By: Billy BeerSlugger
You know seems like every week I read or hear something in the about what is or is not good for your body that is completely contradictory of a previous medical study.
Yesterday it was that diet is indeed a factor in kids having Acne. The study suggests that a diet high in chocolate, potato chips and low in vegetables is linked to Acne. Which is complete bullshit because a potato chip comes from a potato which is a vegetable and they’re cooked in Vegetable oil. Previously I was told by the media and medical world that diet had nothing to do with acne and previous to that I was told to avoid chocolate and salty foods like potato chips.
I was told that a glass of wine a day was good for your heart which is great because I then convinced myself that beer has the same effect. Now a study comes out and says that any kind of alcohol for women increases their chance of breast cancer. Awesome.
Coffee is good for you… wait a minute coffee isn’t as good for you as they previously thought. An aspirin a day is beneficial to the heart… oh but wait a minute it’s not good for the stomach lining… or the heart possibly. Vitamin E prevents cancer.. oh but only in people that don’t already have cancer. Antioxidants are great for you… Vitamin C is great for you… You need to get a full days supply of Calcium. I’ve seen studies to the contrary on every single one of these things.
So what are we supposed to believe? The Scientists or the Scientists? Do we go by who got the more prestigious degree from the best known University? Pick out of a hat? Do you believe the one that best suits your needs, ie. I’m going to drink my glass of wine every night no matter what they say?
Who’s got the agenda and who is doing the actual non-biased work? I think in the 80’s the tobacco companies funded studies to conclude that smoking had no direct link to Cancer so one thing to look out for is who is funding the study. Another thing to look at is the sample size. If the study has 14 people taking Vitamin E and 13 taking a placebo you can’t really conclude anything except that you need a larger sample size. Another thing to look at is assumptions based on a study.
Consider this: One study suggests a link between drinking alcohol and developing lung cancer. However, the newscaster that reads the findings conveniently leaves out the fact that a good portion of people that drink alcohol also smoke cigarettes. Yes there may be a link but is alcohol a direct cause?
I think what i’m trying to say is that studies and statistics can be manipulated pretty much any way a person or entity wants. Take for instance a Phillies game where some obscure stat will be shown on the jumbo tron as a player walks up to bat: “Carlos Ruiz is hitting .421 in home day games with a runner on 2nd base when facing left handed pitching”. Now shorten that to Carlos Ruiz is hitting .421 and that’s essentially what we are being told about these medical studies in the media. The shocking statistic but none of the details.