Science! Tell me what to eat!

21:04Nicola Twilley:There was some early data that seemed to show that saturated fat and cholesterol was a problem, and flush with their early success, the nutrition scientists and government officials charged with translating that science into dietary guidelines went all in. Among other things, they told Americans to steer clear of eggs because egg yolks are high in cholesterol, and that's how eggs first became bad. Well, it was a mistake. It was a big mistake, right? We oversimplified cardiovascular gastro disease to one nutrient. And in fact, they said, well, it really is saturated fat, but let's just say it's all fat because saturated fat will be too complicated for people.

21:41So it actually just turned into a low-fat diet approach.

21:43Nicola Twilley:As Dariush says, it was a mistake. Later research has shown pretty clearly that fats aren't all the same and that some fats in particular are really good for you. But at the time, the thinking became just take all the fat out of food. But if you start wanting to take fat out of dairy foods, you want to take fat out of meats want to take fat out of processed products, you start introducing all kinds of additives, emulsifiers, stabilizers, flavorings, surfactants, you know, other things. One thing that companies trying to avoid using saturated fats did was start using things called trans fats instead, which didn't turn out so well.

22:19Nicola Twilley:Trans fats are like hardened vegetable fats, and they in fact turn out to be associated with heart disease, stroke, and diabetes. But then also, as food companies tried to make tasty foods that didn't have any fat at all, they just added lots and lots of sugar. The most famous example of this are those fat-free snack well cookies that were super popular in the 1990s. Excuse me, do you make these delicious fat-free snack well double scoop cookies? Why, yes, I do. You want to tell us why we can't find them in the stores anymore? Well, what is this? You got some explaining to do, Cookie Man. Yeah, they were a little more popular than we expected.

22:51They tasted awful, but that provided added value. and you could put really cheap ingredients in and make a profit.

22:56Nicola Twilley:Snack wells were made from sugar, white flour, more sugar, and a bunch of additives. They cost almost nothing to make, but they sold for a premium because they were supposedly healthy. Long story short, whereas nutrition science in the first half of the 20th century had notched up some real wins and saved a lot of lives, things in the second half were not going so well. And these mistakes didn't just lead to disgusting cookies, which is already a tragedy. They actually damaged people's health. The belief that you could make a new fat and it would be healthier, those trans fats, they were harmful.

23:28Nicola Twilley:So it was all that sugar people were downing. And then there was also a mistaken belief that people in developing countries were sick, not because they didn't have enough food and they were hungry, but because they specifically had diets that were low in protein. They weren't malnourished. They were protein deficient. And that led to development agencies and NGOs pushing protein-fortified baby formula and toddler formula over breastfeeding, which is something we talked about in our baby milk episode. It resulted in millions of deaths. All of this came out of this approach that was focused on finding the one villain, the one nutrient that we were missing, or the one nutrient that was making us sick.

24:05But we've learned now, 40 years later, that that approach of a single nutrient causing a single disease falls apart for chronic, complicated conditions like diabetes, cancer, obesity, heart disease, and so on.

24:18Nicola Twilley:But also, it wasn't just the approach, this focus on single nutrients that caused nutrition science to go off the rails. Another issue is that there have been some problems in how nutrition research was done in the past. The original observational studies that led to the recommendation for low-fat diets were what we call cross-national studies or ecologic studies, where you compare Greece to France to the U.S. to, you know, to Italy. Like there was a study called the Seven Countries Study that did that. That's a very, very flawed way to do science, to compare a whole country to another whole country and try to understand, you know, make cause and effect.

24:50Nicola Twilley:Imagine all the possible things that could be causing a difference between one country's health outcomes and another's that are not to do with fat intake at all. I mean, income levels, air pollution, health care provision, stress, physical activity. All of these things could and do vary wildly between different countries, and we know they affect health outcomes. But then even at the level of just getting accurate data about what people were eating in order to connect diet and health outcomes, nutrition scientists tried to do that in a number of ways. A major one is called recall, asking people what they ate or how frequently they ate particular foods like last week or over the past month.

