Why You Should Be More Skeptical About Nutrition Research

Source: http://greatist.com/eat/nutrition-research-why-you-should-be-more-skeptical?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=feed_http–greatistcom-

At this point, we’ve basically memorized the benefits of drinking red wine: It can lower your risk of heart attack, heart disease, type 2 diabetes, and stroke. 1 Noticeably absent from that list: Drinking alcohol has also been connected to a half dozen types of cancer. We’re not bringing this up to scare you into putting down your glass of vino (the risk is slim) but rather as an example of how twisted nutrition research can be.

The major problem—as this story from Vox points out—is that many of these headline-grabbing studies are funded by the food industry, specifically the companies who make the food being studied. Marion Nestle, Ph.D., a professor of nutrition at NYU, found that 90 percent of the industry-funded studies published in the last year show benefits for the food being researched. For example, a recent study that concluded eating walnuts reduced adults’ risk for diabetes was funded by the California Walnut Commission.2 Another, funded by Welch’s, found drinking Concord grape juice led to cognitive benefits.3

To learn why this conflict of interest continues to exist, check out the full story on Vox by clicking below.

Read the Full Story

Works Cited Red wine: A drink to your heart. Saleem T, Basha S. Journal of Cardiovascular Disease Research. 2010 Oct-Dec; 1(4): 171–176.
Red wine consumption improves insulin resistance but not endothelial function in type 2 diabetic patients. Napoli R, Cozzolino…

What do you think?