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 »
A new Investor’s Business Daily/TechnoMetrica Market Intelligence poll shows Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump each earning 41% support. On the one hand, the poll has been skewing in Trump's favor this year, relative to other polls. But on the other, data guru Nate Silver called the IBD/TIPP poll the most accurate in 2012.
"Sen. Bernie Sanders, a loyal soldier for Hillary Clinton since he conceded the Democratic presidential nomination in July, plans to push liberal legislation with like-minded senators with or without Clinton’s support if she is elected— and to aggressively oppose appointments that do not pass muster with the party’s left wing." Sanders and other similarly inclined senators are already "plotting legislation" on climate change, prison reform, the minimum wage, and tuition-free college.
"The political organization of Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe, an influential Democrat with longstanding ties to Bill and Hillary Clinton, gave nearly $500,000 to the election campaign of the wife of an official at the Federal Bureau of Investigation who later helped oversee the investigation into Mrs. Clinton’s email use."
Baseball great Curt Schilling says he still needs to clear a challenge to Sen. Elizabeth Warren with his wife, but in the meantime, he's found something to occupy him: the former hurler is going to host a daily online radio show on Breitbart.com. "The show marks Schilling’s return to media six months after ESPN fired him for sharing an anti-transgender Facebook post."
The New Yorker has endorsed Hillary Clinton, saying that "barring some astonishment," she will become the next president. Calling Clinton "distinctly capable," the magazine excoriates Donald Trump as a candidate who "favors conspiracy theory and fantasy, deriving his knowledge from the darker recesses of the Internet and 'the shows.'" Additionally, the historical nature of the possibility of "send[ing] a woman to the White House" is not lost on the editors, who note the possibility more than once in the endorsement.