Finding What Works

We have a scarcity of writers like Tamar Haspel, a food writer, who apparently understands what many columnists, activists, and politicians do not. For a lot of big problems we face, like obesity, global climate change, and Putin, we have theories and ideas in research papers, but most of them don’t pan out. When science is working well, most studies will, or should, fall by the wayside (into trash heap) and only a few should make it to a policy, particularly a national policy. 

Here’s a recent article in the Washington Post on Weight Loss Diets by Haspel that was, in my view, perfect. She sums up crank weight loss diets (probably most of them in my view) with this statement, “It’s a way to eat less, cloaked in a sciency explanation of why the particular combination of foods being prescribed works metabolic magic.” They all end up causing you to eat less but what is happening is that:

… each diet guru latches onto some piece of human metabolism and decides that it’s the key to health and weight loss — but really, it’s just the toenail. Sure, digesting wheat yields polypeptides! But there’s so much else going on in the human body that it’s very hard to know how that plays out.”

But what you hear is, for example, “The carnivore diet claims to decrease hormonal fluctuations, because the insulin spikes associated with carbohydrates create a “cascade of other imbalances” of hormones associated with hunger and fat storage.”

The result is that most long-term diets don’t last. What lasts, is when each individual chooses something that works for them, and will continue to work for them because, as Tamar points out, diet is a “doing” problem. The other problem is that science just doesn’t know enough about the complexities of human metabolism and all of the pathways that food can affect. But papers keep coming out, headlines follow, and we keep treating them like they are universal solutions.

To get to real solutions, we need the patience to read a lot of papers and headlines and, for the ones that look promising, try them in small trials. During this climb, the vast majority of theories and ideas should fall and never make it to policies. 

One way to keep over reactions down, particularly to poor or weak studies, can be seen in a website called Obesity and Energetics Offerings from editor David Allison of Indiana University. It combines work from IU’s School of Public Health with the University of Alabama’s Nutrition Obesity Research Center.

For example, here’s how they released a study about soda taxes – i.e., a theory that soda taxes reduce obesity.Headline vs Study

What if all new reports came out that way? This would slow lazy reporters and activists down, and perhaps discourage well-meaning but misguided politicians who wish to make policies based on insufficient research. 

Of course, science can change and some day we may find out that diet sodas really aren’t good for us (e.g., for the microbiome) but until then, it’s not ready, despite all of the current policies. 

Here’s another one of Haspel’s posts from back in July: “Diet soda is fine, and 3 other food truths it’s time you believed.” Some of her conclusions:

  • We eat junk food because it is cheap and tasty, not because it is subsidized (as far as I can tell, she’s not arguing we should be subsidizing the crops used to make junk food).

  • There is zero evidence that diet soda is bad for us. That certainly wasn’t what a lot of activists are telling us. 

  • Local foods aren’t better for the climate.

  • Salad is a “first-world luxury” that is “96 percent water, … a waste of resources , a nutritional zero, (and) isn’t a health winner.”

We need more science writers putting theories into the overall research context to slow the onslaught of politicians eager for national (or international) policies that are unproven. Otherwise, we will continue to see a massive waste of resources that could have been used for things that actually work.

Richard Williams