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 »
The Signal app is fast becoming the new favorite among those who are obsessed with the security and untraceabilty of their messaging. Just ask the Democratic National Committee. Or Edward Snowden. As Vanity Fair reports, before news ever broke that the DNC's servers had been hacked, word went out among the organization that the word "Trump" should never be used in their emails, lest it attract hackers' attention. Not long after, all Trump-related messages, especially disparaging ones, would need to be encrypted via the Snowden-approved Signal.
The Republican Study Committee may lose several members of the House Freedom Caucus next year, "potentially creating a split between two influential groups of House conservatives." The Freedom Caucus was founded at the inception of the current Congress by members who felt that the conservative RSC had gotten too cozy with leadership, "and its roughly 40 members have long clashed with the RSC over what tactics to use when pushing for conservative legislation." As many as 20 members may not join the RSC for the new Congress next year.
"The U.S. Food and Drug Administration on Monday issued emergency authorization for a Zika diagnostics test from Swiss drugmaker Roche, skirting normal approval channels as the regulator moves to fight the disease's spread." Meanwhile, the Wall Street Journal reports that a new study in Nature identifies "about a dozen substances" that could "suppress the pathogen's replication." Some of them are already in clinical trials.
According to 37 newly released audits, "some private Medicare plans overcharged the government for the majority of elderly patients they treated." A number of Medicare Advantage plans overstated "the severity of medical conditions like diabetes and depression." The money has since been paid back, though some plans are appealing the federal audits.
"GOP leaders and House Democrats are already laying the groundwork for a short-term continuing resolution" on the budget this fall "that will set up a vote on a catch-all spending bill right before the holidays." As usual, however, the House Freedom Caucus may throw a wrench in Speaker Paul Ryan's gears. The conservative bloc doesn't appear willing to accept any CR that doesn't fund the government into 2017.