I've been presented with information recently from quite a few places, that has been the basis for making decisions about nutrition choices. And I've been asked for my opinion about these references. Unfortunately, not all of it is valid. Everyone reading this blog has the right to decide for themselves if they wish to believe what they read. I thought I would share how I decide for myself if information is valid when I research my blog posts.
1. Is it referenced? I don't base any important judgment calls on hearsay. With our audience this is especially important. First of all, many of you are in high-risk situations where even a small change in your nutrition status could affect your ability to achieve your goal. If someone cannot tell me where they heard that information, I don't share it.
2. Is that reference peer-reviewed? A peer-reviewed reference is an article, in a scientific journal, that had to go through a rigorous review process in order to even be published. Typically, a committee of experts reads an article, provides critique and feedback to the author, who then either rewrites the article or even goes back to the lab to collect information it was felt was deficient.
3. In a peer-reviewed reference, who funded the study? Unfortunately, the peer-review process is not perfect. Research studies are expensive, and a high percentage of them are funded by pharmaceutical companies and food conglomerates with much to gain if their product can be proven to have a certain desired effect. If the majority of information about a subject is funded by one corporate entity, without any pieces available to balance that finding, it may still be science, but it may exist because no one has paid for studies that might put this"promising" information into perspective.
(Just because something doesn't exist in a journal doesn't mean it's not true. It may just mean that it hasn't been studied yet. Filling in some of those holes is what we are excited about doing with our new research institute.)
I'm not a big fan of basing my decisions on published books, no matter how well-respected a person's book may be. Books are a collection of thoughts and opinions of a certain author, and they do not report individual research. There is a profit motive behind books, and in many cases less of a review process to balance the presented information. For example, I do love the book The Omega-3 Connection. However, it is important to know that the author of this book, despite his credentials, owns a company that sells omega-3 supplements. His recommendations are higher than what is commonly seen to be effective, which benefits him in an obvious way. And I've never seen him do any subsequent studies to fine tune or even lower recommended doses with updated information. So while I learned much from what he wrote, I did walk away from that time recognizing that there were limits to the claims the book made.
Book authors also need to do press and booksigning tours in order to recover the money invested in creating their product, and in order to get media coverage, their titles are often more sensational, their claims more promising than what may be seen in peer-reviewed publications. I'm more inclined to pick up a book written by someone who does have their own peer-reviewed publications than I am someone who is a clinical professional who decided to improve their own bottom line with a media blitz. But I never quote or base my own clinical recommendations on anything that comes from a book published by a mainstream publisher. I stick with the science.
Websites are pure tossup. Most of them have some kind of profit motive attached, and you must decide if that motive is consistent with your own value system. We even have our own profit motive at inCYST. We do our best to steer away from associations that would reduce our credibility, however. It is the well-being of the reader that we value first and foremost and refuse to compromise, no matter how comfortable our own lives would be from saying"yes" to a few more business offers than we actually do.
And there you have it.