don's report archive

by Donald B. Ardell, Ph. D.

Wellness in the Headlines
(Don's Report to the World)

Efforts to educate the public to guard against media overreaction to research study findings rarely succeed -- people are impressed and bamboozled on a regular basis, especially when the topic is nutrition. Why does the media so often sensationalize and thus distort study reports? Because sensationalism sells newspapers. If something in a research report hints at a fault line in the bedrock of an established belief, the study will become headline stuff, usually in a distorted manner.

Thus, it is wise to be cautious, even skeptical, about news reports describing such findings. In the words of the Larry David hit HBO show, I say, "curb your enthusiasm." Even if researchers themselves claim a breakthrough of some kind, which reputable scientists rarely do (for example, "Our new longitudinal study suggests that high fat, alcohol-rich diets boost brain power"), it is best not to get your hopes up. Unless a good deal of additional research corroborates new findings, the "breakthroughs" do not deserve serious consideration. Media overreaction to study findings have given many the impression that there are absolute nutritional "truths;" the reality is that scientific juries are still deliberating about nearly everything.

Here are a few examples of headlines extracted from the data in varied study reports.

• Low fat diets enable weight-loss.
  
  
• High levels of dietary fiber prevent colon cancer.
  
  
• Eating several servings a week of oily fish high in omega 3 fatty acids will prevent several forms of cancer.

A major study described in JAMA last year found no support for any of the above claims.

So, why is the public still confused about the nature of a healthy diet? For that matter, why am I still confused about the nature of a healthy diet, not to mention the surest path to unbounded happiness, the meaning of life and unbounded fame and riches?

Here's my theory. I think it explains all these matters regarding the absence of certainty.

Certainty is not an option! There is little certainty available about anything. Reporters and others in the media world can't write nuanced headlines, so they ignore uncertainty, even when they appreciate the fact of it. Seeping statements that ignore limitations are the best way for them to do business, under current conditions. However, no need for you to be fooled. Just curb your enthusiasm about the likelihood of breakthroughs on dietary findings, and other reported claims for discoveries that go against the foundations of established perspectives on one thing or another.

The good news is that established perspectives on a good diet are still reliable. Such bromides as moderate your intake of fat, salt and sugar in favor of more whole grains, fruit and vegetables are supported by the evidence to the extent that most experts will say, "well, such a pattern won't kill or harm you." That is not the same as saying it won't guarantee against any dread disease (there are too many variables at work) but at least they will opine that such advice will almost surely do a lot of good in terms of weight management, energy production and so on.

Marion Nestle, a nutrition and public health expert at New York University, recently noted that "dietary recommendations haven't changed in 50 years - just eat less and move more, eat more fruits and vegetables, don't eat too much junk food."

The World Health Organization (WHO) issued the same basic statement a few years ago after its own panel of experts completed a massive review of 400 studies. The WHO panel looked at 140 possible links between diet and cancer, cardiovascular disease, osteoporosis and diabetes. Only ten links were deemed "convincing." WHO's conclusion: "Eating too much fat and salt will increase your risk of cardiovascular disease while fruit, vegetables and oily fish reduce it." Also, "salted fish raises your risk of nasopharyngeal cancer; and if you're over 50 and want to avoid osteoporosis, you should increase your calcium and vitamin D intake."

Not the kind of headline material the media seek, but sound advice. That's why I advise curbing your enthusiasm any time your daily newspaper (probably tomorrow) highlights a new study suggesting (fill in the "to be wished for" blanks) "_______ reduces/enhances _______." Chances are, it does or does not or, more likely, might or might not.

So, be a critical thinker, skeptical of headlines, yet remain predisposed to look on the bright side of life. Meanwhile, get on with your own unique quests for the surest path to unbounded happiness, the meaning of life and great fame and riches -- knowing that certainty about these and other such quests in elusive.

Be well.

(Note: This essay will be filed in the archives in the PHYSICAL DOMAIN under the skill area of nutrition. Additional articles related to this theme may be found there.)

(Ed. Note: Views expressed in this and other columns are those of the author and not necessarily those of the SeekWellness Editorial Board.)

 Send e-mail to Don Ardell