Here’s how public thinking on food gets shaped: Every year, researchers publish hundreds of academic studies about the health effects of various foods - chocolate, kale, red wine, anything. Those studies, in turn, become fodder for newspaper articles, books and blog posts.
But how much of this torrent of information is worth the trouble? Surprising little, according to a number of key researchers.In recent years, these skeptics have caused a stir by poking big holes in the nutritional science behind popular diet advice. Even the findings published in distinguished health journals have come under fire.
Collectively, their work suggests that we know far less than we think we do about what to eat.
[Also Covered By]: http://firstwefeast.com/eat/are-nutrition-studies-complete-bogus/
[Related]: http://firstwefeast.com/eat/new-dietary-guidelines-say-red-meat-and-butter-are-not-the-devil/
(Score: 3, Insightful) by sjames on Wednesday May 13 2015, @10:22PM
Unfortunately, it's not all on the journalists. Journalists didn't invent the food pyramid or any of the other government recommendations.
Journalists didn't cause the statin craze or the general hand wringing over cholesterol that drove so many to eat trans-fats as a substitute. Science reporting is often screwed up, but when it comes to nutrition, much of the blame goes elsewhere. There are proper researchers in the field but there is a lot of actual junk science there as well drowning them out.