Surely every branch of science is special, and important, but some are more prone to credibility problems than others. Nutrition is one of them. Drug-based preventative health interventions are another. One suffers from almost totally unreliable survey reporting about what people eat, i.e., dirty data. The other suffers from a money problem, where money and power can make the data do whatever it wants, i.e., corruption. This is not to say that some branches of science are worthless, or absolutely untrustworthy, only that some need a stronger dose of skepticism than others.
Researchers propose novel model to screen misreporting in dietary surveys
Jan 2025, phys.org
They found that 48% of food intake records in NHANES and 54% in NDNS had unrealistically low levels of energy intake [calories]."This new model suggests that we should throw out large amounts of data, and nutritionists using dietary instruments may be unwilling to do that. However, continuing on just publishing erroneous data because it is too painful to acknowledge it's flawed, probably isn't the best way forward for nutrition science. I think as we go forward into the future many widely held beliefs that have been based on these problematical methods will need to be revised."
via Shenzhen Institutes of Advanced Technology of the Chinese Academy of Sciences: Rania Bajunaid et al, Predictive equation derived from 6,497 doubly labelled water measurements enables the detection of erroneous self-reported energy intake, Nature Food (2025). DOI: 10.1038/s43016-024-01089-5
Also: R. James Stubbs et al, Predictive equation helps estimate misreporting of energy intakes in dietary surveys, Nature Food (2025). DOI: 10.1038/s43016-024-01090-y , doi.org/10.1038/s43016-024-01090-
Image credit: AI Art - Supplements aka Small Pills - 2025
Experts challenge aspirin guidelines based on their undue reliance on a flawed trial
Apr 2025, phys.org
The American Heart Association (AHA)/American College of Cardiology (ACC) guidelines restricted aspirin to patients under 70, and more recently, the United States Preventive Services Task Force restricted aspirin use to patients under 60.Researchers from Florida Atlantic University's Schmidt College of Medicine, and other distinguished collaborators, believe that both the AHA/ACC Task Force and the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force were unduly influenced by the uninformative, not null, results of the Aspirin in Reducing Events in the Elderly (ASPREE) trial. Specifically, this trial did not provide reliable evidence that aspirin showed no benefit in the age groups they enrolled."Absence of evidence does not equate to evidence of absence of effect."
via Florida Atlantic University: Janet Wittes et al, Aspirin in primary prevention: Undue reliance on an uninformative trial led to misinformed clinical guidelines, Clinical Trials (2025). DOI: 10.1177/17407745251324866
