The 8 glasses seem half-empty to me
May 21, 2010 9:23 AM Subscribe
How can I get more comfortable with health science findings when they seem to be constantly shifting and/or contradicting one another?
The thing that brought this to mind recently was the report I read stating that "actually, the 8 glasses of water thing is a myth." There seem to be other vigorous debates going on recently questioning how much sunlight is beneficial, what type of exercise is best for your health (high intensity intervals or aerobic?), the role meat should play in your diet etc.
As a non-science person I find all these contradictory findings confusing and sort of disheartening, especially when it comes to exercise and nutrition. I understand there is a process involved, and different variables etc. I guess what I am looking for is an objective evaluation method so when I read the health section in the NY Times or other mainstream publications, I can get a better feeling on what should be taken seriously, what I should investigate more on my own and what I can dismiss. What factors should guide my understanding of these things? Thanks.
The thing that brought this to mind recently was the report I read stating that "actually, the 8 glasses of water thing is a myth." There seem to be other vigorous debates going on recently questioning how much sunlight is beneficial, what type of exercise is best for your health (high intensity intervals or aerobic?), the role meat should play in your diet etc.
As a non-science person I find all these contradictory findings confusing and sort of disheartening, especially when it comes to exercise and nutrition. I understand there is a process involved, and different variables etc. I guess what I am looking for is an objective evaluation method so when I read the health section in the NY Times or other mainstream publications, I can get a better feeling on what should be taken seriously, what I should investigate more on my own and what I can dismiss. What factors should guide my understanding of these things? Thanks.
Alright. So, first read this comic about science reporting. Almost every news organization does this-- they take good science and make sweeping generalizations that would make the original scientists blush. Why? Maybe it's because health & science desks are being downsized, consolidated, or just plain shut down. Maybe it's because even the NYT has to write at an eighth grade reading level, and the stats on which most science is based can hardly be understood by people with undergraduate degrees, much less eighth graders. It doesn't really matter.
Additionally, the questions to which you referred, "what type of exercise is best for your health (high intensity intervals or aerobic?), the role meat should play in your diet etc," aren't really scientific questions in the first place. What does "best for your health" even mean? Are we talking longevity? quality of life? incidence of disease? All of these are very different questions. Even more closely, what is "your health?" What's your gender and age? What's your BMI? What's your family history of disease? All of these factors are going to modify what's best for you.
posted by The White Hat at 9:38 AM on May 21, 2010 [2 favorites]
Additionally, the questions to which you referred, "what type of exercise is best for your health (high intensity intervals or aerobic?), the role meat should play in your diet etc," aren't really scientific questions in the first place. What does "best for your health" even mean? Are we talking longevity? quality of life? incidence of disease? All of these are very different questions. Even more closely, what is "your health?" What's your gender and age? What's your BMI? What's your family history of disease? All of these factors are going to modify what's best for you.
posted by The White Hat at 9:38 AM on May 21, 2010 [2 favorites]
Medical science is huge. So many cutting edge things are still poorly understood and, for that matter, so many things that haven't been cutting edge for years are still poorly understood. There are competing theories for almost everything. Surprisingly few things are cut and dry. And science reporting is often terrible, so even the studies that have a really strong experimental basis end up horribly distorted by the time they reach the newspaper.
Add to that the fact that retractions and followups never get printed with the same fanfare as exciting new research. Say today scientists discover that black pepper causes elbow cancer. You'll read about it in the NY Times tomorrow. But then, say, a couple of months from now, it turns out that the armrests of the chairs those scientists had their patients sitting in while they ate black pepper were made of plutonium. You'll never hear that piece of information unless you subscribe to The Journal of Oncology.
And, in the Health Media in general, there is so much appeal to authority where there shouldn't be. Doctors are no more immune to believing stupid shit than everyone else. Too often, some doctor gets it in his head that we can live forever by eating nothing but ice cream and horseradish. So he publishes a book. And people believe it because a doctor said it.
Here's what works for me: I figure that no one is ever going to discover that getting a good amount of exercise and eating a well-balanced diet is killing me. I don't sweat the rest of it and hope that, if I get sick, my doctors aren't getting their medical information from the NY Times.
posted by 256 at 9:40 AM on May 21, 2010 [1 favorite]
Add to that the fact that retractions and followups never get printed with the same fanfare as exciting new research. Say today scientists discover that black pepper causes elbow cancer. You'll read about it in the NY Times tomorrow. But then, say, a couple of months from now, it turns out that the armrests of the chairs those scientists had their patients sitting in while they ate black pepper were made of plutonium. You'll never hear that piece of information unless you subscribe to The Journal of Oncology.
