Dieting, Nutrition and the Scientific Method

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the challenges of accurately measuring and testing nutrition and dieting in humans, questioning whether nutrition can be considered a science or if it leans towards being a pseudo-science. Participants explore the implications of variable control in studies and the long-term effects of diets on health.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants express concern about the removal of variables in nutrition studies, questioning the accuracy of such research.
  • One participant argues that while nutrition is a science, many articles may not be scientifically rigorous, citing potential biases from funding sources.
  • A suggestion is made that the paleolithic diet wiki provides a good example of how scientific methods can be applied to nutrition research.
  • There is a distinction made between "nutritionists" and "dieticians," with emphasis on the credibility of medically trained professionals.
  • Some participants note the difficulty in proving the long-term effects of diets due to human variability and the interplay of mental health with overall health.
  • One participant challenges another's understanding of nutrition studies, asserting that nutrition is closely linked to biochemistry and should not be viewed as separate.
  • Animal models are mentioned as a means to study food impacts with controlled variables, while population studies are viewed with skepticism.
  • Questions are raised about the ability to measure the mental components of health and how this affects the application of the scientific method in nutrition.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the scientific validity of nutrition studies, with some asserting that it is a science while others argue it lacks rigor. There is no consensus on the effectiveness of the scientific method in studying long-term health effects related to nutrition.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the potential biases in nutrition research due to funding sources, the challenge of isolating variables in health studies, and the complexity of measuring psychological factors in overall health.

neen
Messages
10
Reaction score
0
The Better Half is always researching the latest diet trends, theories, observations, etc... I check out the articles every now and then and it seems like the overlaying problem with all these studies is the removal of variables in a study.

Is it possible to accurately measure/test nutrition and dieting on humans? If not, does that make nutrition a pseudo-science?
 
Biology news on Phys.org
Your question is not clear - are these articles you mention in peer reviewed journals, or something meant for non-scientists like maybe USA Today?

Could you please provide a littile more detail about one of those articles?

Nutrition is a Science.

Some aspects of what are ostensibly labelled as Nutrition articles are "interesting". There were a few studies done in the past that had funding from entities with a clear motive. For example, one of the problems is that there is potential financial impact to agribusiness from research, so there have been studies and also reviews of other research data done by organizations like the Sugar Institute (www.sugar.org). Many articles they have funded researc on are simply chemistry and Food Science - preparation, handling, processing. Others are more interesting.

This is a simple example of trying to deflect causes of obesity away from sugar based ingredients using somebody else's data. And I'm not implying anything about what causes obesity.

http://www.sugar.org/sugar-and-your-diet/caloric-intake.html

This is not science per se, is this what you mean? It is more like a political ad, IMO.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I think the paleolithic diet wiki demonstrates a good approach to the problem:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleolithic_diet#Research

It contains a lot of peer-reviewed references for your interest (genetic arguments to observational studies to intervention studies) that might demonstrate how scientific methods are helpful in determining nutritional value.
 
In addition to what has already been offered please note that when considering a source anyone identifying as a "nutritionist" isn't a member of a credible medical profession. A medically trained specialist in diet and nutrition is called a "dietician".
 
Thanks everyone! I understand we can accurately test the bio-chemical processes of food and the reactions that take place in the body.

What seems to be less clear are the long term effects of certain diets. Since humans are extremely varied and we have a vast "ability" to survive on a wide range of foods...it would seem that "proving" a certain diet is more beneficial than another is difficult. In other words we can only limit one factor in overall health studies of dieting. Many psychologists would argue that overall health is strongly rooted in mental health. So since we cannot isolate and control variables in health/nutrition studies (I consider nutrition to be different from bio-chemistry) it seems that the science around nutrition really isn't science but more like guided advice or correlation.

Thoughts?
 
neen said:
What seems to be less clear are the long term effects of certain diets. Since humans are extremely varied and we have a vast "ability" to survive on a wide range of foods...it would seem that "proving" a certain diet is more beneficial than another is difficult.
I suggest you read up on cohort studies and how they are used.
neen said:
Many psychologists would argue that overall health is strongly rooted in mental health.
Whilst psychological state of the patient is an important factor in overall health to say it is "strongly rooted" is taking it to far. Also nutrition is a great thing to study in this regard especially with the links between stress, happiness and food.
neen said:
So since we cannot isolate and control variables in health/nutrition studies (I consider nutrition to be different from bio-chemistry) it seems that the science around nutrition really isn't science but more like guided advice or correlation.

Thoughts?
Yes, considering your admitted ignorance on this subject (you say you've checked out an article every now and then but it's not even clear if these are peer reviewed) what makes you think your opinion on this matter is valid? If you are unclear on how nutrition studies are done how can you possibly suggest that it isn't a science? Furthermore you can consider nutrition to be different from biochemistry all you like but it largely is not, understanding the molecular processes underlying nutrition both in terms of digestion and the roles of individual nutrients is all intimately linked to the field and very much science.
 
Do you have some examples of research that you're talking about? The field is really big. Animal models can be used to study the impact of food, there the variables can be tightly controlled. Then there are the population association studies that I would take with a big scoop of salt.
 
Ryan_m_b said:
I suggest you read up on cohort studies and how they are used.

Yes, considering your admitted ignorance on this subject (you say you've checked out an article every now and then but it's not even clear if these are peer reviewed) what makes you think your opinion on this matter is valid? If you are unclear on how nutrition studies are done how can you possibly suggest that it isn't a science? Furthermore you can consider nutrition to be different from biochemistry all you like but it largely is not, understanding the molecular processes underlying nutrition both in terms of digestion and the roles of individual nutrients is all intimately linked to the field and very much science.

This is simply a topic for discussion. Yes I know that there is firm scientific method being utilized in a lot of portions of dieting and nutrition. What I was asking (and perhaps I should have clarified)is if the scientific method can really be used in long term effects of overall health? Can the mental component of overall health be measured (highly unlikely)? If not then how can we use the scientific method when we talk about health, dieting and nutrition?

I never said my opinion was valid...simply wondering if we can use accurate and predictable methods when we are discussing overall health.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
Replies
0
Views
1K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K