25:29The hardest thing in the world in nutrition research is to find out what people are eating. Because people eat very varied diets from day to day, from week to week and from year to year. They don't remember what they eat. It's very difficult. I can't remember what I ate yesterday. So what you want to do is an easier way, and those are food frequency questionnaires, in which you give people a big questionnaire and ask them, did you eat this, this, this, or this within the last day, week, or month? And so people fill out these forms and say whether they ate this, that, or the other thing, and there's a great big long list.

26:10You know, for some things you say, well, okay, I have coffee every day. I know I have coffee every day. That's one thing. But how many times did I eat fish in the last? I mean, I just can't.

26:22Nicola Twilley:Recent research using a super accurate way of measuring energy expenditure, it's called doubly labeled water, and it works by measuring chemically labeled molecules in the body. This research has found that people's estimate of their calorie consumption in these kind of food frequency questionnaires is off by about 60%. That's a big difference between recall and reality. That's just overall calorie consumption. Like, they may be eating 60 % more sheer food than they think they are, but then you can imagine that the same thing would be true for individual foods that people eat. We just can't get that right in surveys.

26:57Nicola Twilley:We can't accurately remember our past meals. And if you don't know what people are eating, it's hard to figure out how their diet is affecting their health. You could have people write things down or even photograph it at the moment they're eating it. But Marion told us this method. It gets around the memory problem, but it's flawed too. You have to measure. Every single thing that you're eating in the act of measurement changes what you eat. Nikki and I had to do this for our episode on personalized nutrition, and it definitely changed what we ate. Sometimes we couldn't be bothered with all the rigmarole of measuring and weighing, and so we just didn't eat something.

27:31Nicola Twilley:It wasn't an accurate representation of our usual diets. This Schrodinger's cap problem of when you study something, you inadvertently change it, it happens on a more meta scale, too. It's why studying food is harder than studying, say, a new pill in pharmaceutical trials. It's much more difficult because you can't blind them. You can't double blind them. Like for a new drug, a study participant is blinded because they don't know what drug they're getting or maybe they're getting a placebo. In a double-blinded study, even the scientists don't know which one a particular patient is getting until the study is over and they're ready to analyze the results.

28:07Nicola Twilley:With food, you can't do that. It's recognizable. And the minute somebody knows what's being studied and what they're eating, they have some idea of what they're supposed to say. So that influences it. And in addition to all of these problems of accurately measuring food intake and then not altering that intake by measuring, you have the more fundamental challenge that humans are humans and they're not especially good at following instructions. This would be an issue for a type of study where people are told what to eat and then scientists look at the impact of that. So clinical trials for dietary intake are usually done by people who are free living.

28:45That means they're doing their thing. And you tell people to eat one kind of a diet and you hope that they do. and maybe you'll have a biochemical test that will show how much compliance they had with that diet, but mostly they're really difficult to do, and they don't usually show much because people are people, and they don't necessarily follow the protocol. It's very hard to stay on a diet for a long period of time.

29:13Nicola Twilley:And that question of time, doing something over a long period of time, that's important because foods can take a while to have an impact on our overall health, and so it's important to study these things for a long time. People tend not to have heart attacks until they're older and they've been eating their diets for decades. Time is an issue. Eaters who won't follow the rules and don't remember what they had for breakfast are an issue. But the other problem is people who have a story that they're trying to make the evidence fit. Kind of like Dan Buettner in the Blue Zones. The whole red wine back and forth is a perfect example of this.

29:45Nicola Twilley:By the end of the 1990s, there were literally hundreds of studies showing that if you drank red wine every day, you had way less chance of dying from heart disease. A lot of these were done because researchers were fascinated by this phenomenon that was called the French Paradox. Basically, in the 1980s, a handful of French researchers were like, wow, look at us, we eat triple cream brie and duck fat and pig's heads, and yet we have very low rates of heart disease. One of the leading theories was that somehow the French got away with eating a diet that would give everyone else a heart attack on the spot by washing it all down with red wine.

