7 Ways to Deal With Alarming New Research
If you care enough about your health to be reading up on the latest research, you are unusual.
Most folks don't bother. Either the studies seem "boring," or they say things people don't want to hear. (You need to exercise! Stop smoking and eating so much junk food! A six-pack before dinner every night is NOT a smart idea!)
So normal people are quite skilled at ignoring research they don't like. Diet Blog readers, however, may be puzzled as to how to do this. We like science - though sometimes inaccurate, it beats superstition and wishful thinking. And usually the latest research is on our side: it says that we're doing smart healthy things and are going to live long happy lives.
But what do we do when a truly perplexing and dispiriting study comes out? For example, let's say new research says: "That Supplement You've Been Taking Might Give You Cancer Instead of Preventing It." Or, "The Meditation You've Been Forcing Yourself to Do for Twenty Years is Useless." Or, "Diet Soda Will Give You Heart Problems."
How do you keep such news from Messing With Your Head?
See no evil, hear no evil
- Dismiss the Source
This is easier if it's something a coworker tells you they read "somewhere"; harder if it's a comprehensive research review just published in the New England Journal of Medicine. However, look for conflicts of interest because often, you can find them or at least imagine them, which will help you feel better. - Dispute the Conclusion
This is handy when headlines say "Something Is Useless." Because often what the article actually says is: "A Badly Designed Study Failed To Prove Something Was Useful." These are two different things. Another common problem is the confusion of correlation with causation. "Wheelchairs May Cause Mobility Problems" is the sort of headline idiots write upon noticing that most people confined to wheelchairs don't walk very well. - Differentiate the Population
Perhaps a study just came out saying Shy People Die Young. But it only involved male shy people. If you're a shy woman, no problem! - Note that Previous Studies Said Otherwise
Frequently, the only reason you're doing what you do now is because some study told you to. So you took your Vitamin E Or A or whatever, and then another study comes out and says, "Wait, no don't!" How do you know which one to pay attention to? - Wait it Out
This is a general technique you can employ with all of the previous psychological coping mechanisms. If you don't want to change what you're doing, wait, because some new study may come out soon shifting things back again. - Make a Tentative Change Just In Case
Easy if it's something you don't care too much about. Stop taking mega-doses of vitamins? Sure. Go on an extreme near-starvation calorie restricted diet to promote longevity? Um, still waiting on that one... - Change Course and Return to Smugness
Sometimes scientific thinking evolves, and we evolve along with it. Many of us who were counting fat grams back in the eighties, who wouldn't touch peanut butter or avocados or dark chocolate or salmon because they were full of Evil Fat, are now happily back in the fold, saying we never "really" doubted they were good for us in the first place.
So does anyone else struggle with Unwelcome Scientific News? Or do you all take it in stride?
30 Comments
Add Your Comment
ADVERTISING
New
- FROM DIET BLOG
- Kellogg's Nailed Over "Immunity Supporting" Cereal
- How Obesity is Changing the Healthcare Industry
- Plus-Sized Nightclubs: Rattle and Rolls?
- Obesity Liver Damage Worse Than Alcohol?
- Is The Human Body Meant For Distance?
- FORUM
- Does Phase 2 of South Beach Stop Sugar Addiction?
- Awesome Chipotle Chicken Recipe
- HCG Diet Has Stopped Working
- Christelle's Blog
- 6 Months and Still going...
Categories
| Body Image Celebrities Diet Pills Diets Exercise |
Fast Food Funny Stuff Success Stories Teens and Kids Tips and Tools |
RSS Feed
Follow @DietBlog on Twitter
Hee hee, this is quite snarky, but with good truth and good sense at the heart of it. Bravo!
Since I met my economist husband, I have become much more picky about studies in the media; he does that all day in his role evaluating public policy & education. Your tips are very good ones.
Replythere are constant struggles between actual scientific studies, the media, and how the audience percieves the "outcome" of the study. bottom line, whether they've read it themselves or not, a person is going to see what they want to see until they really want to make themselves better.
Reply8. Know the enemy!
