|
FN 225: Nutrition
Teresa McFerran, M.S., R.D. Health Professions Division Lane Community College Eugene, Oregon LECTURE
1B: (a
continuation of Chapter 1
Linking food, function, and health) III Identifying
Valid Nutrition Info in the Media: Scientific
Research
III Identifying Valid Nutrition Info
in the Media: Scientific
Research Why do we want to know how to identify valid nutrition info in the news? We want to
know how to identify "valid nutrition
info in the news" so we'll have some
idea who to believe since this is one of the
main ways people get their nutrition
information.
 Nutrition Today, September/October 2007 "Twilight of the Gatekeepers: An Uncomfortable Fable" Sylvia Rowe MA and Nick Alexander BA The above article
discusses the explosion of new health and
nutrition-oriented Web sites that may have been
created by individuals or organizations not formally
tied to the scientific community. "Internet democracy
bestows on these sites, often distinguished by a
particular political, philosophical, moral, or
other nonscientific point of view, the same
importance, credibility, and prominence as sites
formerly regarded as authoritative."
"Just as the Internet has fostered the prosperity of a citizen-based journalism, with a varied and growing assortment of 'news blogs' and the like, so has it encouraged a kind of citizen-based science movement, where publication takes place solely or primarily in cyberspace, where peer review has no accepted place". "There is no denying that emerging computer and Internet technology has opened up a brave new world in which scientists and other thinkers can, with ever increasing speed, share their ideas and research globally. Theories can be analyzed and breakthrough conclusions reached, enhancing human health at a speed and scale never before realized. "There is also no denying that the same technologies are creating a world in which utter nonsense or worse can do a reputable job of masquerading as scientific truth and can recruit hapless believers and followers to intellectual mischief-or worse. "Are we heading toward a world of greater clarity or greater confusion?" I, for one, don't know the answer to that question, but the following are some guidelines to consider when trying to decide if something is valid nutrition information. A. Has Characteristics of GOOD Scientific Research. 1. Researcher (who might not be the author) has good credentials Usually done by someone with a doctorate (PhD) or a master's (MS) in nutrition or another related field or an MD who has advanced training in nutrition. You can usually identify PhDs or MDs with nutrition training by their place of work (a major university with a strong nutrition program or a government agency for nutrition or health). more later in his lecture about places of work........ It's important to
ask- Who paid for the research?
Bias because of who paid for the study doesn't mean it's definitely a bad study, but it's a study that certainly should be repeated to see if someone else gets the same results. I listened to a story on the radio that you can listen to if your computer is set up to do that: Researchers
Find Bias in Nutrition Studies by Allison
Aubrey, NPR
Morning Edition, January 9, 2007 · A new
study, co-authored by Harvard researchers and
analysts from the Center for Science in the Public
Interest, suggests there's a systematic bias in
nutrition studies funded by food companies.
|
2. When possible, randomized, double blind with a placebo and a reasonable
number of subjects were used for a long period of
time.
* Definition of
placebo- NOT a real treatment but it might induce
body's natural healing process
* Double blind: neither the receiver of the treatment or the giver of the treatment know what the person is getting * Reasonable number: it depends on what is reasonable to do. Ideally, there would be a large number of people studied, but sometimes there's not funding to study a large number. 3. Study results reported so others can
replicate (duplicate) and
reported in respected, refereed (articles evaluated by persons with nutrition credentials) scientific journals |
|
Below is an
example of a respected, refereed scientific
journal:
 |
Articles on the
cover of the above October 2004 issue of the Journal of the
American Dietetic Association (Now named
the Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and
Dietetics.)
Obesity Risk and
HIV-Infected Youth
Dietary Intake Change and Cancer Diagnosis Body Image of Chronic Dieters Parental Views of high School Soft Drink Machines |
|
Where in a
publication can you find credentials for "referees"?
