Critical Evaluation of Nutrition Research

  • Andrew W. BrownEmail author
  • Michelle M. Bohan Brown
Part of the Nutrition and Health book series (NH)


Despite the increasing focus placed on the importance of nutrition for optimal health, nutrition as a science is often criticized in lay media and casual conversation as constantly conflicting with itself, and experts ridiculed for seeming to change their minds. Although there is much that is uncertain about the effects of foods on health, the seeming contradictions can come from misunderstandings of nutrition science. This chapter is designed to be a primer for readers of scientific literature to identify some of the challenges in evaluating what was studied, determining how it was studied, and interpreting what we can conclude from studies. In this chapter, we will consider: challenges in defining exposures and outcomes, oversimplification of complex concepts, differences in causal inference from a variety of study designs, surrogate and hard endpoints, bias, confounding, letting data speak, logical fallacies, and the differences between scientific conclusions and evidence-based decisions. The points discussed herein should help the reader to look at nutrition research with a more critical and discerning eye, which will aid in distinguishing between when scientific findings disagree and when the studies are actually asking distinct questions.


Nutrition Research reporting Scientific integrity Scientific rigor Study design 



Actual Energy Intake


Randomized Controlled Trial


Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program


Self-Reported Energy Intake


United States Department of Agriculture


Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women Infants, and Children


  1. 1.
    Dialektakou KD, Vranas PB. Breakfast skipping and body mass index among adolescents in Greece: whether an association exists depends on how breakfast skipping is defined. J Am Diet Assoc. 2008;108(9):1517–25.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Brown AW, Bohan Brown MM, Allison DB. Belief beyond the evidence: using the proposed effect of breakfast on obesity to show 2 practices that distort scientific evidence. Am J Clin Nutr. 2013;98(5):1298–308.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Casazza K, Brown A, Astrup A, Bertz F, Baum C, Brown MB, et al. Weighing the evidence of common beliefs in obesity research. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr. 2014;55(14):2014–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gregori D, Maffeis C. Snacking and obesity: urgency of a definition to explore such a relationship. J Am Diet Assoc. 2007;107(4):562; discussion −3.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Wansink B, Payne CR, Shimizu M. “Is this a meal or snack?” Situational cues that drive perceptions. Appetite. 2010;54(1):214–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Foundation PfBH. Fruits & Veggies More Matters: Produce for Better Health Foundation. 2016. Available from:
  7. 7.
    United States Department of Agriculture. Empty calories. Available from:
  8. 8.
    Parloa M. Canned fruit, preserves, and jellies: United States Department of Agriculture household methods of preparation. Washington: GPO. 1905
  9. 9.
    Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics. Processed foods: what’s OK, what to avoid 09 NOV 2015. Available from:
  10. 10.
    Barr SB, Wright JC. Postprandial energy expenditure in whole-food and processed-food meals: implications for daily energy expenditure. Food Nutr Res. 2010;54. doi: 10.3402/fnr.v54i0.5144
  11. 11.
    Paul LA, Hall EJ. Causation: a user’s guide. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hill AB. The environment and disease: association or causation? Proc R Soc Med. 1965;58:295–300.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Dhurandhar NV, Schoeller D, Brown AW, Heymsfield SB, Thomas D, Sorensen TI, et al. Energy balance measurement: when something is not better than nothing. Int J Obes. 2015;39(7):1109–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Beaudoin R, Mayer J. Food intakes of obese and non-obese women. J Am Diet Assoc. 1953;29(1):29–33.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Schoeller DA, Bandini LG, Dietz WH. Inaccuracies in self-reported intake identified by comparison with the doubly labelled water method. Can J Physiol Pharmacol. 1990;68(7):941–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Student. The Lanarkshire milk experiment. Biometrika. 1931;23(3/4):398–406.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Turner-McGrievy GM, Davidson CR, Wingard EE, Wilcox S, Frongillo EA. Comparative effectiveness of plant-based diets for weight loss: a randomized controlled trial of five different diets. Nutrition (Burbank, Los Angeles County, Calif). 2015;31(2):350–8.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    ten Have M, de Beaufort ID, Teixeira PJ, Mackenbach JP, van der Heide A. Ethics and prevention of overweight and obesity: an inventory. Obes Rev (An Official Journal of the International Association for the Study of Obesity). 2011;12(9):669–79.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Brown AW, Allison DB. Unintended consequences of obesity-targeted health policy. Virtual Mentor (VM). 2013;15(4):339–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Puhl R, Peterson JL, Luedicke J. Motivating or stigmatizing? Public perceptions of weight-related language used by health providers. Int J Obes. 2012;37:612–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Werle COC, Cuny C. The boomerang effect of mandatory sanitary messages to prevent obesity. Marketing Lett. 2012;23(3):883–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Rozin P, Ashmore M, Markwith M. Lay American conceptions of nutrition: dose insensitivity, categorical thinking, contagion, and the monotonic mind. Health Psychol (Official Journal of the Division of Health Psychology, American Psychological Association). 1996;15(6):438–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Hall KD, Butte NF, Swinburn BA, Chow CC. Dynamics of childhood growth and obesity: development and validation of a quantitative mathematical model. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2013;1(2):97–105.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Thomas DM, Martin CK, Heymsfield S, Redman LM, Schoeller DA, Levine JA. A simple model predicting individual weight change in humans. J Biol Dyn. 2011;5(6):579–99.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Lamont BJ, Waters MF, Andrikopoulos S. A low-carbohydrate high-fat diet increases weight gain and does not improve glucose tolerance, insulin secretion or beta-cell mass in NZO mice. Nutr Diabetes. 2016;6:e194.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Strauss L. The Social Science of Max Weber. Measure: A Critical Journal. 1951;2(2):204–230. H. Regnery Company
  27. 27.
    Kesselheim AS, Robertson CT, Myers JA, Rose SL, Gillet V, Ross KM, et al. A randomized study of how physicians interpret research funding disclosures. N Engl J Med. 2012;367(12):1119–27.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Akerlof GA. The market for “lemons”: quality, uncertainty and the market mechanism. Q J Econ. 1970;84(3):488–500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Cottrell RC. Scientific integrity and the market for lemons. Res Ethics. 2013;10(1):17–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Office of Energetics and Nutrition Obesity Research CenterUniversity of Alabama at BirminghamBirminghamUSA
  2. 2.Food, Nutrition, and Packaging Sciences DepartmentClemson UniversityClemsonUSA

Personalised recommendations