Everything We Know About Nutrition May Be Wrong

A new study says 40 years of CDC data connecting food and obesity are fundamentally flawed.

National Journal
Brian Resnick
See more stories about...
Brian Resnick
Oct. 10, 2013, 7:52 a.m.

For 40 years, the Cen­ters for Dis­ease Con­trol and Pre­ven­tion has been ask­ing people what they eat in an at­tempt to un­der­stand the con­nec­tions between what we con­sume and how our bod­ies feel. And for 40 years, they may have been do­ing it wrong.

The lim­it­a­tions of the CDC data “make it ex­ceed­ingly dif­fi­cult to dis­cern tem­por­al pat­terns in cal­or­ic in­take that can be re­lated to changes in pop­u­la­tion rates of obesity.”

That’s the claim in a new study pub­lished in the on­line journ­al PLO­Sone. The re­search­ers probe CDC’s Na­tion­al Health and Nu­tri­tion Ex­am­in­a­tion Sur­vey, which has in­ter­viewed Amer­ic­ans about the foods they eat and their life­styles since 1971. From the sur­vey, we learned things about nu­tri­tion that now seem so fun­da­ment­al — that diet and ex­er­cise choices are linked to body weight, that cho­les­ter­ol is linked to heart dis­ease, and so on.

But here’s the prob­lem, ac­cord­ing to the au­thors: All of that data was com­piled by ask­ing people to re­call what they ate.

“Nu­tri­tion sur­veys fre­quently re­port a range of en­ergy in­takes that are not rep­res­ent­at­ive of the re­spond­ents’ ha­bitu­al in­takes,” the au­thors write. “And es­tim­ates of EI [en­ergy in­take] that are physiolo­gic­ally im­plaus­ible (i.e., in­com­pat­ible with sur­viv­al) have been demon­strated to be wide­spread.” Men and wo­men have been found to un­der­re­port cal­or­ies by between 12 per­cent and 20 per­cent, and are more likely to se­lect­ively un­der­re­port eat­ing the bad stuff, such as fat and sug­ar.

Trans­la­tion: We can’t trust hu­man memory as the source of our nu­tri­tion data, be­cause people can un­der­re­port what they eat to an ab­surd de­gree. Their self-re­ports doc­u­mented amounts of food that could not pos­sibly sup­port their sur­viv­al. “In no sur­vey did at least 50 per­cent of the re­spond­ents re­port plaus­ible EI [en­ergy in­take] val­ues,” the au­thors re­port.

The NHANES sur­vey does con­tain many, many ob­ject­ive meas­ures such as phys­ic­al ex­am­in­a­tions and blood work (for in­stance, it found el­ev­ated levels of lead in Amer­ic­ans’ blood work, which lead to the de­creased use of the met­al in gas­ol­ine and soda cans). But it’s not like the CDC can mon­it­or all a per­son eats. Nor is it really feas­able to do large-scale ex­per­i­ments on nu­tri­tion — that is, sep­ar­ate people in­to con­trol and ex­per­i­ment­al groups, have every­one eat the same ex­act things ex­cept for one vari­able, and then com­pile this data over dec­ades.

Gran­ted, in re­cent years, CDC has re­vised i’ts meth­od­o­logy. Since 2001, it has fol­ded NHANES in­to the “What We Eat in Amer­ica Pro­gram, which re­cords food in­take in a more con­trolled man­ner.

But there’s even reas­on to be­lieve that as time went on, and as the sur­vey raised aware­ness of obesity, people’s an­swers be­came even more skewed. The au­thors ex­plain:

“There is strong evid­ence that the re­port­ing of ‘so­cially un­desir­able’ (e.g., high fat and/or high sug­ar) foods has changed as the pre­val­ence of obesity has in­creased. Ad­di­tion­ally, re­search has demon­strated that in­ter­ven­tions em­phas­iz­ing the im­port­ance of ‘healthy’ be­ha­vi­ors may lead to in­creased mis­re­port­ing as par­ti­cipants al­ter their re­ports to re­flect the ad­op­tion of the ‘health­i­er’ be­ha­vi­ors in­de­pend­ent of ac­tu­al be­ha­vi­or change.”

The sur­vey in­dic­ates that health be­ha­vi­or in­flu­ences re­sponses to fu­ture sur­veys. And that’s bad sci­ence. All in all, the au­thors con­clude that the lim­it­a­tions of the NHANES data “make it ex­ceed­ingly dif­fi­cult to dis­cern tem­por­al pat­terns in cal­or­ic in­take that can be re­lated to changes in pop­u­la­tion rates of obesity.”

It doesn’t mean our nu­tri­tion as­sump­tions are wrong. It just means we haven’t proven them, be­cause our meth­ods have been flawed.

What We're Following See More »
In Dropout Speech, Santorum Endorses Rubio
2 days ago

As expected after earlier reports on Wednesday, Rick Santorum ended his presidential bid. But less expected: he threw his support to Marco Rubio. After noting he spoke with Rubio the day before for an hour, he said, “Someone who has a real understanding of the threat of ISIS, real understanding of the threat of fundamentalist Islam, and has experience, one of the things I wanted was someone who has experience in this area, and that’s why we decided to support Marco Rubio.” It doesn’t figure to help Rubio much in New Hampshire, but the Santorum nod could pay dividends down the road in southern states.

Rubio, Trump Question Obama’s Mosque Visit
2 days ago

President Obama’s decision to visit a mosque in Baltimore today was never going to be completely uncontroversial. And Donald Trump and Marco Rubio proved it. “Maybe he feels comfortable there,” Trump told interviewer Greta van Susteren on Fox News. “There are a lot of places he can go, and he chose a mosque.” And in New Hampshire, Rubio said of Obama, “Always pitting people against each other. Always. Look at today – he gave a speech at a mosque. Oh, you know, basically implying that America is discriminating against Muslims.”

Cruz Must Max Out on Evangelical Support through Early March
2 days ago

For Ted Cruz, a strong showing in New Hampshire would be nice, but not necessary. That’s because evangelical voters only make up 21% of the Granite State’s population. “But from the February 20 South Carolina primary through March 15, there are nine states (South Carolina, Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Kentucky, Mississippi, and North Carolina) with an estimated white-Evangelical percentage of the GOP electorate over 60 percent, and another four (Texas, Kansas, Louisiana, and Missouri) that come in over 50 percent.” But after that, he better be in the catbird’s seat, because only four smaller states remain with evangelical voter majorities.

Rubio Now Winning the ‘Endorsement Primary’
2 days ago

Since his strong third-place finish in Iowa, Marco Rubio has won endorsement by two sitting senators and two congressmen, putting him in the lead for the first time of FiveThirtyEight‘s Endorsement Tracker. “Some politicians had put early support behind Jeb Bush — he had led [their] list since August — but since January the only new endorsement he has received was from former presidential candidate Sen. Lindsey Graham.” Meanwhile, the New York Times reports that fueled by resentment, “members of the Bush and Christie campaigns have communicated about their mutual desire to halt … Rubio’s rise in the polls.”

Carly Fiorina Will Not Be Allowed to Debate on Saturday
1 days ago

ABC News has announced the criteria for Saturday’s Republican debate, and that means Carly Fiorina won’t be a part of it. The network is demanding candidates have “a top-three finish in Iowa, a top-six standing in an average of recent New Hampshire polls or a top-six placement in national polls in order for candidates to qualify.” And there will be no “happy hour” undercard debate this time. “So that means no Fiorina vs. Jim Gilmore showdown earlier in the evening for the most ardent of campaign 2016 junkies.