ReplyWhich, at times has been my answer to, "Why did you become a doctor?" Seriously, a strong knowledge base can be very helpful in evaluating 'new' information. Even though I'm 'on the inside', thinking outside the box does allow one to see the larger picture.
At times it seems far too difficult to keep up with what's good, or what's bad. One day eggs are good for you, the next day they're bad, then the white is good but the yolk is bad... seriously, who has time to do a bit of research when it can't even be decided whether an egg is okay or not?
Whenever I hear something about a new study, I generally wait to believe in it, until the next study comes out that debunks it.
I guess I'm just cynical.
ReplyNot reacting to health news is the right answer. Or better yet, not reading it.
Health news is not health knowledge. Knowledge is built up over time.
News is just people trying to get your attention, like a 5-year-old shouting "Look what I can do! Mom! You're not looking!" (Except a 5-year-old loves his mom. The news media holds their audience in contempt.)
For example, say you have bad headaches. And you just read in the news that (some activist group with "science" in their name says) cereal may cause headaches. You stop eating cereal. You wait 2 months. The headaches don't go away. You go to the doctor. He tells you you have a serious illness. It would have been much less serious if it had been diagnosed in time, but now it has progressed.
Health news -- at least the way it is reported now -- is destructive.
ReplyExcellent coping mechanisms. And they're true.
I have made an intellectual decision to believe only that which suits me.
Wilful ignorance works.
Reply"Badly Designed Study Failed To Prove Something Was Useful"
Heh heh...but that's an appropriate title for almost half of the studies out there :)
ReplyAs a researcher I'm sad to say if it isn't in a high impact journal, chances are it isn't worth the paper it's printed on. Plus honestly if I read a study and go WTF? I genereally ignore it. If it doesn't makes sense to me and they can't prove their point in a logical realistic manner I'm always a bit suspicious. :)
Seriously, how do all these badly designed studies get published? In my field, journal and conference referees are vicious...
ReplyOne rule of thumb I follow: any study that says chocolate, wine, or coffee is good for you is an Obviously Valid and Convincing Study. Doesn't matter where it's published or how shaky the methodology is, I'm believin' it.
ReplyMy husband's dad was a biochemist who worked developing agricultural pharmaceuticals. (!!) He frequently told his son, "Never eat anything that's manmade." (You know what he meant--not that he had anything against male chefs.)
That's why I don't habitually ingest things like diet soda, and I stay as far away as possible from (as I recently read in I think the NYT by someone I've forgotten) "edible food-like substances."
ReplyCheerful cynicism works for me.
Dr. Bunsen Honeydew is the perfect spokesperson for this article. Now just add a picture of Beaker and it'll be perfect. : )
ReplyI think this blog should focus more on actually talking about real studies, rather than those that fit it's own superstitious thinking.
There are two problems I have, one is with this blog (and insane health nuts in general), and with "science" in general.
For the health nuts, like many of the readers of this blog and even the author(s) judging by some of the posts, there seems to be a certain wariness of man made things, like artificial sweeteners, additives, and chemicals in general.
What is incredibly annoying is that it's all founded on feeling and wishful thinking.
The facts are thus:
1. Humans are living longer than at any time in history.
2. Humans are living longer because of man made products and processes, NOT natural ones.
So, get over your chemical phobia, and embrace the fact that mankind is capable of keeping things running.
My second problem, with science in general, is that science is a vague and ever changing concept.
What one embraces as science today ends up being rubbish tomorrow.
Also, with the more "cutting edge" studies, they are perhaps the worst to look at to help determine your lifestyle.
Every day I hear from a multitude of different camps, each with their own ideological agenda to push, how we should not eat meats that are genetically modified, radiated meats, we shouldn't eat chicken, we shouldn't eat any meat at all, we shouldn't eat certain fruits, we shouldn't drink things that aren't water, we should drink only bottled water, we should only drink tap water, and on and on and on.
Look, if drinking only water makes you feel good, go for it.
But stop looking condescendingly on anyone who doesn't adhere to your food religion.
It's most likely not based on anything intelligent or even remotely scientific anyways.