30:19Nicola Twilley:There has been for years the belief by doctors in many countries that alcohol, in particular red wine, reduces the risk of heart disease. So the answer to the riddle, the explanation of the paradox, may lie in this inviting glass. When Morley Safer did an episode of 60 Minutes on this in 1991, red wine sales in America went through the roof. And researchers did a bunch of studies looking at what it was about red wine that was reducing heart disease risk. They concluded that it was probably because of a particular chemical in red wine called resveratrol. But hundreds of studies have since failed to show any positive impact of resveratrol.

30:57Nicola Twilley:And when researchers went back to look at all this French paradox data again, they realized the original studies had failed to take into account a bunch of potential complications. For one, the French were undercounting coronary heart disease. They only recorded it as the cause of death if the heart attack was what killed you. But we record coronary heart disease as being present at death, even if something else killed you in the moment. Like maybe someone had a couple of heart attacks but died of something else. So it looked like Americans had more coronary heart disease than the French, but that wasn't necessarily the case.

31:30Nicola Twilley:For another, moderate red wine drinkers are often more educated and wealthy. They're also often likely to eat more vegetables, do more exercise, and have health insurance. Those things can definitely help reduce your risk of dying of heart disease. So sometimes people are trying to make the science fit a story they'd like to tell. But then, like in the case of eggs, the reason for the back and forth has to do with advances in science. Like we said, eggs had been demonized because they have cholesterol in them, dietary cholesterol, and scientists kind of assumed that eating cholesterol led directly to higher levels of cholesterol in your blood.

32:03Nicola Twilley:And it turns out that's not really the case. That's one area where the science has just progressed, which Dariush says is not surprising. That's what science is supposed to do. Yes, absolutely. The science has changed. From 1980 when we thought low fat, low cholesterol, low saturated fat, eggs are bad. You know, let's all have fat-free cookies, fat-free frozen yogurt, fat-free salad dressing. The science has changed. That was wrong. Science changes. That happens in all types of science. There are new studies and they may overturn some particular previous understanding. That's normal. But Dariush says that we pay a lot closer attention to these changes when it comes to the science of what we eat, which makes them seem a lot more shocking.

32:41I'm a cardiologist, and in my career, we've had dramatic changes in the understanding of heart attacks and the treatments for heart attacks, from the kinds of blood thinners we use, the kinds of cholesterol-lowering medicines we use, to the kinds of procedures we use to open the heart arteries, to how we do surgery. Many, many, many changes. Or you could take another example of physics, right? In physics, in just the last 50 years, you know, we've gone, or last 100 years, we've gone from Newtonian physics to quantum mechanics to the discovery of dark matter and dark energy, totally upending previous lines of science.

33:15But, you know, not everybody's a physicist, not everybody's a cardiologist. So when those scientific fields change, most people don't notice. But when nutrition changes, it's personal, When somebody goes from telling you, hey, that dark chocolate was bad and now it's good or vice versa, or eat the steak or don't eat the steak, it's personal.

33:33Nicola Twilley:At this point, you might be thinking, wow, nutrition science seems like a hopeless case. But that's really not true. Yes, doing good nutrition science is hard. And there's no doubt that it can be really difficult to tease out the impact of diet from all the other things that contribute to the kinds of chronic diseases like heart disease, diabetes, cancer that we face in the West today. But also there is a lot that can be figured out using the basic tools of nutrition research, even with their flaws. First of all, even the maybe weaker studies asking people about what they ate, if enough people are involved and if scientists do enough of them, they can find out things that are important.

34:10Nicola Twilley:Like that's how the finger was first pointed at trans fats. And of course, like in many fields of science, nutrition science has made progress over time, and today we have better techniques that produce more robust results. So, for example, rather than just looking backwards at existing data to try to see patterns over time, that's called a retrospective study, scientists these days are more likely to measure people going forward, setting out their endpoints at the start to try to avoid that kind of making the evidence fit the narrative problem. Modern nutrition science really uses prospective studies that get people at baseline and follow them forward in time for years and assess their diets in lots of different ways.

34:52Nicola Twilley:And then another thing scientists can do to make their data even more accurate is look at biomarkers in the blood. For some foods, they can find things that will let them know how much of a certain food has been eaten or not. And increasingly, they can link certain biomarkers to specific longer-term health outcomes to get around the issue of how long a study can be versus how long chronic diseases take to progress. All of these different types of studies are important. They all offer a different method of looking at nutrition, maybe trying to understand specific foods or more general dietary patterns.

