MyDietGoal.com staff has conducted extensive research about diet and nutrition. The facts derived from our research seem to contradict themselves with aggravating regularity. We stop using butter and instead start spreading margarine on our toast, only to learn later that margarine can be just as bad for us as butter. After switching to bran muffins for breakfast because high fiber diets supposedly prevent colon cancer, we hear about a big study showing that fiber does not prevent colon cancer.

The problem is that newspapers, television, the Internet, and other news venues often turn the baby steps of scientific research into “major advances,” “breakthroughs,” and “possible cures” or highlight the confusing contradic­tions. This makes getting health news seem like reading pages torn at random from a book. Another reason for the contradictions is that weighty recommendations about diet were often based on thin evidence.

Medical science has its own special rhythm, one that doesn’t fit with the me­dia’s need to tell compelling but simple stories. Efforts to present “balanced” stories by quoting opposing views can sometimes confuse things even further. For nutrition research, the rhythm is more a cha-cha – two steps forward and one step back – than a straight-ahead march. If you look at the day-to-day results reported more like sports scores than scientific research, it’s easy to wonder why researchers can’t get it right the first time.

Nutrition research seems to generate more than its share of contradictory re­sults. That’s partly because the media pay special attention to nutrition because of public’s interest, while inorganic chemistry, geology, and many other disciplines escape this daily scrutiny. It’s also because nutrition scientists usually can’t exert the same kind of control over their research subjects as can chemists or zoologists. Instead they must work with unpredictable, independ­ent, mostly uncontrollable subjects – people

Randomized trials:
The “gold standard” by which other studies are usually judged is the randomized trial, In these carefully controlled studies, half of a group of volunteers is randomly assigned to the experimental diet or treat­ment, and the other half is assigned to the standard diet or treatment (the con­trol) or possibly to no treatment at all, After a preset time, the number of people in the control group who have developed the predetermined “endpoint” – death, heart attack, broken hip, and so on – is compared with the number in the experimental group.

How foods, nutrients, and even food additives af­fect mice, dogs, and monkeys is an important thread in the fabric of nutrition research. But they may have completely different effects on people. Animal studies can pave the way for future research but seldom should be the basis for changing our diet goals.
Diet studies done in hospitals or special re­search centers have given us important information on how the body responds to different nutrients and foods.