usually near the beginning of the publication In this publication, the "referees" are called the"Editorial Board". Notice their credentials (PhD, RD, etc.) as well as their place of work. |
/
Prevention Magazine, December 1980 Editor: Robert Rodale Executive Editor: Mark Bricklin Managing Editor: John Feltman Assistant Managing Editor: William Gottlieb Research Chief: Carol Baldwin Senior Editors: Jane Kinderlehrer, John Yates Associate Editors: Linda Shaw, Kerry Pechter, Tom Voss, Katherine Randall Assistant Research Chief: Carol Matthews Copy Chief: Jeanne Rogers Art Director: Laura Tylersmith Research Associates: Marion Wolbers, Susan Rosenkrantz, Sue Ann Gursky, Martha Capwell, Joann Williams Research Librarian: Liz Wolbach Head Librarian: Janet Glassman Reader’s Service Director: Christy Kohler Beauty Editor: Virginia Castleton Office Manager: Carol Petrakovich Technical Director: Mark Schwartz, PhD Photography Director: T.L. Gettings Photographer: Margaret Smyser What credentials do you see in the above list of editors, etc. listed at the front of a 1980 issue of Prevention Magazine? Now look below at a more recent issue. Prevention Magazine Editorial Advisors (page 20) September, 2004  James W. Anderson, MD Professor of
Medicine and Clinical Nutrition, University of
Kentucky College of Medicine
Kelly Brownell, PhD Professor of
Psychology, Yale University; Director of Yale
Center for Eating and Weight Disorders
Judith Stern, ScD, RD Co-director,
Center for Alternative and Complementary Medicine
and Professor of Nutrition and Internal Medicine
at the University of California, Davis
plus 13 others |
 |
 |
| A journal usually is
a primary source of information, while a magazine
[or a newsletter] is a secondary source). What does this mean? A primary source means that the author of the article did the research. A secondary source means that the author is reporting about someone else's research. |
| Looking at the
examples of publications above (Prevention, Nutrition Action
Healthletter and the Journal of the
American Dietetic Association), which do
you think is a primary source of information and
which a secondary source? Click here if you
think Prevention is
an example of a primary source.
Click here if you think Prevention is an example of a secondary source. Click here if you think Nutrition Action Healthletter is an example of a primary source. Click here if you think Nutrition Action Healthletter is an example of a secondary source. Click here if you think the Journal of the American Dietetic Association is an example of a primary source. Click here if you think the Journal of the American Dietetic Association is an example of a secondary source. |
|
4.
Broad generalizations NOT made 5. If research on animals, findings not applied directly to humans 6. If research done on specific segments of population or people living in a clinical setting, it's not applied to ALL people. For example, if a study finds that large doses of vitamin E affect Alzheimer's patients, the researcher or author avoids implying that EVERYONE should take large doses. |
| What questions would you ask about the HGH study described in your
lecture outline this way? A 1990 study published by an MD in The New England Journal of Medicine found that after 6 months of thrice-weekly injections of human growth hormone (HGH), compared with untreated controls, participants had a significant 1. increase in lean body mass 2. increase in bone density and 3. a decrease in body fat. After the release of this study, sales of HGH skyrocketed. |
"Effects
of human growth hormone in men over 60
years old."
The New England Journal of Medicine July 5, 1990 Click on the link above to see if you can find the answers to your questions. (The New England Journal of Medicine is an example of a respected refereed journal. |
| QUESTIONS | BRIEF ANSWERS |
| 1. | 1. |
| 2. | 2. |
| 3. | 3. |
| 4. | 4. |
| 5. | 5. |
| Here's another article about Human Growth
Hormone: Myth Meets Science: Everybody's talking about human growth hormone, and lots of people are using it. But what does it do? By Jeneen
Interlandi, NEWSWEEK,
February 25, 2008.
|
B. If research studies are discussed, they're usually one of several types of Scientific Research Studies: 1. Laboratory Studies - Animal or Test Tube/in-vitro Provide preliminary information that assists with designing human studies. Also used to conduct research that is considered unethical to be done with humans. The disadvantages are that results may not apply to humans, and in the case of animal studies, there are also ethical concerns over harming animals. 2. Human Studies A) Observational Study- simply monitoring and/or collecting information. No treatment given so NO PLACEBO. The researcher is simply COLLECTING INFO. Observational studies can only indicate relationships or associations, NOT cause and effect. I. Case Study - Observing one person II. Epidemiological Study - Observing a population (hundreds or thousands) of people to determine what people's health patterns or risk factors have been OR are over time and then this is linked with incidence of disease or other health problems. These people were/are NOT given a treatment. (often retrospective, which means it's looking at the past).
