Scandal Rocks Diet Research – Tips You Rely on Exposed #health #diet #nutrition #weightloss

bell shaped curveEuropean science was once so quaint. A wealthy family’s second son ensconced in a small parsonage in the country was free to classify local butterflies. Or perhaps the lord himself financed his own laboratory to study whatever he wanted. Sometimes a poorer soul might rise from employment under a Great Man (yes, mostly men!) or receive a scholarship, as Isaac Newton did at Cambridge in 1664.

Innocent days are gone. A craving for glory always created some scientific fraud, but the motivation seems to be growing. Big science is big business, requires big money, and can yield big rewards if a lab produces big results. This can be insidious, because if you receive fame and fortune for what you do, it’s easy to believe that what you do must be right. Especially in a field like nutrition, where there’s so much public interest, and lots of money to be made, sometimes, mistakes happen. Sometimes studies go “down in flames in a beefy statistics scandal.”

An internal investigation by a faculty committee found that ‘Professor Wansink committed academic misconduct in his research and scholarship, including misreporting of research data, problematic statistical techniques, failure to properly document and preserve research results, and inappropriate authorship.’

That’s a politely phrased condemnation, and may derail the careers of grad students who did the dirty work for him.

You may not recognise Wansink’s name, but if you buy 100 calorie snack packages, you’ve been fooled by his research. Ditto for using small plates to trick your brain into thinking you ate more, or hiding potato chips on the top shelf to help you lose weight. Read more truisms that have been retracted here. Maybe your favorite tip is among them.

Retraction Watch logo

Here’s a good place to keep an eye on scientific findings

Fortunately for science, you, and me, reality is a powerful force, and there are always researchers willing to challenge a famous author. As a consumer of science, avoid becoming anyone’s acolyte, don’t get too emotionally invested in someone else’s position, and keep reading, even if only in the popular press. Good consumers, like good scientists, are honestly open minded.

It often happens that scientists say, ‘You know that’s a really good argument; my position is mistaken,’ and then they would actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn’t happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time something like that happened in politics or religion. Carl Sagan

Let’s all make Carl proud.

New Web Site to Check Out


Here comes a natural disaster – image from NASA

Nate Silver’s fame spread from sports to politics during the last American presidential election when he accurately predicted the outcome despite a blizzard of conflicting public opinion polls. He edits a website at (owned by ESPN) that looks like a great magazine. The writers apply science and statistics, to popular topics. This gives an average reader a chance to evaluate the barrage of news, self-serving diatribe, and just plain nonsense from the media. From NCAA brackets to climate change, you’ll find interesting articles that can be of practical use.

Here’s one example: News about health seems to be full of “breakthroughs” that never arrive and contradictions that arrive frequently. What health news can you use? “Headlines are advertising. The goal is to get you to read the article, not necessarily to represent the research accurately.” But there are six criteria you can use to evaluate an article about medical studies. One is: Was the study performed on people? The more “yes” answers, the more likely the study is important to you.

Here’s another example: An article (by a writer with qualifications in the field) disputing recent claims that climate change is responsible for economic losses increasing due to natural disasters “generated a lot of comments and questions, and I thought it would be good to address some of them. Human-caused climate change is both real and important, so being careful about what claims science can support and which it can’t is imperative.” Hurray! Rational discussion of the facts and not just red team/blue team bumper stickers. FiveThirtyEight provided links to rebuttals and even plans to publish its own rebuttal to the original article.

I think reality is important, so this site looks like a great resource. Check it out.