35:21So it's by putting together these pieces from multiple different study designs that allow you to kind of triangulate towards something closer to the truth.

35:30Nicola Twilley:That's Kevin Hall. He's senior investigator at the National Institute of Diabetes, Digestive, and Kidney Disease, which is one of the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, Maryland. And he is currently running a quite different kind of nutrition science study designed to get to the bottom of why ultra-processed foods seem to be so bad for us. That story after this word from our sponsors. Propel Fitness Water with Gatorade electrolytes, zero sugar, and vitamins. Propel hydrates better than water to help you get the most out of your workout and get back to your best self. What propels you? Propel with Gatorade electrolytes.

36:10Nicola Twilley:This episode is brought to you by Facebook. So you were scrolling on Marketplace and there it was, the bike you'd been searching for. You sent a message and it turned out the seller was super chatty. kind of funny, and an avid cyclist. The next thing you know, you're in a cycling crew. Well, a community cycling group. The thing about Facebook, you might find more than what you're looking for. From a browse to a bike ride, this summer, find more on Facebook. Sierra has all the best active and outdoor brands you need. From athletic stuff, like a full-court pickup game, swish, to athletic-ish stuff, like a half-mile stroll.

36:51Get those steps in! And for morning hikes up the mountain trail, good pace. It's a nighttime ghost choice from the camping chair. What a twist. Whatever level of active, Sierra loves it all. Head to Sierra or Sierra.com for the brands you want at the prices that let you do it all. From athletic to athletic-ish, Sierra's got it.

37:11Nicola Twilley:We told you that you can use large-scale studies that look at what people are eating in their normal life and try to understand something about their diet. These studies can help point the finger at potential problems. They're called epidemiological studies. and lately, scientists say that a bunch of them have shown that diets high in ultra-processed foods might not be great for us. That was a kind of common recurring theme was that diets high in ultra-processed foods seem to be associated with increased risk for obesity. Obesity is one of the most complex and common chronic health issues in the developed world today.

37:42Nicola Twilley:Each year, the health impacts of obesity at a population scale are estimated to be responsible for millions of deaths from cardiovascular diseases, diabetes, certain cancers, etc. And the number of people who have obesity is going up every year. So if there's something about ultra-processed foods that is causing obesity, we need to know what it is. One of the challenges with epidemiological studies is that people often say, well, they can demonstrate an association, but they don't really say anything about causation. Before we get into what kind of nutrition science experiment could demonstrate causation, Let's back up for a minute and get into what exactly ultra-processed foods are.

38:24Nicola Twilley:In 2009, a Brazilian scientist named Carlos Montero was one of the ones who was pointing at ultra-processed foods, or UPFs, as a problem, and he defined them. He said the first category of food is not processed, like apples or eggs. Then there's category two, that's a processed ingredient like olive oil or butter. Category three is a lightly processed food, like cheese, pasta, or homemade lasagna. And then there's the category four foods, which are the so-called ultra-processed foods. And essentially, it's these combinations of ingredients, typically that you wouldn't be able to find in your home kitchen or even a typical restaurant.

39:01Nicola Twilley:What's interesting is that different versions of foods can be in different categories, depending on how they're produced. So like your artisanal sourdough that's just made with wheat and water, that's category three. but a supermarket sliced loaf that has lots of preservatives and dough conditioners and other stuff, that's category four. Unflavored plain yogurt can be a category three, but if you add flavors and emulsifiers and whatnot, then it's a four. The difference is really whether it's an industrial product or not. But what makes this approach different is that it's not connected to particular nutrients.

39:36Right. So it doesn't talk about saturated fat, doesn't talk about sugar, It doesn't talk about high fructose corn syrup directly. It doesn't talk about, you know, the salt content or sodium content of the foods. But of course, a lot of the ultra processed foods that are in category four tend to be high in saturated fat and sodium and sugar and things like that.

