest of the diet of participants such as energy consumption, so each study is likely estimating a very different quantity, making the ‘average’ rather hollow. The authors of the paper hope that their findings can assist future nutrition research efforts by helping scientists avoid conducting inappropriately designed and controlled studies, resulting in more reliable findings. So someday we might finally have an answer to whether we should be chicken to eat eggs or not.
Matthew Kadey, MS, RD
Matthew Kadey, MS, RD, is a James Beard Award–winning food journalist, dietitian and author of the cookbook Rocket Fuel: Power-Packed Food for Sport + Adventure (VeloPress 2016). He has written for dozens of magazines, including Runner’s World, Men’s Health, Shape, Men’s Fitness and Muscle and Fitness.
