In the '80s, it was cholesterol-free fries and what one reader called 'the religion according to oat bran.' In the '90s, it changed to no -carbs eating. Was the cholesterol-avoidance wrong? Was eating oat bran ever a good idea? What about no-carbs...
...or goji vs. mangosteen juice?
Based on claims there are proven health benefits for these two exotic products. They are packed with anti-oxidants and a zillion healthy compounds that cure everything from cancer to acne... Don't they? They're expensive. They've been eaten for centuries in their natural habitats. Doesn't that mean they're safe, healthy and probably do cure disease?
Says Who?
Whenever faceing the need to evaluate (and decide to follow or not) nutrition science in the news, there is a question to ask: who says so?
A study was released a few years ago, stating: a specific type of nut was not only a healthy addition to a low-fat diet, but also an improvement based on some outcome -- lowered cholesterol or the like. While this research was doubtlessly carefully constructed and monitored according to scientific practices, there are some important questions to ask about this study, and what is written in the news from its results.
A neutral, scientific study would have compared apples to apples: what happens to a diet that includes nuts, compared to a diet that includes these nuts? A neutral study would have several groups, some with no nuts, some with a variety, some with only one type, and some with a different type. The news coverage made unsubstantiated leaps in logic, from 'according to this study, these nuts can be a healthy addition to a low-fat diet' to 'these specific nuts are better for people than other kinds of nuts.' The latter was not studied, and cannot be concluded from that research.
When oat bran was touted to cure all ills, it was based on one piece of information: people who eat oatmeal for breakfast every day have lower cholesterol levels than people who eat bacon and eggs. After all the readers recover from the shock of this piece of amazing news, they may remember how this piece of information became something else in the news. And in marketing, from fibre-enriched bacon to candy.
Media outlets and marketing boards haven't changed much in the years since this, and there are still nutritionally zero foods marketed as 'healthier' because of some minute addition or some moderately reduced component.
Eaters Beware
Eaters need to be aware of this marketing, and be savvy about the credibility of the research promoting it -- even when that research is packaged as hard news in mainstream media. Even when the research is above reproach the spin undermines credibility. The original research might be careful, scientific and unbiased, but the way it's released in interviews and press releases may dramatically alter the intent (and sometimes the facts) of the original study.
So, what about the goji and mangosteen? Well, the research seems to be anecdotal, not clinical. It seems to come from long ago or far away, or both. Yes, these juices have been extracted from foods that have been eaten for centuries. Does that mean the juice extracted includes the healthy properties of the foods, or is that left behind? Is there any way to know? No.
It is unlikely to be a dangerous food -- if the juice is pleasant, and the price isn't too high , drink on. The placebo effect might help the 'cures everything' aspect for a while... but don't bet your life on it.
