Studies shows
One thing that I hate is that well-meaning people informing on the latest health tips. Now, I am perfectly respectful of those accepted studies on getting sufficient sleep, water and a well-balanced diet. I am also accepting of advice that recommends not taking certain food in excess. Now, if you are my physician, you do get the rights to complain about my diet or lack of maintenance of my body. If you work for the government and you are alerting people to what your ministry is advocating, you also get a pass.
Now, first I am excluding people in the supplement business who have an ulterior motive in getting to jump on their bandwagon. I am referring to well-meaning people who do not have an interest how I spend my resources. First, the "old timers". I am not being ageist here. I am referring to people who are still giving me health tips that I learnt as a child. If you are peddling any theories about how to beat the cold with more Vitamin C or drinking any herbal drinks, you are in that category. The chicken soup cure gets a pass but anything else is just a waste of my time. If there is a treatment for cold, it is likely to be packaged as a pill.
And cue the "modern scientist". These people fall into two categories. The first will tout the latest supplement. They have a distressing habit of leaving out the side effects of their recommendations. These people will usually tout the studies on zinc tablets or some nasal sprays. I appreciate if you keep the science experiments to yourself.
The second category is even worse. The first group of people will eventually run out of things to say since the supplement industry needs time to invent new cures. Moreover, these people also need some time to change their beliefs in the cure for common cold. The second category may never run out of things to say since they are on the "cutting edge" science. These people can usually quote the latest scientific studies that are released in the general media. Thanks to social media, these people do not even need to read the general media to tell me the latest fads. I have nothing against professionals who have read the original study from the scientific outlet like Lancet. But if all your scientific knowledge comes from the TV or an article/video from the Internet, I would prefer you to keep your opinion to yourself.
Before you think that I am anti-science, I need to clarify my point. Even if you are the scientist that did the study, you will be put through the same process. If a study found a relationship between A and B, it means nothing. Correlation is not the same as causation. The study may be the beginning of an interesting discovery but at that point, I am not moved. If several scientists peer-reviewed the study and give their support, I am still not moved until others have tried to replicate the study. If the initial study had a theory about the cause, I would be listening at this point once the theory is proven or at universally accepted.
Even if I am listening to the study, it does not mean that I believe it. If the study sample size is too small, that is a red flag. If the study is too extreme, that is also a red flag. Force feeding mice artificial sweeteners in large doses and over long periods are not meaningful if we are consuming the chemical in moderation. If the mice died after one sip, start talking. Finally, the benefit. What is the actual risk reduction in following the recommended solution? If the risk is less than 1%, I will file it under bedtime reading when not able to sleep. If the risk is more than 5%, I will actively consider it. More than double digits and you get the right to get on the soapbox. Unfortunately, by the time it reached double digit, the government and most respected health bodies would have weighed in on the findings.
On the topic of government weighing in, I need to draw a line. The government can invest millions into probiotics and DNA study for all I care. I also do not care if millions of people are purchasing the related health products. It is when the government is actively touting the solutions that I get more interested. Is the government touting exercise? Count me in. Is the government touting a diet in moderation? Count me in. Unfortunately, the government does not push the latest supplements.
Finally, I like to point out that I can change my mind. I once believed that coffee was bad for health. Not anymore. I understand that caffeine in large doses is unhealthy but unless I am drinking more than four cups a day, I prefer if you keep your opinion to yourself. If you are buying, I can change my order to Matcha. Or a beer. That does not mean that I absolutely need to drink coffee. If I am pregnant or if the doctor forbids me from drinking it, I will obey. But just because there is a medical reason for me to abstain from coffee does not give me a right to get on a soapbox and start preaching.
Now, first I am excluding people in the supplement business who have an ulterior motive in getting to jump on their bandwagon. I am referring to well-meaning people who do not have an interest how I spend my resources. First, the "old timers". I am not being ageist here. I am referring to people who are still giving me health tips that I learnt as a child. If you are peddling any theories about how to beat the cold with more Vitamin C or drinking any herbal drinks, you are in that category. The chicken soup cure gets a pass but anything else is just a waste of my time. If there is a treatment for cold, it is likely to be packaged as a pill.
And cue the "modern scientist". These people fall into two categories. The first will tout the latest supplement. They have a distressing habit of leaving out the side effects of their recommendations. These people will usually tout the studies on zinc tablets or some nasal sprays. I appreciate if you keep the science experiments to yourself.
The second category is even worse. The first group of people will eventually run out of things to say since the supplement industry needs time to invent new cures. Moreover, these people also need some time to change their beliefs in the cure for common cold. The second category may never run out of things to say since they are on the "cutting edge" science. These people can usually quote the latest scientific studies that are released in the general media. Thanks to social media, these people do not even need to read the general media to tell me the latest fads. I have nothing against professionals who have read the original study from the scientific outlet like Lancet. But if all your scientific knowledge comes from the TV or an article/video from the Internet, I would prefer you to keep your opinion to yourself.
Before you think that I am anti-science, I need to clarify my point. Even if you are the scientist that did the study, you will be put through the same process. If a study found a relationship between A and B, it means nothing. Correlation is not the same as causation. The study may be the beginning of an interesting discovery but at that point, I am not moved. If several scientists peer-reviewed the study and give their support, I am still not moved until others have tried to replicate the study. If the initial study had a theory about the cause, I would be listening at this point once the theory is proven or at universally accepted.
Even if I am listening to the study, it does not mean that I believe it. If the study sample size is too small, that is a red flag. If the study is too extreme, that is also a red flag. Force feeding mice artificial sweeteners in large doses and over long periods are not meaningful if we are consuming the chemical in moderation. If the mice died after one sip, start talking. Finally, the benefit. What is the actual risk reduction in following the recommended solution? If the risk is less than 1%, I will file it under bedtime reading when not able to sleep. If the risk is more than 5%, I will actively consider it. More than double digits and you get the right to get on the soapbox. Unfortunately, by the time it reached double digit, the government and most respected health bodies would have weighed in on the findings.
On the topic of government weighing in, I need to draw a line. The government can invest millions into probiotics and DNA study for all I care. I also do not care if millions of people are purchasing the related health products. It is when the government is actively touting the solutions that I get more interested. Is the government touting exercise? Count me in. Is the government touting a diet in moderation? Count me in. Unfortunately, the government does not push the latest supplements.
Finally, I like to point out that I can change my mind. I once believed that coffee was bad for health. Not anymore. I understand that caffeine in large doses is unhealthy but unless I am drinking more than four cups a day, I prefer if you keep your opinion to yourself. If you are buying, I can change my order to Matcha. Or a beer. That does not mean that I absolutely need to drink coffee. If I am pregnant or if the doctor forbids me from drinking it, I will obey. But just because there is a medical reason for me to abstain from coffee does not give me a right to get on a soapbox and start preaching.
Comments
Post a Comment