39:58Nicola Twilley:These are things like industrially produced sausages and cookies and snacks. So a lot of these foods do have ingredients or nutrients in common, but not all of them do. Like, ultra-processed bread doesn't necessarily have a lot of fat and sugar. That's what makes this approach quite different from nutrition studies in the past. It's trying to understand a category of food, not a single nutrient. Another big difference is how Kevin is studying it. Like Cynthia said, there have been a bunch of the standard kind of observational epidemiological studies that link eating lots of UPFs with negative health outcomes.

40:31Nicola Twilley:But those kinds of studies can't necessarily get at why. why a diet full of UPFs somehow seems to lead to obesity and obesity-related health issues. Kevin's idea was that maybe there's something about UPFs that just makes us eat more of them, that there's something about them that just makes people literally consume more calories. And so he wanted to try to design the best possible study to really drill down and figure out if that was true. He wanted to get around the issues of food recall and of people not following the diets they were told to eat. The challenge is we'd like to be able to have ultimate power over the entire universe, of course, as scientists and control everything.

41:08Of course, we don't have that kind of power. But our idea was maybe if we brought people in to live in the NIH Clinical Center, which is a hospital setting, and if they lived with us 24 hours a day, seven days a week, we could take control over their entire food environment.

41:26Nicola Twilley:So starting in 2018, that's what Kevin and his collaborators did. Participants in his study had to come stay at the NIH Clinical Center in Bethesda for four full weeks. No weekends or evenings off. And during that time, they got two weeks of a 100 % ultra-processed meal plan, followed by two weeks of a minimally processed diet, or vice versa. Overall, the meals as they were presented to the participants were exactly matched for nutrients, fiber, sugar, protein, fat. And they're given really simple instructions. Just eat as much or as little as you want. We're going to measure lots of stuff. We're drawing blood all the time.

42:02We're measuring their body composition changes, their body fat, their lean tissue mass and things like that.

42:08Nicola Twilley:There's no way for them to cheat and get a hold of some other food. Their exercise was carefully controlled. Their leftovers were measured. And the diets are designed so participants couldn't necessarily tell which is supposedly healthier and which is not. Yeah, so just an example of an ultra-processed meal would be kind of a typical box breakfast cereal. Honey Nut Cheerios, one of the preferred breakfast cereals of my youth, were on the menu. You know, with some milk and maybe a blueberry muffin that was pre-made. And that would be a typical ultra-processed breakfast. A minimally processed breakfast might be some kind of plain Greek yogurt with some bananas and berries and some mixed nuts or something like that.

42:48Nicola Twilley:As Kevin said, the participants were allowed to eat as much as they wanted. They were asked how pleasant they found the food, and they didn't rate the ultra-processed meals as better. They were both fine and dandy. And the participants were also periodically asked how full they were. And no matter their diet, they didn't report being hungry. But despite the no differences in appetite, they ended up consuming about 500 calories per day more on average during the ultra-processed food environment. and they were gaining body weight and gaining body fat. Importantly, they're blinded to their weight measurements.

43:20They kind of have their backs to the scales when they're being measured every day, and they're wearing loose-fitting scrubs so they can't tell if their clothes are getting tighter or looser. But they were spontaneously gaining weight on the ultra-processed food environment, and the same people, when they were in the minimally processed food environment, just spontaneously lost weight.

43:38Nicola Twilley:So this is a significant result, and a real insight into why all those other studies connected eating UPFs with obesity. But it still doesn't get at the why beneath the why. In other words, why people ate more foods that were ultra-processed. There are a lot of ideas about why this might be the case. One of them is that the super-industrial food is so soft that you don't have to chew very much, and it goes down really easily. And maybe by the time your gut is signaling to your brain that you've had enough to eat, it's already two lakes. You're eating the food so quickly. Another theory was that some of the ultra-processed foods are also something that researchers have defined as a hyper-palatable food.

