Most people get health news from mainstream media outlets. Most of these have a health section, and that’s where the latest supplements and “super foods” first enter public view. The writers for these sections have content obligations and deadlines to meet. They are always on the lookout for the latest study or discovery, but how they treat this info in their work often leaves a lot to be desired. They’re looking for eyeballs, too, and they’re also trying to satisfy their editors. Often, there may be a thinly veiled product-placement. For those reasons alone, it’s a good idea to research any products or claims you read about before jumping on the bandwagon.
The studies themselves are — more often than not — inconclusive. That’s the nice way of putting it. A lot of times they’re straight up bullshit. Whenever we hear a new study has been done on eggs, or coffee, or substance x, y, or z, most of us like to imagine very smart people in white lab coats closely monitoring their human test subjects in a controlled, laboratory environment. The subjects are hooked up to monitors, are poked and prodded, have their blood drawn regularly, etc., and the results are dutifully noted on clipboards by the smart people in the white coats.
This is not the case.
Many health studies are conducted by nothing more than a questionnaire sent to volunteer subjects. If the study is about the possible link between egg-consumption and heart disease, for example, the subjects may be asked, “How many eggs have you consumed in the last six months?” Who the hell records or remembers that? And we have no idea what other factors are accounted for. Maybe the subjects are also asked whether they smoke, drink, exercise, or eat fucking kale, but we have no idea. And even if they are asked, and even if the answers are accurate (it’s no secret that people often lie about their habits), how the hell do you accurately conclude anything about eggs in all of that? Answer: you don’t.
Back to your local health column. Sometimes basic facts are distorted or omitted altogether. For example, in recent years a substance called resveratrol has been touted as having anti-aging properties, and it’s been noted that one food containing measurable amounts of the stuff is (yay!) red wine. What you may not be told is how much red wine you would have to consume to get the effective dose. The exact amount may be subject for debate, but know this: the studies I’ve read about used 100mg of resveratrol or higher. A five ounce glass of red wine has 1mg.
I haven’t conducted a controlled scientific study of my own, but I’m pretty sure that much red wine a day, while perhaps fun, would negate any life-lengthening properties of resveratrol. Does this mean resveratrol is not good? Not at all. It means that just because a shiny new supplement shows up in your news feed doesn’t mean anyone has any firm idea about how much to take and how to take it.
Conclusion: Take studies you read about with a grain of pink Himalayan salt.
Thanks for reading. Next, “super-foods!” (Spoiler alert: there are none).
Until then,
Dan
