Precision Nutrition: The Hype Is Exceeding the Science and Evidentiary Standards (…)Public Health (…) Prevention of Chronic Disease, Bailey, 2023

Precision Nutrition: The Hype Is Exceeding the Science and Evidentiary Standards Needed to Inform Public Health Recommendations for Prevention of Chronic Disease


As dietary guidance for populations shifts from preventing deficiency disorders to chronic disease risk reduction, the biology supporting such guidance becomes more complex due to the multifactorial risk profile of disease and inherent population heterogeneity in the diet–disease relationship. Diet is a primary driver of chronic disease risk, and population-based guidance should account for individual responses. Cascading effects on evidentiary standards for population-based guidance are not straightforward.

Precision remains a consideration for dietary guidance to prevent deficiency through the identification of population subgroups with unique nutritional needs. Reducing chronic disease through diet requires greater precision in
(a) establishing essential nutrient needs throughout the life cycle in both health and disease; (b) considering effects of nutrients and other food substances on metabolic, immunological, inflammatory, and other physiological responses supporting healthy aging; and
(c) considering healthy eating behaviors. Herein we provide a template for guiding population-based eating recommendations for reducing chronic diseases in heterogenous populations.

Precision Nutrition: The Hype Is Exceeding the Science and Evidentiary Standards Needed to Inform Public Health Recommendations for Prevention of Chronic Disease | Annual Reviews

 

Is telling people that eating fast food might raise their chance of heart attack by 5% and cancer by 7% really going to reduce the times they pull into a drive-through because they're in a hurry? Will it really convince them to spend an hour preparing every meal instead of popping a frozen dinner in the microwave?

I think many people would vote for research into countering the harm from junk food, rather than research telling them to eat kale and beets because of some vague risk of harm many decades in their future.

 

If people in the rank and file could be valued enough to work half the hours for twice the pay they may be happy to cook all their meals the old way (or work full-time and pay a cook as plenty do on twice the pay). Choice would be a fine thing. The demand is for cheap not for nasty. But if one knew the orangeade was just painted water one would not buy it

I am not sure it needs more evidence to replace convenient junk with convenient safe snacks and ready meals - on an industrial scale because that is what it takes unless we all return to cottage industry. But then a washing machine never freed people up on laundry day. How strange, evermore machinery of convenience and ever less time to cook

I don't think the harms of cheaply produced, poisonous but profitable food substitutes can be countered. We are told its slightly poisonous. Poisons are poisons. We are told it will get some of us in the end. Are they looking for antidotes to eat daily ? Anyway I see no labs with any consistent and certain method of measuring and targeting precision nutrition. I've not read this paper but I fear its all hype and there is no lab and no clinic can evalaute nutrition not even precisely. They certainly make a lot of effort to do it so variously there can be no comparision between any 2 labs. Is that even scientific ?