Article #1: Eggs are like smoking.
1) Skip the headline. Done. And if you have already clutched your pearls
and fainted because you really like eggs, please pick yourself up off the
floor. I've also seen quite a few
articles like this one where you probably want to ignore the first paragraph
too. The headline is there to grab your
attention, that’s all. Try not to take
it personally, and make sure you keep reading if you think there might be
something interesting.
2) What is the basis
of the article? Sometimes the news article is kind enough to link to the
actual study, sometimes (as is the case here) you can tell from the news
article itself what kind of basis it has, and sometimes you have to start using
search engines like Google Scholar, etc to figure out more about the
basis. In this news article, you don't
have to do a whole lot of digging to figure out this one was original research,
and that it was published in a journal.
I usually take the time to go look up the original article here even
though technically I am jumping ahead a step.
3) What words does
the article use? In the linked news
article they completely skipped over the words association, and link, and jumped
directly to using the word "cause."
That should be a red flag right there, because the researchers
themselves will typically use words like "association," which, as it
says in the Double X post, describes a mathematical association, not a
biological cause. Now typically in my
head I usually go "that's interesting, I wonder if there is going to be
anymore research done on potential causes?" but I know that correlation
does not equal causation. I think
another thing to keep in mind is that if the news article greatly simplifies a complex
bodily process that should also be a red flag that you are not getting all the
information. It almost sounds like the
cholesterol from the egg goes directly to your arterial wall, and it
(fortunately) is not that simple or even accurate.
4) Look at the
original source of the information. Sometimes
you will only come up with an abstract, but in this case a Google search using
the journal name and egg yolks (often helps to use the author's name too)
provides us with a link to the full text of the article here. In this case it looks like the original research
was actually published in a journal which is a good thing. And if you have access to the full text of
the article, read the entire thing. You
will want to see what kinds of methods were used to do the research because the
methods used might also tell you whether or not the information is reliable.
5) Remember that
everyone involved has some sort of return they're seeking. Sometimes I see a study is sponsored by a
particular group, like the National Beef Council, etc and it's pretty easy to
start pointing fingers at who has a stake (pun intended) in the research. I am
going to engage in some speculation here based on what I've read in the
conclusions; they were likely trying to disprove some of the other diets out
there that include regular consumption of eggs. (***Warning, warning, warning! SkepticRD is engaging in speculation based on
the arguments she has seen in the scientific community! I am not claiming any kind of conspiracy,
just pointing out that people argue and that we all have to watch out for
confirmation bias!)
6) Ask a scientist to
clarify; we like to talk about science! A
lot of prominent researchers associated with Universities will have their bios
on the website and you might be able to e-mail them directly from there. If the authors are not readily contactable,
someone else who writes about science on the internet could help clarify. And I will add, you will want to try to find
someone with knowledge relevant to the field at hand. When it comes to nutrition, most of your general
practice physicians, physician assistants, and nurse practitioners do not have
the practical knowledge necessary to educate you on the specifics of eating
certain foods to help. Cardiologists and
endocrinologists tend to have more experience when it comes to nutrition, but
not always. And if you are looking for
someone who has “nutrition” floating around in their titles be careful here
too. If a person has "RD"
behind their name like yours truly, it means this person has actually gone
through an accredited program, an internship, and then taken an exam so they
have legitimate credentials. Anyone can
hang out a sign that says "nutritionist" and it means…nothing. And yes, yes, I know you went to an
endocrinologist and she was grumpy or you went to a dietitian and he told you
"follow this plan or else" and it didn't work for you, etc. I know, I have worked with plenty of people
who for whatever reason never learned critical thinking skills, forgot how to
use them, or are so afraid to think for themselves that they can't stop giving
advice even when it's bad. Take some
time to research the experts too.
Which way do I go to get off my soapbox again? Ah, stage left. So, one thing this "expert who loves to
talk about nutrition" would like to point out is the problem with their
data gathering methods. They used the
dreaded self reporting food frequency questionnaire. Ok, so how many of you can remember what you
ate yesterday? Last week? Last month?
For the past two years? I thought
so. So the amount of eggs they reported
eating, as well as other kinds of food were guesses at best. Also, the researchers singled out one food
out of whatever else they were eating meaning that lots of other variables were
unaccounted for. Do we know how much
carbohydrate they were eating, or what type of other fats they were consuming,
or how many vegetables they ate, or were they active, did they get enough
sleep, etc? It is so easy to want to
point to one particular food as a problem, but in the case of a complex problem
like atherosclerosis we just can’t do that.
It’s also worth it to point out that smoking also has a more direct
impact on atherosclerosis; smoking causes the arterial walls to be inflamed,
the body produces more cholesterol to serve as a “band-aid” on the
inflammation, and the resulting “band-aid” is what is known as the plaque
build-up. As I said in a previous post
about inflammation, usually there are multiple dietary factors that play a role
in inflammation.
So this expert once again says, "well, that study is
interesting in as far as you might have something there later to do a
double-blind study if you ever get the time and money to do so, but I can't
actually advise people to change based on unreliable information."
I also found it interesting that the researchers themselves
would not mention the flaws in their research methods, which should be another
red flag. I also find it interesting
that in their conclusions they mention Ancel Keys who has also been vilified
for "cherry picking data" when it comes to diet and heart
disease as summarized in this little clip.
Just as an aside, I’ve had to stop “liking” certain articles
that I read because it shows up on my social networking sites like
Facebook. Suddenly my “huh, that was
interesting, I hope they do more research on that” results in people, who don’t
read articles like I do, assuming that I thought the tiny little research study
was pivotal instead of just “I hope they do more with that” and I find myself
discussing things not worth discussing.
I think it’s time for an omelet.
No comments:
Post a Comment