Why from nutrition we constantly receive contradictory recommendations and what we have to trust

Eating is a daily gesture. So much so that practically everyone thinks they know how to eat properly. But this is not true. Adding to the difficulty, nutritional claims they seem to change depending on the direction of the wind.

What is happening in the world of nutrition? What happens to specialists in this field? Why don’t they come to an agreement once and for all? The eggsthe milk, Red meat, the sugar, the fat… nothing is saved from this informative earthquake.

Seven reasons that explain why the world of nutrition is so changing

We have all experienced the uncertainty related to the world of nutrition. But wasn’t it bad eat more than three eggs a week? Now caffeine is good? What happens now with fruit juices? We could write a whole text citing questions like this. But you have to understand why these types of issues arise to decide which ones affect us the most:

Nutrition is a very new discipline

Although dietetics and nutrition are disciplines that have been studied for a long time, it is not until fifty years ago that nutrition began to acquire the scientific patterns typical of other more “crude” disciplines. just thirty years ago, personal experience began to give way to scientific evidence. From this, nutritional dietary guidelines began to change and the first scientifically based recommendations appeared.

But this is not enough. Over time, as scientific knowledge and techniques improved, many of assumptions associated with physiology and nutritional metabolism have been superseded. This meant completely destroying some of the nutritional recommendations considered authentic dogmas. Moreover, many of these dogmas have been maintained for the short period that we have had to contrast them.

Some trials and results require decades of study. This sometimes comes into conflict: if something has been validated for a long time and in recent years there have been several studies that point to the opposite, they need more time to be able to counteract the already established idea. In general, “good nutrition” has little time, something that clashes squarely with many unfounded concepts about the discipline.

It’s a world of multifactorial nutrition

To researchers of the pure sciences (mathematics, physics, chemistry…) biology seems almost like a pseudoscience. biological models they are very undeterministic. This means that repeating an experiment under the exact same conditions does not always give the same result. This is explained by the immense number of variables that a living system has.

The same thing happens in nutrition, which is one of the fundamental bases of a living system: depends on too many variables. The result is never the same. This implies a monstrous difficulty when it comes to doing experiments and looking for clear guides and recommendations. Nutrition has its greatest enemy in its biological nature, at least in the information aspect.

You can’t do good rehearsals

Based on the two previous premises, we can assume that trials in nutrition are a horror. Well, they are. The number of factors that can change, vary or completely modify a result are so different from person to person that it is a real headache. Every person is a world? Certainly, at least in nutrition.

As if that were not enough, as we said, we need a lot of time to reach more or less general conclusions. Decades, even. This is also due to our body, the consequences of which are sometimes not shown immediately (and thank goodness). Again, we, our system, is nutrition’s worst informational enemy. Thanks metabolism!

reasonable scientific doubt

The nutritionist Aitor Sánchez, alias Midietacojea, wrote a few years ago a text which addressed some of the same points as this one. In his article, the expert summarized the three previous points in one: “Scientific controversy. We really have doubts.” And it is the truth. Science is not a clear-cut fact nor is it made up of a series of milestones that remain intact once they pass.

On the contrary, science evolves and mutates at every step. We normally rely on scientific consensus, that is, the greatest possible sum of existing scientific evidence to date, to make recommendations. However, this may change with the presentation of a new battery of results. And this is not bad, although it can be annoying, since it is a sign that we understand nutrition better and better.

Downgrading is a fact

Precisely related to the previous point, being outdated is a danger that constantly floats around professionals. Many doctors, food scientists, dieticians and nutritionists carry outdated information in their brains. We cannot blame him, our mind is like that. Once we grasp an idea it is very difficult to let it go. This leads to conflicting advice among respected professionals, especially as new evidence emerges.

There are many interests…

Yes, it is a reality. The food industry is one of the most prolific and powerful in the world, along with pharmaceutical and pornographic (to give two examples). And yes, there are clearly conflicts of interest on all sides. Especially when we talk about an industry whose regulation is due to many social aspects and is not at all clear. Communicators such as José Manuel López Nicolás, author of the science blog and several books that denounce the same.

This should not serve to justify the idea that everything that has to do with nutrition is manipulated by an evil industry. This oversimplification tries to justify the concerns that appear with the problems that we have mentioned above, but it is not true at all. There are interests, yes, we repeat it, but there are also professionals, especially within this field, groups and forces de facto what try to clarify and counter these interests.

…And there is a lack of communication professionals

Having said the above, there is another thing that is evident without any other option: the communicators specialized in this sector are few. At least the most up to date. Every time there are more and better prepared, but still there is a serious communication problem, especially when important agencies and institutions are involved. We can see the same thing in the clumsy crossed message transmitted by WHO on red meat.

Communication, the good one, is learned and trained. You have to have professionals dedicated to ensuring that the message reaches its destination properly. This is especially true on issues as sensitive as those related to health and nutrition. Unfortunately, we have not yet passed this subject.

What do we have to trust?

The question that always hovers around us is clear: “Who do I trust?” If the evidence can always change, if they say different things every time, if my nutritionist relies on outdated guidelines, How can I be sure that I am basing my nutrition on something positive? Well, it is clear that the uncertainty is gigantic in this field, but that does not mean that we cannot trust anyone.

The first premise that we must take into account is the following: there are no radical and static concepts. dosugar is bad? Yes, but if you eat a donut today nothing happens. doalcohol causes cancer? Of course, but avoiding having a glass of wine with your friends may cause you a worse discomfort in your day to day life.

Should I avoid ultra-processed at all costs? Sure, but it’s okay if you haven’t had time to prepare a healthy meal today and you have to eat a vending machine sandwich. Flexibility and relativity are necessary in this regard.

Based on that, we can rule out all the people who manifest a draconian and fanatical attitude to some aspect. A good nutritionist usually does not. On the other hand, what about official announcements, like the one from the WHO? The World Health Organization It is the highest authority on health. This includes nutrition, of course. Paying attention to them, in general, is good. Sometimes, however, they are a bit slow. In the event that we suspect that any of its recommendations are outdated, it is best to turn to specialists.

The luck of having the network of networks is that we have these specialists just a stone’s throw away: posts, social networks, videos on YouTube… the information is out there. In addition, these same professionals are often the most up-to-date. And how do we distinguish a good professional from a pseudo-professional? We’ll have to look into it. The first thing is to know what training you have and who has granted it to understand its professional value.

We can observe its trajectory, what debates you enter and how you deal with them It is another essential factor to know its quality, although be careful because this can bias us: we will tend to choose what is most aligned with our preconceived beliefs. To finish establishing our confidence, we can check what other independent sources say about it. Contrast, wow. If the debate is contradictory and the sources have the same depth, we may be facing one of those issues that are about to change.

In any case, we will return to the starting point: you don’t have to be inflexible. Nutrition is a complex field. Only time is capable of defining whether a recommendation was completely correct or not. Yes, it is not a very flattering premise, but biology is like that.

Images | unsplash