John Ioannidis: The role of bias in nutritional research 

This man should receive the Nobel prize. It’s ridiculous how researchers (which I was) are so touchy about their work. Especially once it’s published. Publication and peer review is NOT a guarantee of correctness.

Prof. Ioannidis, my Dr colleagues start to wake up thanks to you.

Professor Ioannidis .Your are courageous and passionate about spreading the message of good nutrition .I want to express my gratitude to you and hundreds of visionaries for using your scientific knowledge that is available today in the field of nutrition .And the recent Covid Pandemic

Professor Ioonnadis should write a health cook book merely based on what he can believe is healthy - and make it public domain. I trust he would avoid most known mistakes.

It sounds like situation in nutrition science is doom and gloom.

Love this! Thank you dear for sharing.

Unfortunately I also have the same impression, that its more or less impossible to get any meaningfull data out of our current research. Me personally think that if the scientist could answer a single key questions, it would be enough. How to eat if you have insulin resistance would be that key question. If this question could be answered, and people followed the advise, decieses such as diabeted, overweight, heart and arteries decies and altzheimer would also go away, since they have all been shown to depend on insulin resistance.

"We need more data sharing", "Studies are not published", This surely is criminal that we don't share everything. I thought that was the whole point of the scientific method?

Really top-roped that last question asker, didn't he.

at red meat, eggs, cheese. No bread, pasta, potatoes, oxalate heavy vegetables ( spinache ) SUGAR,, SEED OILS . Humans do not need carbohydrates

The biggest problem with nutritional research is the need for "science" meaning randomized control studies, etc. The effects of food on health take too long to manifest, and nobody will follow the design of the study. Most published papers on nutrition are too narrowly-focused and amount to the 5 blind men groping at an elephant. A perfect example is the role of insulin resistance in type 2 diabetes. Is it caused by some mysterious process like "adipose inflammation"? Is it caused by excess glucose in the bloodstream? It's a very simple question to answer - it's caused by dietary fat clogging the endothelium. But the interests vitiating against a criticism of dietary fat (ie the meat & dairy lobbies and people who love to eat fried chicken) make sure to never ask the question. There are three tools we have to figure out what to eat: 1) epidemiology - what are the outcomes in large, stable groups of people with different cultural dietary trends? 2) Comparative anatomy - looking at what apes and other animals eat in the wild and trying to draw some conclusions about the ideal human diet. 3) Anthropology - what did people eat in the past? You really don't have to be a genius to determine that humans are designed to eat plants - primarily storage organs like tubers, roots, grains, legumes, seeds, etc. Meat is simply too hard to catch, to prone to spoilage, and too likely to cause death without the advantage of fairly modern technology, freezing cold climates, storage innovations like smoking, etc. We are not lions who can run down a gazelle and eat it before it gets colonized by parasites. Surely humans ate any meat they could find (turtles, crayfish, bugs, an occasional large mammal) but it is not a reliable survival strategy. This observation is aligned with the epidemiology (ie the China Study), the comparative anatomy (chimps & gorillas are 95% frugivorous, and we have more amylase enzymes), and the anthropology (ie pre-Columbian native Americans primarily ate acorns, lotus seeds, wapato, goosefoot and other widely distributed plants.) It also elegantly explains every chronic disease (like the diabetes example above) as the result of eating a diet our body is not equipped to metabolize. I'm glad Prof. Ioannidis even dared raise this question. The truth is obvious, but people prefer to hear good news about their bad habits.