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.
#428: Food Environments
Can You ‘Study’ Nutrition Science with a Podcast? Here’s How. (Including a Time-sensitive Announcement)
#427: Jacob Schepis – Evidence-Based Coaching: Desirable Goal or Unattainable Burden for Fitness Professionals?
#426: Jaebian Rosario – How Social Identity and Idealogical Extremes Impact Scientific Discussion
#425: Prof. Anna Krylov – When Ideology Hurts Scientific Discourse
#424: Is Low Cholesterol Bad For You?!
#423: Zoya Huschtscha, PhD – Understanding Sarcopenia & Potential Interventions
#422: Psychobiotics – Can Probiotics Improve Mood-related Disorders?
#421: Brendon Stubbs, PhD – The Research on Depression & Physical Activity
#420: Cannabis – Kevin Boehnke, PhD & Carrie Cuttler, PhD
#419: Nathan Bryan, PhD – Role of Nitric Oxide in Human Health
#418: Should We Consume a Direct Source of DHA?
#417: Austin Baraki, MD – What Do Nutrient Blood Tests Actually Tell Us?: Understanding Biomarkers
#416: David Nunan, PhD – Evidence-Informed Health Care: Evidence-based Medicine 2.0
#415: Prof. Bruce Neal – Can Salt Substitutes Reduce Cardiac Events & Death?
#414: Will Machine Learning Overtake Traditional Nutrition Research Methods?
#413: Anthony Fardet, PhD – Nutritional Reductionism, the Food Matrix & Impact of Processing
#412: Eirini Dimidi, PhD – Diet, Chronic Constipation and the Gut
#411: Bone Health & Nutrition
#410: Q&A: Sodium, Protein, Quackery Tactics & More!
Create your
podcast in
minutes
It is Free
Practically Healthy by Dr. Melina
ZOE Science & Nutrition
Intermittent Fasting Stories
The Model Health Show
Nutrition Diva