We know little about the effect of diet on health. That’s why so much is written about it

One of my scientific heroes is Bernard Katz. The closing words of his inaugural lecture, as professor of biophysics at UCL, hang on the wall of my office as a salutory reminder to refrain from talking about ‘how the brain works’. After speaking about his discoveries about synaptic transmission, he ended thus. "My time is up and very glad I am, because I have been leading myself right up to a domain on which I should not dare to trespass, not even in an Inaugural Lecture. This domain contains the awkward problems of mind and matter about which so much has been talked and so little can be said, and having told you of my pedestrian disposition, I hope you will give me leave to stop at this point and not to hazard any further guesses." Drawing ©Jenny Hersson-Ringskog The question of what to eat for good health is truly a topic about "which so much has been talked and so little can be said" That was emphasized yet again by an editorial in the Brirish Medical Journal written by my favourite epidemiologist. John Ioannidis. He has been at the forefront of debunking hype. Its title is “Implausible results in human nutrition research” (BMJ, 2013;347:f6698. Get pdf). The gist is given by the memorable statement "Almost every single nutrient imaginable has peer reviewed publications associating it with almost any outcome." and the subtitle “Definitive solutions won’t come from another million ...
Source: DC's goodscience - Category: Professors and Educators Authors: Tags: badscience Bernard Katz nutribollocks nutrition nutritional therapy randomisation randomization RCT regulation Academia causality quackery Source Type: blogs