BY: AYA TSINTZIRAS
Eat this. Don’t eat that. With so much information out there about what we’re supposed to do and how we’re supposed to live in order to be our healthiest, happiest selves, it’s hard to know who to trust and what to believe. When it comes to the realm of health and science, our magazines are filled with these assertions, and often even backed by a scientific study. The need for research is obvious—we wouldn’t have any medical breakthroughs without it. However we seem to forget that even scientific studies have the capacity for bias—especially when reported through the eyes of a media outlet.
The media love to write up the most recent studies, especially when they fall into the category of food, health and fitness. But there’s a whole scientific process that can’t often be gleaned from a quick glance at a press release. There are two main types of scientific research: observational research, which examines how factors relate to each other (for example, the age of subjects and how that affects something); and experimental research, which involves comparing results to a control group. In an ideal process, a study would go through a peer review, its method and data will be transparent, and there would be strict rules for how the media can write about it.
Of course, it’s not an ideal world, and often these studies are a greater source of misinformation than they are useful. A December 2010 article in The New Yorker called “The Truth Wears Off” mentions the problem of “selective reporting” – not fabricating studies, per se, but excluding certain facts in order to make the study results seem logical. This is pretty common. So much so that John Ioannidis of Stanford University is what The Atlantic refers to as a “meta-researcher” – someone who has devoted their career to essentially studying the scientific studies to see what is credible. He and his colleagues have debunked several studies (for example, that we should eat more fiber and less meat), proving that they have overemphasized facts, misled people or just been incorrect.
Another issue is an increase of studies that simply confirm what is just common sense. One says that worrying means you are smart (of course – more intelligent people tend to think about things more). Another says that a later bed time leads to more worrying. Another: if you use your phone more, you will have less fun. There are some basic facts that we know are true about how to be healthy: get enough sleep, try not to stress, eat fruit and vegetables, etc. We know how we feel when we don’t sleep enough. Do we really need a study to tell us that we will worry more the next day or feel more anxious?
Then there are the studies that are either insulting or confusing. An example of the former: a University of California, Santa Cruz study concluded that men would rather women not propose. How can you provide a scientific answer for something like that? I recently saw a story about scientists claiming that it is not possible to be an atheist. Again, how can you study that? Both those topics – relationships and religion – are incredibly personal.
Although we can conduct studies and experiments, remember that the conclusions are often drawn from small or unrealistic control groups—the findings are rarely concrete. All people and situations are unique, and it’s silly to expect your life to follow a timeline according to society’s conventions. I was recently hanging out with a friend who was stressing because her 26th birthday is coming up and she doesn’t have the life she thinks she should have. Another friend just turned 30 and is obsessed with when she can get married and have kids. You’re ready when you’re ready, not when you turn a certain age or when you think you should do something.
Before turning to a scientific study, first take into consideration what is right for you, as you may often find that they are not congruent. Yes, information can often aid and liberate us. However there’s a fine line between using these studies to compliment your lifestyle, and relying on them to define it.