The fact is most people have neither the scientific expertise to read, let alone understand a report or study, AND most people have the information retention of an amoeba, so when someone starts telling me how they read an email about not putting plastic in the microwave, it makes me want to scream.
ReplyWhy do people try to build their lives around something they barely understand, let alone remember?
I like your take on this. Some of these studies scare the heck out of me, but when I look into it a little deeper, hey the source or methodology is as shaky as my gran in heels.
Reply@Nate Cavanaugh: There have been negative reprocussions to many human inventions that were purported to improvements-- DDT and Vioxx are two examples that I can think of off the top of my head. The fact of the matter is that products are entering the market that have not been tested throughly, and as such, I prefer to limit my exposure to them. I'm not particularly preachy about it (except for this post, it seems), but that's where I come from when I try to stick with things that are in a more natural state.
Also, regarding your second point regarding humans-- we have been on the earth relatively short in comparison to many other species, and they managed to stay on the earth longer than us using only natural means.
ReplyI'm leaning toward #'s 1, and 5.
I will say, however, there are a couple of sites and sources that I trust more than others. I think throwing ALL of it out the window maybe isn't the best idea (I heard nicotine was bad for you, but what do they know!?) But I definitely have on my "skeptical" eyes when reading about a "New Groundbreaking Study that Seems to Indicate..."
Unless of course it has to do with beets, and how their taste is actually an indicator of healthy benefits (ie HORRIBLE / STAY AWAY).
ReplyGreat post.
Although with as many "bad" studies going on as there are currently, and as poorly as the news media covers these kind of "breakthroughs," caution would be a wise choice.
ReplyHey Crabby - great article - love the edgy-ness of it!
The above comment is interesting... I know we are conditioned as humans to WANT to believe certain things more than others (re: the above-mentioned items) but there is now a ton of convincing evidence to validate health effects of coffee, dark chocolate and wine.
However...
These studies can act as a smokescreen for other underlying nutritional deficits. As an example, with coffee there are headlines claiming that coffee is the "#1 source of antioxidants in the diet". This claim is true but is more of a commentary on our deplorable vegetable intake rather than an endorsement to the wonderful qualities of coffee. As a result, I'm sure many will take it to mean they can just ditch their broccoli and chug starbucks all day while reaping teh same benefits.
One thing that is great about these studies is that it eleviates some of theirrational fears that we have with things such as coffee.
ReplyNate,
This is a thoughtful posting.
I'm a scientist and an engineer, and so I'm on board with "mankind keeping things running", but wariness is vital. Good ideas go awry. For example, my mother took DES, and I have some of the side effects. I have friends who have more serious side effects. One died two years ago of uterine cancer.
I'm a lot more troubled by all the postings by people eager to try any new weight loss idea because someone said it was successful.
I think your complaint is not with "science" but with those who spin scientific results. I always liked Einstein's quote: "If we knew what we were doing, then we wouldn’t call it research". ^_^ There's only one practical solution to this problem, you know. You just argued:1) People should get over their scientific phobias
2) Most people have the information retention of an amoeba
3) It is foolish to build one's life around something he or she doesn't understand
Hum.
ReplyWith the overload of information out there, it can often be easier to just ignore some research until it goes away or is eventually disproved by another study. Relying on one study as fact is foolish; better to wait and see how the research compares to other existing data.
In any case, I'm not giving up my morning coffee. It seems like every time some research comes out against its health effects, another study proves some benefit of it. The benefit for me is it helps me join the land of the living every morning!
ReplyActually DDT was a GODSEND- it virtually wiped out Malaria from industrialized nations! It still kills about 1 million people a year because of the banning of DDT which is the most effective tool of preventing the spread of the malaria parasite through mosquitoes! You think AIDS alone is the major killer in Africa? Do a little research and you'd find that Malaria is just as prolific a killer as the aids "epidemic".
http://www.fightingmalaria.org
On the topic of contradictory research.... of course there is going to be contradictory research... but use your common sense people! You don't have to live by or die by all the studies that come out. This post SUCKS... because it doesn't follow up with the age old "Everything in Moderation" quote.
