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 »
After more than a month of back and forth, a failed bill, and GOP embarrassment, the ultra-conservative House Freedom Caucus has announced that it will support the Obamacare replacement legislation in its most recent iteration. Rep. Mark Meadows, the chairman of the caucus, said the roughly 30 members of the caucus view this compromise as the best option short of a full repeal. A recent amendment, authored by Meadows and Rep. Tom McArthur, co-chair of the more moderate Tuesday Group, would allow states to apply for waivers exempting them from provisions forbidding insurers from charging higher prices to those with pre-existing conditions if the state set up a high-risk pool. The plan's passage in the House is not a done deal though, as a number of moderate lawmakers have resisted supporting the amendment.
"A U.S. Navy guided-missile destroyer fired a warning flare toward an Iranian Revolutionary Guard vessel coming near it in the Persian Gulf. The incident happened Monday as the vessel closed to within 1,000 meters of the USS Mahan, "despite the destroyer trying to turn away from it." After attempting to contact the Iranian vessel and sounding its whistle, it deployed the flare. After that, the ship had had enough and turned away.
U.S. District Judge William Orrick Tuesday blocked the Trump administration from enforcing part of an executive order calling for the end of federal funding to so-called sanctuary cities. The decision was followed by a scathing rebuke from the White House, a precedent-breaking activity which with this White House has had no qualms. A White House statement called the decision an "egregious overreach by a single, unelected district judge." The statement was followed by an inaccurate Wednesday morning tweetstorm from Trump, which railed against the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. While Judge Orrick's district falls within the jurisdiction of the Ninth Circuit, Orrick himself does not serve on the Ninth Circuit.
"House Republicans are circulating the text of an amendment to their ObamaCare replacement bill that they believe could bring many conservatives on board. According to legislative text of the amendment," drafted by Rep. Tom MacArthur (R-NJ), "the measure would allow states to apply for waivers to repeal one of ObamaCare’s core protections for people with pre-existing conditions. Conservatives argue the provision drives up premiums for healthy people, but Democrats—and many more moderate Republicans—warn it would spark a return to the days when insurance companies could charge sick people exorbitantly high premiums."