And, in the Health Media in general, there is so much appeal to authority where there shouldn't be. Doctors are no more immune to believing stupid shit than everyone else. Too often, some doctor gets it in his head that we can live forever by eating nothing but ice cream and horseradish. So he publishes a book. And people believe it because a doctor said it.
Here's what works for me: I figure that no one is ever going to discover that getting a good amount of exercise and eating a well-balanced diet is killing me. I don't sweat the rest of it and hope that, if I get sick, my doctors aren't getting their medical information from the NY Times.
posted by 256 at 9:40 AM on May 21, 2010 [1 favorite]
I don't think there's any shortcut to developing a general truth-detector about this sort of thing. Like anything else, if you want to be an expert you've got to put the time in doing research and trying things out. If you're really interested, you should investigate everything for yourself and eventually you'll start to develop a sense of what's legit and what's BS. Don't rely on reporting from mainstream publications. Always be skeptical and think critically. Read the studies, learn about anatomy and metabolism and nutrition and kinesiology or whatever is relevant to your interest. There's a ton of resources out there, and while this can make it daunting to decide where to start, you've just got to wade in and start making up your own mind.
One specific piece of advice I'd offer is to try to be clear about the terms you use in a question or statement or goal. I've seen lots of folks undertaking various diet or exercise regimens with only a very murky idea of what it is they're trying to accomplish or how they're going to do it. People like to repeat buzzwords like "core" or "toning" or "muscle confusion" without being able to explain what those things mean. When you say "what type of exercise is best for your health (high intensity intervals or aerobic?)", I find that so vague as to be meaningless -- best for your health in what sense? Why look at only those two broad modes of training? You have to define your parameters more precisely to begin to gain any understanding. Good luck.
posted by ludwig_van at 9:41 AM on May 21, 2010
One specific piece of advice I'd offer is to try to be clear about the terms you use in a question or statement or goal. I've seen lots of folks undertaking various diet or exercise regimens with only a very murky idea of what it is they're trying to accomplish or how they're going to do it. People like to repeat buzzwords like "core" or "toning" or "muscle confusion" without being able to explain what those things mean. When you say "what type of exercise is best for your health (high intensity intervals or aerobic?)", I find that so vague as to be meaningless -- best for your health in what sense? Why look at only those two broad modes of training? You have to define your parameters more precisely to begin to gain any understanding. Good luck.
posted by ludwig_van at 9:41 AM on May 21, 2010
I can't find it, but there's a study/article out there that evaluated the claims of accepted and rejected articles for (I think) medical journals. Basically, the conclusion was that given a choice between an article with clear, extreme results and an article with a more moderate conclusion, the journal was inclined to choose the extreme article... even though the moderate article, in retrospect, was closer to reality.
posted by acidic at 10:12 AM on May 21, 2010
posted by acidic at 10:12 AM on May 21, 2010
The news reports what's new, with various filters and biases. It exists to stimulate your brain's desire for new information. It does not exist to provide you with an accurate synthesis of what science (or any other field) currently understands about a subject.
If you want to follow the latest research, you can start with the news, try to put the headline and article text out of your head, and track down the original paper. That will at least get you past the first layer of bullshit. However, you still have the problem that the paper was not randomly chosen but was selected by the press because it is titillating. ("Coffee is good for you!")
You're probably better off just seeking out sources that attempt to honestly synthesize the state of knowledge in a given field. Look out for any agendas (the USDA represents dairy and agricultural interests, Dr. Celebrity wants publicity, Dr. Woo-woo is a Gaist, and Dr. Have I Got the Diet for You wants to make a lot of money.) Find a nice, sensible book or pamphlet put out by the Mayo Clinic or Harvard Med School or something and let that be your guide.
If you think you've found someone that has discovered that the state of knowledge of an entire area of research is wrong (e.g. the way low-carbers feel about the field of nutrition) chances are, you're probably wrong. I say that as someone who thinks low-carbers are probably right, too. So I think they're probably right, but I recognize that I'm probably wrong about that. :-) If that makes sense.
posted by callmejay at 10:37 AM on May 21, 2010
If you want to follow the latest research, you can start with the news, try to put the headline and article text out of your head, and track down the original paper. That will at least get you past the first layer of bullshit. However, you still have the problem that the paper was not randomly chosen but was selected by the press because it is titillating. ("Coffee is good for you!")
