Critical Thinking Methods
In today’s information-rich but often contradictory landscape, many individuals are either misled or left in a state of decision fatigue about health decisions.
Conflicting, low-quality signals and passing fads that receive the bulk of consumer attention combined with the unreliable health recommendations from authority figures make the task of determining truth difficult for the laymen.
At least there is a general consensus on what's healthy though. We should all exercise, be a part of a community of some kind, eat a plant-based diet, and sleep well.
Of course, there are even issues with this advice too. Partially by reliance on very poor quality science, and partially by omission of other highly relevant factors on the public's health.
This isn't too surprising considering the historical missteps made by so called "authorities" on health which then become adopted by mainstream news outlets and society. We have examples ranging from the recommendation of cigarettes and widespread use of cocaine and heroin for everyday issues roughly 100 years ago to the allowance of lead in our gasoline in recent decades
Today, you would think with our scientific advancements we wouldn't make the same mistakes, but we do. We still rely on poor quality science, follow ignorant dietary advice, employ irresponsible pharmaceutical and pesticide use, and exhibit a lack of awareness of chemical exposure through food, air, and water. Much of this is responsible for the health declines we've seen over the last several decades.
Many public opinions are still based in studies cherry-pick data, are not replicable, or mistake correlation for causation.
One example is the emphasis on a plant-based diet, which is largely based in studies like the on performed by the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), released in 2015 or the Framingham study beginning in 1948.
The WHO study was a meta-study that considered 800 studies, but only used 14 of them, ignoring the rest citing dubious criteria for excluding them, and claiming that red meat increased the risk of cancer. Furthermore, all 14 studies were observational, meaning they only show correlation, not causation. There are hosts of larger, randomized controlled trials showing causation that refute the WHO findings, yet public perception still remains tilted towards plant-based diets as healthy.
The Framingham Study is another one that impacted public opinion heavily. It followed 5,129 people for 14 years with total cholesterol measured twice per year and LDL, the "bad cholesterol" was found to be associated with heart disease.
However, when you parse out the data by HDL levels, you can see that high LDL only increases risk of heart disease when there is high HDL. High HDL levels indicate insulin resistance, and insulin resistance is caused by excessive sugar and carbohydrate consumption. Many have made a strong case that the corporate funding behind this study was used to shift blame away from processed carbohydrates found in packaged food and towards saturated fats and cholesterol. Hence, another study was used improperly to sway public opinion, and though many more robust studies show the opposite effect, public opinion remains biased.
The Blue Zones study performed by David Buettner is another example. Though he got it right with tight-knit communities, and exercise, he again was biased towards a plant based diet with very poor science. In each of the 5 populations used, he overlooks the significant role that meats play in the diets of these populations, which other studies clearly state.
Similarly, the "China Study," which advocates for a plant-based diet, has faced scrutiny for methodological flaws that challenge its broad applicability.
There are dozens of other examples today where simple education would essentially reverse the vast majority of chronic disease we experience.
[rates of chronic disease]
We have rampant nutritional deficiencies causing rates of cancer and chronic diseases multiple factors higher, and deformation of our bones and even faces and dental arches causing us to require braces.
[vitamin d status vs cancer]
We have excessive use of vegetable oils causing an evolutionary unacceptable level of omega 6 / omega 3 ratios stoking rampant inflammation.
[comapre to ancestors]
We have the use of glyphosate and other chemicals in pesticides causing intestinal permeability and food allergies,
[glyphostae vs celiac]
hormonal and reproductive issues from hormones in our animal products as well as estrogen mimicking compounds found in our plastics and drinking water, other compounds in our environment now that cause hosts of issues from autoimmunity to neurological disorders that impact our health drastically.
[testoerone over time][fertility over time]
Navigating the barrage of opinions and "science" with the influence of corporate and government bias in the mix is difficult to say the least. This only makes critical thinking evermore crucial in health awareness. By fostering a mindset of inquiry and skepticism, individuals can make informed choices that promote their well-being.