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
Add to Briefcase
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 »
TWO MONTHS AFTER REFUSING AT CONVENTION
Cruz to Back Trump
2 days ago
THE LATEST
WHO TO BELIEVE?
Two Polls for Clinton, One for Trump
2 days ago
THE LATEST

With three days until the first debate, the polls are coming fast and furious. The latest round:

  • An Associated Press/Gfk poll of registered voters found very few voters committed, with Clin­ton lead­ing Trump, 37% to 29%, and Gary John­son at 7%.
  • A Mc­Clatchy-Mar­ist poll gave Clin­ton a six-point edge, 45% to 39%, in a four-way bal­lot test. Johnson pulls 10% support, with Jill Stein at 4%.
  • Rasmussen, which has drawn criticism for continually showing Donald Trump doing much better than he does in other polls, is at it again. A new survey gives Trump a five-point lead, 44%-39%.
NO SURPRISE
Trump Eschewing Briefing Materials in Debate Prep
2 days ago
THE DETAILS

In contrast to Hillary Clinton's meticulous debate practice sessions, Donald Trump "is largely shun­ning tra­di­tion­al de­bate pre­par­a­tions, but has been watch­ing video of…Clin­ton’s best and worst de­bate mo­ments, look­ing for her vul­ner­ab­il­it­ies.” Trump “has paid only curs­ory at­ten­tion to brief­ing ma­ter­i­als. He has re­fused to use lecterns in mock de­bate ses­sions des­pite the ur­ging of his ad­visers. He prefers spit­balling ideas with his team rather than hon­ing them in­to crisp, two-minute an­swers.”

Source:
TRUMP NO HABLA ESPANOL
Trump Makes No Outreach to Spanish Speakers
2 days ago
WHY WE CARE

Donald Trump "is on the precipice of becoming the only major-party presidential candidate this century not to reach out to millions of American voters whose dominant, first or just preferred language is Spanish. Trump has not only failed to buy any Spanish-language television or radio ads, he so far has avoided even offering a translation of his website into Spanish, breaking with two decades of bipartisan tradition."

Source:
$1.16 MILLION
Clintons Buy the House Next Door in Chappaqua
2 days ago
WHY WE CARE

Bill and Hillary Clinton have purchased the home next door to their primary residence in tony Chappaqua, New York, for $1.16 million. "By purchasing the new home, the Clinton's now own the entire cul-de-sac at the end of the road in the leafy New York suburb. The purchase makes it easier for the United States Secret Service to protect the former president and possible future commander in chief."

Source:
×