Epidemiological studies:
(a) look at a large population of people (b) often over a period of time and (c) relate their findings to disease rates (d) NOT given a treatment. III. Case Control Study (a more complex type of Observational Study) - examines a large group with a particular condition (for example, young men with high cholesterol) to a similar group without the condition (young men without high cholesterol) to see in which ways the two groups differ. B) Clinical Trial - (often called "intervention study") people ARE given a treatment and the results are observed. The clinical trial is prospective, meaning they do something and see what happens, rather than retrospective, meaning observing something that already happened (which is what epidemiological studies do.) The strongest type of clinical trial is randomized and double-blind using a placebo. Definition of treatment: something given (like a supplement/certain food/advice) OR something done (like massage or physical therapy).  Study Questions and Exams will ask you to identify the type of study research is describing. I hope the chart below will help a little. |
| Epidemiological |
Clinical
Trial
|
|
| SIZE
of group |
large group | can
be large group but not always |
| TREATMENT? |
no
treatment
relate results to disease risk usually collect info over time |
a treatment (pill, advice, therapy)
often with a control group who might be given
a placebo |
| IV Identifying Nutrition Info that is unreliable (not valid) &
that should make you suspicious
"Earmarks" (markers) of unreliable nutrition
1. Too good to be true 2. Suspicious about food supply 3. Only Testimonials 4. Fake credentials 5. Unpublished studies 6. Persecution claims 7. Authority not cited (Nutrition training not defined) 8. Motive: Personal gain 9. Advertisement 10. Unreliable publication (Unrefereed) OR unreliable Internet site 11. Half truths (logic without proof; in other words part is true & part is false, not known or misleading) |
| EXAMPLE from http://www.wp.com/queen bee (This site
no longer exists): What is Royal Jelly? According to this site, "Royal jelly is the exclusive food of the queen bee. The diet of royal jelly transforms a worker bee into a queen bee. For centuries royal jelly has been used for its extraordinary benefits to strengthen the defense system. " Rochelle Harris, Nutritionist says "I have been a natural food enthusiast for more than 30 years during which time I have used royal jelly for energy, stamina, and strength. The Queen Bee royal jelly has made such a dramatic difference that I now recommend it to all my clients." Why is the information about Royal Jelly an example of a half truth? The half of the Royal
Jelly information that is true is that royal jelly IS the
exclusive food of the queen bee. The diet of royal
jelly transforms a worker bee into a queen bee
The half that is
false, unproven or misleading is that it does any good
for humans.
Rochelle Harris gave a testimonial that it helped her. There is no evidence that it does the same thing for humans and the ad didn't cite any evidence. When you hear of something that sounds amazing, you should look carefully for something about it is only half true. This is a very common trick pulled by people trying to sell us something. Something about what they're saying sounds logical so we are inclined to believe everything they're saying, making us willing to spend our money. Royal Jelly info: Give at least 3 reasons why it is unreliable nutrition information. (Use “Earmarks” previously listed.) See if you can come
up with three reasons. If you have trouble, send
me (or another student) a message.
|
|
1. AUTHORITY. To help determine, look for recognized credentials. What does “recognized” mean? An outside organization with rigorous standards (especially for curriculum) recognize that the credential is reliable. Is this a
recognized credential? NTP (Nutritional Therapy
Practitioner). In other words, do
organizations with rigorous standards (especially
for curriculum) recognize that this credential is
reliable?
When I first saw
this a few years ago, the credential was called CNT
(Certified Nutrition Therapist).
Given by Nutritional Therapy Association http://www.nutritionaltherapy.com/ Notice that the Nutritional Therapy Association is a .com. In other words, it's a for-profit business. That doesn't guarantee that their curriculum is bad, but I am definitely suspicious since nobody but their own business is evaluating the curriculum. You can go to the above site and click on "NTP". Cost of tuition for
fall, winter and spring: $3,900
Tuition
does not include required reading ($500-$700),
travel, testing tools, or hotel accommodations
for the three required multi-day workshops.
Who evaluates their
curriculum?
2. OBJECTIVITY. Does there appear to be
bias? Note that sometimes a web address that ends in
.org is very biased, but not always. It is OBJECTIVE
if there is no bias.I can find no
evidence that an outside organization evaluates
their curriculum and recognizes the NTP
credential.
So what is a recognized credential that has the authority to give credible nutrition information? As your text explains in the Controversy for Chapter 1, a Registered Dietitian, or RD is a qualified nutrition expert. You may also see the credentials, RDN, which is a Registered Dietitian Nutritionist. The Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics' (formerly known as the American Dietetics Association) Board of Directors and the Commission on Dietetic Registration have approved the optional use of the credential "registered dietitian nutritionist" (RDN) by registered dietitians (RD). As the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics states, "Every Registered Dietitian Is a Nutritionist, but Not Every Nutritionist Is a Registered Dietitian". 3. ACCURACY. Are there misspellings? Does it appear to be hastily developed? 4. CURRENCY. When was the site created? The End of
Lecture 1B
|