Diet gun

In general, scientific articles are funded by various sources, such as international and national funds, private funds, research institutions.

Funding can also come from government grants, organizations and foundations, as well as from special publications depending on the articles.

Funding of scientific research and by extension scientific articles related to nutrition and dietary supplements can also come from the industry dealing with nutrition.

It is not cheap to fund scientific research and to fund the writing of scientific articles based on research, but the industry can certainly cover such a cost.

Industries, because they want to make a profit, are private businesses and this is their goal and purpose, can bias the conclusions in favor of their products or their sponsors, with or without consequences for public health?

And what happens if the same industries pay the media to amplify the findings of the studies cited in the scientific articles, thereby solidifying the studies in favor of their products?

For example, a study funded by a chocolate manufacturer concludes that chocolate prolongs life, the media will faithfully reproduce this conclusion but without mentioning the funders.

Is this a reprehensible scientific study/research? that is, research that presents serious ethical and methodological violations?

Does it violate impartiality and objectivity?

Is it based on accurate and objective measurement of variables?

Are you evaluated by independent committees that control the methodology, objectives and compliance, in addition to legal, ethical rules?

How much knowledge can we have about all this in order to decide whether we can actually use a product as they tell us in these articles?

We can NOT be knowledgeable.

Funding from industries does not invalidate the findings of studies, but it should prompt us to ask ourselves what the funder could gain from such research.

The cohort study is a research method over time and certainly has better and less…reproachable results because in our specific case of chocolate it will control similar studies over many years (since it cannot control the population that has been eating chocolate for many years). But of course it will take years for such a reliable study to be published.

Another example: superfoods do this and that good and we should all eat them, the media says, but they do not tell us that specific conditions are needed to see their beneficial effects, also that they are expensive products.

Superfoods can do nothing if we do not consume them in a closed environment with a specific, absolutely specialized diet (antioxidant, properly balanced in terms of calories and quality, without consuming added sugars, with proper hydration, etc.).

We consume, for example, chia seeds that can, we are told, contribute to reducing cholesterol and blood pressure. Do not expect benefits if we eat chia seeds but eat red meat 5 times a week in large quantities and have to lose 20 kilos to return to our ideal weight, while at the same time smoking 1 pack of cigarettes a day.

Since we can search and find the pros and cons of scientific articles, we should do so.

Since we can’t, let’s be quite cautious with anything new that appears and has little research time. It’s better not to try it on a long-term basis, no matter how good and promising it may be.

Remember saccharin, the sweetener that was widely used in the 1950s-1980s, was the best and the purest at that time. In the late 1980s, when the use of acesulfame K and aspartame began, the first studies began to appear that said that saccharin is probably carcinogenic. In the early 2000s, when stevia became widely available, studies began to appear that said that acesulfame K and aspartame may be carcinogenic.