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.
SNP20: The Cumulative Exposure Model of LDL-C & Heart Disease
#492: How Does Weight Cycling Impact Long-term Health?
#491: Do High Protein Intakes Cause Insulin Resistance?
#490: How Does Exercise Impact Beta-cell Function in Type 2 Diabetes? – Mark Lyngbæk, MD
What is a Causal Risk Factor? (AMA with Alan)
#489: Inequalities in Diabetes Outcomes for African & Caribbean Communities – Prof. Louise Goff
#488: Does Time of Day Impact Hunger, Appetite & Satiety?
#487: Weight Cutting in Combat Sports – Jordan Sullivan
#486: Blood Glucose Spikes: How High is Too High? – Mario Kratz, PhD & Nicola Guess, PhD
#485: Does Menopause Alter Appetite?
SNP18: What is a Healthy Low-Carb Diet?
#484: Is Metabolic Adaptation an Illusion? – Eric Trexler, PhD
#483: What are the Effects of Very High Fiber Intakes?
#482: Carbohydrate Quality & Health – Andrew Reynolds, PhD
Is Personalized Nutrition Superior to General Nutrition Advice? (SNP 17)
#481: Why Saturated Fat Really Does Impact Heart Disease Risk
#480: How Much Fiber Do We Need for Good Health? – Prof. Joanne Slavin
#479: Blood Glucose, CGM Use, Diabetes Remission & High-Protein for Diabetes – Nicola Guess, PhD, RD
#478: Exposures in Nutrition – Why They’re Crucial to Understand
SNP16: A Dairy Fat Paradox? – Saturated Fat, Food Matrices & Heart Disease
Create your
podcast in
minutes
It is Free
Good Mood Revolution
Practically Healthy by Dr. Melina
ZOE Science & Nutrition
Intermittent Fasting Stories
Dr. Jockers Functional Nutrition
LONGEVITY with Nathalie Niddam