You're probably better off just seeking out sources that attempt to honestly synthesize the state of knowledge in a given field. Look out for any agendas (the USDA represents dairy and agricultural interests, Dr. Celebrity wants publicity, Dr. Woo-woo is a Gaist, and Dr. Have I Got the Diet for You wants to make a lot of money.) Find a nice, sensible book or pamphlet put out by the Mayo Clinic or Harvard Med School or something and let that be your guide.
If you think you've found someone that has discovered that the state of knowledge of an entire area of research is wrong (e.g. the way low-carbers feel about the field of nutrition) chances are, you're probably wrong. I say that as someone who thinks low-carbers are probably right, too. So I think they're probably right, but I recognize that I'm probably wrong about that. :-) If that makes sense.
posted by callmejay at 10:37 AM on May 21, 2010
Best answer: Someone linked to this earlier, and it's great:
How to Evaluation Health Risks (without going insane)
And here is MedlinePlus' page on diets.
I work in nutrition, so I feel your pain about constantly shifting headlines and scientific conclusions. It's best to view everything from a really high level if you don't want to drive yourself nuts. Checking out the Cochrane Reviews database is always a good way to do this, since they gather up all the going research on any particular topic and attempt to derive a conclusion from all the contradictory results. Not surprisingly, however, the conclusion is often "more research is needed."
posted by Ouisch at 10:42 AM on May 21, 2010 [1 favorite]
How to Evaluation Health Risks (without going insane)
And here is MedlinePlus' page on diets.
I work in nutrition, so I feel your pain about constantly shifting headlines and scientific conclusions. It's best to view everything from a really high level if you don't want to drive yourself nuts. Checking out the Cochrane Reviews database is always a good way to do this, since they gather up all the going research on any particular topic and attempt to derive a conclusion from all the contradictory results. Not surprisingly, however, the conclusion is often "more research is needed."
posted by Ouisch at 10:42 AM on May 21, 2010 [1 favorite]
Best answer: I find the Health News Reviews helpful - they critically examine reporting in a way that points out common ways these stories can be misleading, and you get a feel for it pretty quickly.
posted by lakeroon at 11:04 AM on May 21, 2010
posted by lakeroon at 11:04 AM on May 21, 2010
You can't trust the news media to accurately report for shit on scientific findings. Find the actual research and read the abstract, or find a blog (e.g. scienceblogs.com) authored by someone with real qualifications who dissects findings in that area.
posted by Rhomboid at 1:40 PM on May 21, 2010
posted by Rhomboid at 1:40 PM on May 21, 2010
Basically, ignore all reports on health you see in any news media; nine times out of then they're either total bullshit or insanely speculative.
Work on a balanced diet with lots of fruits and vegetables, regular exercise, and no smoking and little drinking; you'll be fine. Hell the oldest person ever smoked one or two cigarettes a day for nearly a hundred years! (note; I'm not recommending this).
posted by smoke at 6:28 PM on May 21, 2010
Work on a balanced diet with lots of fruits and vegetables, regular exercise, and no smoking and little drinking; you'll be fine. Hell the oldest person ever smoked one or two cigarettes a day for nearly a hundred years! (note; I'm not recommending this).
posted by smoke at 6:28 PM on May 21, 2010
Best answer: My advice would be not to take mainstream news articles at face value. Often, they're just reporting on press releases without actually evaluating the research. In the worst cases, they completely misrepresent the researchers' actual findings (a recent example of this was a story in Time, which reported that exercise doesn't help people achieve weight loss, which was not at all what the researchers reported).
As other commenters suggested, if you come across something in the NYT that seems confusing or you would just like to learn more about the research, try searching for the original paper on PubMed. Often, you can access the paper free, and if not, you should at least be able to read the abstract. I know that as a layperson, research papers can be confusing. They are aimed at a specific audience of experts. So, I recommend checking out blogs where doctors and other professionals actually break down the research for a general audience. For medicine-related things, I like Science-Based Medicine. They cover a wide range of topics. Rhomboid mentioned scienceblogs, which is another great resource. There are a bunch of scientists in many different fields who blog over there. I find that these blogs are better at providing information to the average person than most mainstream science reporting.
posted by lexicakes at 11:12 PM on May 21, 2010
As other commenters suggested, if you come across something in the NYT that seems confusing or you would just like to learn more about the research, try searching for the original paper on PubMed. Often, you can access the paper free, and if not, you should at least be able to read the abstract. I know that as a layperson, research papers can be confusing. They are aimed at a specific audience of experts. So, I recommend checking out blogs where doctors and other professionals actually break down the research for a general audience. For medicine-related things, I like Science-Based Medicine. They cover a wide range of topics. Rhomboid mentioned scienceblogs, which is another great resource. There are a bunch of scientists in many different fields who blog over there. I find that these blogs are better at providing information to the average person than most mainstream science reporting.
posted by lexicakes at 11:12 PM on May 21, 2010
The media may propogate ridiculous ideas, but so do average people and I think this is where the bulk of misinformation comes from. Even *ahem* "professionals" spout ridiculous things all the time.
