But such trials are not feasible for addressing the major questions we have related to diet and health. In theory, double-blind randomized controlled trials with hard clinical endpoints would also be ideal in nutrition science. This is the gold standard, with good reason. With this approach, we can be fairly confident that a statistically significant difference in outcomes is due to the experimental treatment, because the groups started out being otherwise similar. As you probably know, when we study pharmaceutical interventions, we randomly assign participants to one of two groups: either the substance being tested or placebo (or usual standard of care in some cases). But with modern nutrition, it’s never that simple. This, of course, is where nutrition science should save the day, right? The scientific method is designed to minimize the influence of bias and help us understand the natural world based on observable phenomena. It’s hard for us to view our favorite foods in an entirely objective way – even when they are slowly making us sick. In other words, we are all biased, to varying degrees. Every single one of us has cultivated deep-seated dietary preferences, often established in our formative years. In addition, food is a primal motivator (arguably the most powerful that there is). We all develop a sense of expertise, in a way that we might not for something a bit more removed from our daily life, like robotics or civil engineering. Why is that? I can think of a couple reasons why it is so contentious.įor one thing, all of us eat, meaning that every single one of us is personally invested in this topic, and we interact with it all the time. If you have ever tried to discuss diet on the Internet, you know what I am talking about here. Nutrition is arguably the most emotionally charged of all of the applied sciences.
0 kommentar(er)