44:19Which are foods that have pairs of nutrients that cross certain thresholds. So in other words, instead of just looking at sugar per se, what about a food that's high in both fat and sugar? Or a food that's high in both fat and salt? Or both high

44:33Nicola Twilley:in carbs and salt? The idea is that because they're high in two of these things rather than just one, they really trigger our pleasure centers and make us overeat. And then maybe it could be something else, like maybe some of the preservatives are messing with our gut microbiome and that's making us absorb more calories, or it's affecting our gut hormones that tell us we're full. And the list kind of goes on and on. So Kevin decided to do a second sleepover study designed to figure out what exactly in these ultra-processed foods is the trigger for eating more calories. And we said, on a meal-by-meal basis, what are the properties of the meals themselves that seem to kind of be best correlated with how many calories people choose to eat.

45:12Nicola Twilley:This time, there were four different types of meals. One week, the participants ate only minimally processed food. The other three weeks, they ate ultra-processed foods. But those weren't all the same thing. They were all slightly differently formulated to try to tease out whether the issue was really hyper-palatability or instead maybe all the stabilizers and emulsifiers used in a lot of industrially processed food or what. This trial is still underway. Hey, Kevin's working his way through 36 participants and only two can come to NIH at a time. This takes a long time to do. But he spoke publicly about the results at the midway point of the study earlier this year because they're looking pretty clear so far.

45:48We got a pretty consistent picture that it seemed to be that meals that had higher energy density, meals that were eaten more quickly, And meals that had more of these hyperpalatable foods tended to cause people to consume more calories on a given meal. And when we ended up looking at it, it seemed like the bigger effects were the hyperpalatable foods and the energy density.

46:16Nicola Twilley:A great example of an energy-dense ultra-processed food is a Twinkie snack cake or combos, those cheese or pepperoni-filled pretzel bites. These kinds of foods are low in fiber, low in water, and packed with fats and starch and calories. And according to Kevin's study, those seem to be the kind of ultra-processed foods that trigger people to consume more calories. Whereas maybe supermarket wheat bread or a frozen microwavable meal, which are also ultra-processed, these don't seem to be making people overeat, at least based on Kevin's early findings. So if these results hold up at the end of the study, Kevin will be able to say that within this whole huge category of ultra-processed foods, it seems as though there are particular ones that are causing people to overeat.

47:00Nicola Twilley:And that matters, especially because more than half of what adults are eating in the U.S. on average falls in this ultra-processed food category. And some people go so far as to suggest, oh, well, we just have to eliminate all ultra-processed foods. Well, they're about, depending on who you believe, somewhere between 50 and 70 percent of the food supply in the U.S. And most of us who, including me, who still consume ultra-processed foods would have a very difficult time finding both the money and the prep time and the skills to prepare all of our meals from scratch. In other words, if something about ultra-processed foods is making people overeat, we need to know what that something is because most people don't think it's realistic to just cut out the whole category.

47:44Nicola Twilley:This is why Kevin thinks it's so important to really try to dig into the mechanism behind the health impacts. There are so many possible causes for why ultra-processed foods might be bad for us, but doing the research to tease out what it is about them that is leading to obesity is a key first step. Because if we could figure that out, then we could, you know, inform people who make policies about what it is that we need to do in order to shift the food supply to one that doesn't drive excess calorie intake. We could inform consumers about what kinds of products are likely to cause overeating and excess calorie intake and weight gain.

48:24And we could inform manufacturers about what it is about some of their products and maybe not others that are driving these potential problems.

48:34Nicola Twilley:Like if it's not the preservatives, then you don't want to set up a situation where what happens is policymakers will decide that particular preservatives are bad, the ones that are currently used are taken out of circulation, and then the food industry just finds a different one, or food goes bad, but also our health hasn't improved. Like when we got rid of fat and everyone ate snack wells, nobody got healthier. Kevin and his collaborators went to great lengths to make these studies as accurate as possible, weighing everything and matching the nutrients and so on. But there have still been criticisms of his studies.

49:04Nicola Twilley:For one, to bring the fiber levels in the ultra-processed meals up to the same level as the minimally processed meals, they had to put a lot of soluble fiber into the drinks. And some folks came along and said, oh, well, wait a second, that's not right, because beverages have a very different effect on appetite than solid foods. This is something they tried to control for in the second study, but it's an issue. Another one is that in the first study where people clearly ate a lot more calories on the ultra-processed diets, they seemed to have front-loaded that consumption. They ate a lot more at the beginning, but it kind of evened out at the end of the two weeks.