Misinformation is rampant in part because of the fact that the 'Health and Fitness' industry is largely unregulated. People have been selling snake oil for hundreds of years and continue to do so. Also there are no occupations out there that deal with the average joe or jane in a guiding capacity and have real oversight. Why isn't there an occupation that exists as a nutritionist/personal trainer that is on par with a doctor? I don't think you would need a Phd to become one but perhaps a Masters plus an internship. I'm speaking as someone who spent years; in school, did multiple internships, and read voraciously on the subject but realised I would come up short because someone with no experience and no schooling could get the exact same job. Not counting actual quality of course.
The other part of this is that science deals with absolutes and it is excedingly hard to apply absolutes to the huge disparity that exists for humans. Now I'm not saying that we can't apply science to the human body and how it works, that would be stupid. What I am saying is be wary of anybody who gives you hard and fast rules. They either are trying to sell you their brand of XYZ or they are trying get you to use their favorite brand of XYZ. Becuase "Shut up! It worked for me! You don't know what you're talking about! I know more about this subject than you could possibly imagine!"
Years ago a friend and I came up with a "brilliant" idea for a weight loss book. It was going to be two pages. Page one would say Eat less. Page two would say Move more. In a nutshell, that is what most diets fitness regimes are and yet there is a spectrum of diets and workout plans to choose from. So people are left with the idea that there isn't a clear choice but it doesn't really matter. As long as you do something and then from there tweak it to what you like and are most responsive to.
So in the end it's your body and it's your responsibility to learn about it, and listen to it to keep it in the cindition you want it in.
Start with the basics and move on from there. Buy some basic nutrition, anatomy, and physiology books and read up.
posted by P.o.B. at 6:22 PM on May 22, 2010
Misinformation is rampant in part because of the fact that the 'Health and Fitness' industry is largely unregulated. People have been selling snake oil for hundreds of years and continue to do so. Also there are no occupations out there that deal with the average joe or jane in a guiding capacity and have real oversight. Why isn't there an occupation that exists as a nutritionist/personal trainer that is on par with a doctor? I don't think you would need a Phd to become one but perhaps a Masters plus an internship. I'm speaking as someone who spent years; in school, did multiple internships, and read voraciously on the subject but realised I would come up short because someone with no experience and no schooling could get the exact same job. Not counting actual quality of course.
The other part of this is that science deals with absolutes and it is excedingly hard to apply absolutes to the huge disparity that exists for humans. Now I'm not saying that we can't apply science to the human body and how it works, that would be stupid. What I am saying is be wary of anybody who gives you hard and fast rules. They either are trying to sell you their brand of XYZ or they are trying get you to use their favorite brand of XYZ. Becuase "Shut up! It worked for me! You don't know what you're talking about! I know more about this subject than you could possibly imagine!"
Years ago a friend and I came up with a "brilliant" idea for a weight loss book. It was going to be two pages. Page one would say Eat less. Page two would say Move more. In a nutshell, that is what most diets fitness regimes are and yet there is a spectrum of diets and workout plans to choose from. So people are left with the idea that there isn't a clear choice but it doesn't really matter. As long as you do something and then from there tweak it to what you like and are most responsive to.
So in the end it's your body and it's your responsibility to learn about it, and listen to it to keep it in the cindition you want it in.
Start with the basics and move on from there. Buy some basic nutrition, anatomy, and physiology books and read up.
posted by P.o.B. at 6:22 PM on May 22, 2010
« Older opera browser 10.53 compatible with mac OS 10.4.11... | Good online source for aquarium fish, plants, and... Newer »
This thread is closed to new comments.
The news media (like the NY Times or other mainstream publications) has a vested interest in publishing Surprising New Findings in ways that very often distort the actual findings. I basically would recommend not believing anything you read in those sections -- and I say that as someone whose had my own research (which wasn't health related) terribly distorted in mainstream media. The actual research hardly ever says what the articles about the research say.
You may want to search for any article you see referenced on pubmed (you probably won't be able to access full articles, but abstracts should say all the relevant info) to see what the actual researchers say about things, or if the sample was limited to a certain subset of the population or something.
Basically, the mainstream media is a terrible way to get accurate science information, period.
posted by brainmouse at 9:33 AM on May 21, 2010