Links:
About This Episode:
Numerous nutrition studies present findings of “no effect,” but interpreting such results requires caution. A null finding, indicating an absence of impact from a nutrient or exposure, may not necessarily suggest a lack of effect overall. Instead, it could stem from issues related to the study’s design, the nature of the exposure, or participant characteristics.
We’ve often referred to such studies as being “null by design”.
These studies, often termed “null by design,” may yield inconclusive results due to insufficient contrast in exposure levels to reveal a significant effect size. Additionally, participants’ baseline nutrient status or intake can contribute to false negatives. For instance, if a study provides a nutrient to individuals already replete in that nutrient, it may lead to an erroneous conclusion. This phenomenon can be understood by considering the bell curve of activity for a nutrient.
Moreover, a lack of methodological rigor can generate ‘false negatives.’ If previous literature indicates associations between high intake of a specific food or nutrient and certain outcomes, a study comparing levels of intake well below that threshold may produce a misleading result.
Some challenges arise from an overly reductionist perspective. In disease processes, reductionism simplifies diseases to a single primary source at the cellular and molecular level. This perspective assumes that if a nutrient shows a relationship with health or disease outcomes at a population level, its biological activity should manifest in isolation. However, applying such assumptions to exposures like diet may not be tenable.
In this discussion, we delve into the concept of “null by design” and present three specific studies with null findings, emphasizing the need for careful interpretation.
SNP28: How To Eat for Longevity
#519: Eating Disorders: Inpatient Treatment & Challenges – Helen West, RD
#518: Nutritional Geometry, Philosophy of Science & A Case for Reductionism – Prof. David Raubenheimer & Jonathan Sholl, PhD
#517: Reflecting on Ten Years of Lessons
#516: How to Read Nutrition Studies (Become Confident in Critically Appraising Research)
AMA: Do Low-carbers Need Less Vitmain C? Does Omega-3 Supplementation Actually Benefit Us? & More (SNP 27)
#515: Does Dietary Fat Quality Causally Affect Atherosclerosis Risk? – Jacob Christensen, PhD
#514: Plant-derived Fatty Acids – Ella Baker, PhD
#513: Kidney Stones & Diet – Deepa Kariyawasam, RD
What are Dietary Reference Intakes? Origins, Development & Use (SNP 26)
#512: Alzheimer’s Disease – Drs. Ayesha & Dean Sherzai
#510: Social Comparison: Evidence on its Impacts & What We Can Do – Shannon Beer
AMA: Coconut Oil, Raw Oats, Collagen, & More! (SNP 25)
#509: Helping Clients & Patients Overcome Nutrition Confusion – Jono Steedman, APD
#508: Why Athletes Can Achieve High Performance During an Energy Deficit – Jose Areta, PhD
#507: Does a Higher Portfolio Diet Score Reduce Heart Disease? – Andrea Glenn, PhD
Listener Q&A: Homocysteine, MUFA, Healhty BMI, and more! (Preview)
#506 Sports Nutrition: Translating Research to Practice – Andreas Kasper, PhD
#505: Oslo Diet-Heart Study: Cholesterol-lowering Diets & Cardiovascular Events
Create your
podcast in
minutes
It is Free
Practically Healthy by Dr. Melina
ZOE Science & Nutrition
Intermittent Fasting Stories
Keeping It Real: Conversations with Jillian Michaels
Nutrition Diva