49:38Nicola Twilley:So it's possible that people wouldn't have continued eating so much more of the ultra-processed meals. There's also some things a study like Kevin's can't do. It can't definitively say that the only way ultra-processed foods are bad for our health is because we eat more of them when they're hyper-palatable and energy-dense. It can't rule out that other things might be going on that are also having a negative impact on our health. It could still be that there are also ways that these foods are affecting our gut microbiome, and that's having an impact on our health in some way. It could be affecting our hormones.

50:09Nicola Twilley:As we mentioned, there are still all sorts of theories. The maybes and what-ifs can seem endless. But the way science works is you just have to keep accumulating evidence, ideally from a bunch of different, well-designed studies. You can't just figure this stuff out from one experiment, no matter how compelling that experiment sounds and how clear the results seem. There's no one single study that should dictate our behaviors as a society or as an individual, that we have to look at multiple studies mounting on top of each other that paint a consistent picture about what's going on. So, you know, as much as I'm flattered by how much our studies get attention and, you know, would I make recommendations based on only one study?

50:58No, absolutely not.

50:59Nicola Twilley:Part of the reason Kevin's research is getting so much attention is that it seems like the gold standard. He and his colleagues have everything carefully controlled. They change only one variable of what people eat. They measure everything they can. But like we said, even this kind of rigorous randomized controlled trial has weaknesses and can't tell us everything. That's why to arrive at accurate nutrition advice, we need all different kinds of studies. Ones that measure biomarkers in blood. Ones that look at populations and follow them over time. Ones that test specific compounds from foods in the lab to see what happens.

51:34Nicola Twilley:The problem is that doing all this research is expensive, and Kevin's in-house controlled study is particularly pricey. Those are phenomenally expensive to do, can only be done on a few people at a time. And NIH seems extremely unwilling to pay for more of that. On top of that, right now, if the current administration has its way, the NIH won't be able to pay for any trials like this. And if you can't do trials like this, then you are missing a vital tool to really understand how food affects our health. Industry could certainly fund it, and they do fund a lot of nutrition research. And food companies are very happy to fund research in their interests.

52:12They are not so happy to fund research that doesn't produce results that they like. But a lot of, you know, increasing amounts of nutrition research are being funded by the food industry. And it turns out that there is a rather large body of research literature that studies the effects of industry funding on the outcome of research. And it shows quite conclusively that industry funding influences the outcome of research. Surprise! People are nice to their funders. They like funders. but that the influence is received unconsciously by the people who receive the funding. They didn't intend to be influenced.

52:59They don't believe they were influenced. They don't recognize the influence and they deny the influence.

53:07Nicola Twilley:Dariush told us that even with this unconscious influence problem, he thinks there is room for industry funding if there are sufficient guardrails in place. Marion and Kevin suggested one effective guardrail would be if the industry funds are pooled and then parceled out by an external institution, for example. Which, of course, industry does not want to do. The orange industry, for instance, doesn't want to put money into a pool to fund who knows what. They want to fund research into oranges, in particular research that's going to show how great oranges are for us. But all our experts are agreed, and we are too, the government actually does have to step up to fund nutrition science.

53:45Nicola Twilley:It's so essential to our health, it needs investment. In the last 50 years, as a percentage of its research, research at the National Institutes of Health, or NIH, on nutrition research has been flat. At a maximum, it's about 4 % of funding, but I think that's a very optimistic estimate. It's probably much, much, much less. And yet, this is at a time when diet-related diseases have skyrocketed. To be honest, on the one hand, nutrition science has already come to some pretty clear conclusions about what the best basis of a healthy diet is, at least for most people. Amusingly, it's similar to what the Blue Zone promoter was saying, except without the daily glass of wine and without fudging the data.

54:23I think we know what people can eat to keep themselves optimally healthy. And that is, you know, eat food, not too much, possibly plants. Doesn't mean no meat. It doesn't mean no junk food. It doesn't mean no ultra-processed foods.

