Sociologists warned over 20 years ago: amid contradictions in nutrition discoveries, recommendations, and the flood of 'experts,' people end up more confused. Added to this, some methodologies used to analyze diet and the effects of nutrients in the body are not infallible.
Those of us who went through basic education remember, roughly, the scientific method. Thus, we became accustomed to considering scientific anything sheltered by the philosophy of Descartes. But, surprise! Some thinkers show us that the so-called scientific thinking inspired by Cartesian philosophy is not infallible, and that the way humans generate knowledge is far from being as objective as we like to believe. This controversy undoubtedly reaches what we think we know about nutrition, food, and all the effects of foods on the body.
Let’s focus on studies about lifestyle and diet. Recently, the head of the Division of Disease Prevention at the National Cancer Institute, Dr. Barrett Kramer, more or less admitted that diet or exercise cannot actually be measured scientifically. As you read, he acknowledged what sociologists of science had warned in many instances: the problem statements about lifestyles (which involve diet and physical activity) are sometimes not as measurable as we would like to calculate their effects.
For example, one of the most commonly used methodologies in diet surveys is the 24-hour recall, where the patient is asked about their consumption the previous day, or the food diary, where they are asked to record everything they eat. Evidently, the risk of bias is immense: one wants to 'look good' to avoid being judged. This process is very obvious in some cases, but unconsciously, everyone does it to some extent.
Another problem is that research, although subject to the scientific method, is also subject to social interests. We can find the same number of studies claiming a substance is 'good' and others saying that same substance is 'bad'; for example, caffeine. Generally, in scientific dissemination, all the nuances are ignored: good under what preparation conditions? The same dose for everyone? If I drink coffee with milk, will I absorb the caffeine that is supposed to be good, but then it will be bad because I won’t absorb the calcium from the milk? Which coffee: instant, capsule, or freshly ground beans? And this is where even the best cook burns the soup.
There is also the difficulty that studies must have a beginning and an end, and sometimes, to measure effects, these studies need to be conducted over a long time with a large number of people. The problem here is that in a lifetime, there are a thousand variables to control for these effects to truly be cause and consequence. That’s why many lifestyle studies only correlate or associate, without determining, obviously, that this is the sole cause. Note, this does not mean we should disregard all lifestyle recommendations.
In such a complex world where reality presents itself as complex, the way we ask questions about lifestyle and its relationship to health risks must evolve so that they can truly be answered.
@Lilllie_ML
#science #nutrition #food #contradictions
— This article was originally published in Spanish by Liliana Martínez Lomelí. Translation generated with AI from the original text.