Most of the studies or research examples, like, "aspartame causes cancer" can be followed up with the statement, "....in mice when it is 50% of daily total nutritional intake." In other words... artificial sweeteners might give you cancer if you consume a pound of it a day... don't do that, and if you do... you are a moron.
Caffeine is good then its bad , then red wine is good, then bad, but are they better than just grapes? Who cares? Use you're common sense! Why do we have all this research to tell us what my 5 year old neighbor can?
ReplyDDT
What you almost have to do when you hear about the results of any study is to find the journal article where it was published and actually read that and draw your own conclusions. Statistics can be quite misleading and scientist can use them to their advantage when reporting data (although, to be honest, a good peer editor would catch something like that). If a study comes out that says "drinking x number of beers a week decreases your life span"...find out by how much. If someone proved that drinking a beer a day forever made me live 1.5 years less than otherwise, then I think I'll take the beer and be happy.
Also, you have to take into consideration the fact that humans aren't test subjects. Someone who drinks 7 beers a week and works out and eats healthy otherwise may take 1.5 years off their life, but another guy that drinks no beer and lives on chips and pizza may be taking 6 years off his life. So yeah, I'm always very skeptical of studies until I read them and read their results and figure out what research they're doing next to further confirm those results.
ReplyI take many studies with a grain of salt, since they often contradict each other. Some are just common sense, others, I might do a bit more looking into if it has something to do with one of my chronic illnesses. and of course if the study was funded by a drug company, or a particular food industry, well, I am very skeptical ;)
Very good points made.
ReplyAhh, great post - well done. I think people are getting more and more cynical about health research, because it's so damned changeable. In the rush to get column inches (and new funding), we seem to be flooded with research findings - and they're so often contradictory. How are people to filter and make sense of this onslaught?
ReplyWow. Very nice , Crabby! I'll have to remember this!
I'm completely stumped by Nate's post, though. I'm glad Quito's a scientist! But...Nate, come on...scoence is good but it's bad? You didn't say that exactly, but that's how it sounds. And the weird thing is...you're probably right! Grain of salt, you know. Think think think...
And Erica, you've brought up an interesting point. I had NO idea about DDT's role in malaria prevention. It's a good thing you brought that up. What I don't understand is your comment that Crabby's post "sucks." You say this right after saying, "You don't have to live by or die by all the studies that come out," which - it seems to me - is exactly what Crabby's saying! So when you agree with someone, that sucks?
ReplyGreat post. All 'new findings' should definitely be taken with a pinch of salt until further research gives the same conclusions.
Just to digress from the topic slightly, I quote from Nate "Humans are living longer than at any time in history". This may be currently true but due to the rapidly rising obesity levels in the younger generations, children are now predicted to live shorter lives than their parents. With all the amazing scientific advancements in the medical field, life-spans should be continually increasing, so this shows that we must be doing something very wrong.
ReplyI often get rid of it by dismissing the source. Without the source, nothing would bother us. We can then forget that we heard about it.
ReplyIf we were doing things right we wouldn't need all those amazing scientific advancements in the medical field :-(
ReplyExcept maybe not so much with the DDT.
http://eternalhope.blog-city.com/debunked_claims_that_ddt_prevent_malaria.htm
http://rwdb.blogspot.com/2006/07/ddt-expert-debunked.html
Looks like many people are not really sure on that one.
ReplyErica-- if we kept using DDT, eventually, many more people would have died than from malaria. Addditionally, I wouldn't support the use of DDT in Africa because it's difficult to enforce regulations there, as it was here when DDT was being way overused. Even in the US here and now, there are many environmental laws being broken, all of which have a detrimental effect on our environment and population, both now and in the future. It's difficult to see future problems and issues that can arise from misuse of chemicals. The website you linked me to also had many other different solutions to the malaria problem, and I feel that they should be used prior to spraying the entire continent down with DDT. What Africa needs is more aid invested in those solutions, not tanks of DDT.
ReplyIt's true. Some of those facts are really not necessary for us to know. We've been doing some of those things for a long time now and their said effects won't be a big deal.
Reply