54:41Nicola Twilley:It means just keeping them modest. On that level, nutrition science has already figured it out, which is not nothing. Like we said at the start of the show, it's impressive in just a century to have come from a world where deficiency diseases were common to one where we actually know how to eat for health, broadly speaking. And part of that came from that early nutrition science that helped us understand, for example, what nutrients are in whole grains versus white flour. That said, there is still a lot of misinformation out there, in part, sure, because science has evolved and changed, but also because people want an easy fix.

55:17Yeah, I mean, there's a nice reason, you know, people have been selling aging cures forever. It's kind of, we don't like the actual cures. Jogging is hard, right? It's not, you want it to be tea.

55:30Nicola Twilley:I mean, Saul is not wrong. It would be nice if there was a painless silver bullet. Knowing something is good for you and doing it are two very different things. But Dariush said that even better communication and convincing people that eating whole grains and beans and vegetables and oily fish are great for you, that's still only one part of the solution. Knowledge and education alone is not enough to solve the problem. There's only so much science can do, even really great science, when it comes to actually fixing our food environment. When most adults are sick, when the vast majority of people are sick, it's not a problem of individual willpower anymore.

56:07It's a problem of a broken system. And a broken system needs system solutions.

56:12Nicola Twilley:There are all sorts of issues with our food environment that make it unhealthy, and we've talked about them on Gastropod before. They're beyond the scope of what most nutrition scientists are able to work on. Poverty, farm subsidies that support the production of commodity crops that go into ultra-processed foods rather than fruits, veggies, whole grains, and beans. Whether people can access fresh or frozen fruit and vegetables. Whether they have time to cook for themselves. How stress and discrimination are affecting their diets and their health. There's a lot of systemic issues that affect what people can and do eat and how their bodies respond.

56:40Nicola Twilley:These are issues for policymakers, but there is still work for nutrition scientists to do, too. For one, they can try to help make the convenient industrial foods that form the basis of the American diet healthier by figuring out what about them is so bad for us. That's what Kevin is working on. And then, even though the broad principles of a healthy diet are well-known and not up for debate, there are plenty of important and interesting questions for specific populations in terms of what to eat for better health. If I have inflammatory bowel disease, does having omega-3s make a difference? If I'm gluten sensitive, what does that mean and why am I gluten sensitive?

57:17And is it actually the gluten? What if, especially for disease treatments, right? What if I have cancer? Are certain ketogenic diets good for brain cancer like glioblastoma? So there's so many questions that we need to answer.

57:32Nicola Twilley:We do have one more piece of nutrition advice, and this is coming from us and from all of our guests this episode. do not trust one single study that tells you that one particular food is either awesome or heinous. You can and should ignore all those headlines. If that's the only thing you take away from this episode, our work is done. Even though we won't become millionaires with that kind of advice, dammit. But truly, this is where a lot of the confusion comes from these days. Media reports about a new study that shows X or Y. When you hear the words, a new study, just channel Kevin's voice telling you that you cannot make dietary recommendations based on just a single study.

58:13Nicola Twilley:Thanks this episode to Saul Newman, Marian Nestle, Dariush Mozaffarian, and Kevin Hall. We have links to their research and books on our website, gastropod.com. And as always, huge thanks to our producer, Claudia Geib. We'll be back in two weeks with another brand new episode for your listening delight. Till then. Labor Day savings are happening now at the Home Depot with select appliances starting at$399. Plus, save up to an extra$1 ,000 and get free delivery on appliance purchases of$998 or more. Get a Whirlpool laundry tower featuring industry-first UV clean technology designed to reduce bacteria in the wash without fading fabrics.

58:49Plus, with great prices at the Home Depot, you can save on select appliances designed to make laundry day easier. Shop Labor Day savings at the Home Depot today. Offer valid August 27th through September 16th. US LAC store online for details. With summer coming to an end, you're going to be spending more time indoors. Get your home ready and save up to 50 % off custom window treatments during the Labor Day mega sale at Blinds.com. From room darkening to light filtering shades, finding the perfect fit is easy. Get free samples, expert design help, and professional measure and install services. Or DIY with confidence and support every step of the way.

59:21Shop up to 50 % off site-wide plus huge savings on doorbusters right now during the Labor Day mega sale at blinds.com.