A common theme in nutrition science: Nothing seems to change.
The healthy diet narratives we hear today are remarkably similar to those 50 and 60 years ago when governments and health associations first got into the business of disseminating dietary guidelines. Maybe this conventional thinking is right. Maybe it’s not, but resistant to evidence that it might be wrong.
In my first post on Substack, I wrote about the MIND Diet Trial, published in the New England Journal of Medicine back in July. Now I’m looking at the subsequent media response, examining how the journalists reporting on these negative trials work (with the best of intentions?) to protect conventional thinking from the challenge of scientific refutation. Once again I’m writing in Unsettled Science.
Here’s my post: Mind and the Media: Further Lessons from a Negative Trial
Please read, pass along to interested friends, and let us know what you think in the comments. And subscribe to Unsettled Science if you haven’t already and want more critical writing on nutrition research.