What to eat? What not to eat? Even things that are generally considered good for you will have somebody telling you they're actually bad for you. And things that are generally considered bad for you will also have their cheerleaders. I've got scarily high blood pressure and I read in some places that red wine and dark chocolate would help. Really? Who knows?
I wondered if an evening in the company of Canadian cardiologist Dr Christopher Labos would help out but, to be honest, I didn't really come away much the wiser. That's not to say his talk for Greenwich Skeptics in the Pub, Superfood or Supertoxic - How Debunking Food Myths Can Teach People About Scientific Skepticism, wasn't good. It was. It was interesting and it was funny although there were a lot of digressions which meant it wasn't formed into as clear a narrative as I'd like.
Dr Labos is not just a cardiologist. He's a lecturer, a columnist (for the Montreal Gazette), a podcaster, a proud dog owner, and, of late, an author. His book Does Coffee Cause Cancer? is both a popular science tome and a romantic comedy. A rare thing indeed. As Skeptics host Professor Chris French said it's the best book he's ever read that combines those two genres.
It's not quite as bonkers as it sounds. Dr Labos loves 'math' (which, as a Canadian, he calls it rather than maths) but he's aware that not everybody else does. To make his love of math fun to others, he mixed it up with debunking food myths, and to make debunking food myths fun to others, he wrote a book about it and threw in some romantic comedy. The chief protagonists will disagree agreeably about the health benefits of various food stuffs and the reader, it is presumed, will be persuaded not just what food is good for us and what food is bad for us but why the information we're so often served in newspaper, and other media, reports seems to differ so wildly.
Almost everything you can consume (and some things you can't) has been said to both cause, and prevent, cancer. From butter to corn, from wine to beef, from exercise to eggs, and from tomatoes to coffee. Some say it's best to eat a high-fat/low-carb diet, others say you should aim for a low-fat/high-carb diet. These contradictory headlines are confusing at best. At worst they create a climate of distrust in which charlatans like Robert F. Kennedy Jr (astoundingly, though not if you factor in who the President is, the current American health secretary) to thrive.
The nihilism inherent in this way of thinking can even infect the minds of previously respected medical experts. John Ionaddis is a physician-scientist, and Stanford University lecturer, who during the Covid lockdowns (of which he opposed) became a conspiracy theorist. He discovered that some of the things we'd been told about Covid were not true and came to the conclusion that, therefore, none of them were true. You may well know people who think along the same lines. I do.
Obviously, distorted truths and outright lies regarding medicine (and pretty much everything else) are amplified by social media and it was in an attempt, possibly a vain one, possibly not, that Dr Labos wrote his book. His view being you have to at least try to counter misinformation and it's a view I share (though don't waste your time feeding Internet trolls). No matter how much it might feel like banging your head against a brick wall.
During last night's talk, he obviously wasn't going to give away every chapter of the book and every piece of debunking but he did give us a couple of examples. The first being the idea that vitamin C can help fight the common cold.
It can't. Or at least it can't in the vast majority of cases. It does, studies show, appear to work for brief periods of time with people who are in severe physical stress or experiencing extremely low temperatures. The trouble is the tests that have been offered up as evidence were taken on a very small number of people. Most of whom were either Canadian soldiers, South African marathon runners, or young children who were on a skiing holiday in the Alps.
Not exactly a representative spread of the population. But a very clear example of a case where correlation and causation are mistakenly linked, either by honest mistake or by disingenuous actors, with misleading results. One humorous example of this came in a study that suggested ice cream caused polio because polio spikes in the summer and, guess what?, people eat more ice cream in the summer too.
There's a whole website (Spurious Correlations, by Tyler Vigen) devoted to such studies. For instance, if these graphs are to be believed the fact that people stopped buying margarine in such large numbers caused a 50% drop in the divorce rate in Maine, the decreasing popularity of the name Blanca caused a dip in robberies in Texas, and as Michael Schumacher's Formula One career started to wane the number of physicists in California grew accordingly.
One survey was done to test the efficacy of aspirin and found there were two groups of people it didn't work on. Those born under either the sign of Gemini or Libra. Some have said cell phones cause cancer but further tests found they don't cause cancer. They don't cause cancer in humans but tests on rats and mice showed that they don't cause cancer with either male or female mice and they do cause cancer in a small number of male rats.
It turns out the numbers tested were so small that the rats found to have cancer probably already had it. It's one of many good reasons, ethical and practical, why animal testing is wrong. Yet 'publication bias' means that flawed 'evidence' like this still gets published while results that are less sensational are ignored. Some of this flaky science gets spread around until enough people just accept that it's true.
The Swiss cardiologist Franz Messerli produced a graph that showed that countries that eat the most the chocolate have won the most Nobel prizes. White chocolate is good for winning a prize in chemistry and it's dark chocolate for physics. It's widely held that Messerli's graph was an intentional bit of trolling to try to make a point about how these graphs can't be trusted.
For a start there aren't that many Nobel prize winners around so it's hard to do a large enough study, secondly Mars fund a lot of research into proving that chocolate is good for you, and thirdly - and most importantly - countries don't win Nobel prizes. People do - and there was no research into how much chocolate these actual Nobel prize winners have eaten.
I left thinking that dark chocolate probably wouldn't get my blood pressure down (though I still had a chocolate croissant this morning) and I left with the idea that the foods I had presumed to be unhealthy are unhealthy and the ones I had presumed to be healthy are indeed healthy. In fact, I learned a lot more about statistics and math (if you must) than I did food and nutrition but I left happy. It'd had been a good, if slightly around the houses, talk.
Thanks to The Plume of Feathers (and their pub cat), Greenwich Skeptics in the Pub, Goddard's Pie & Mash (for feeding me beforehand - probably unhealthily but maybe not), thanks to Professor Chris French for hosting, thanks to Chris's dog Ted (who Dr Labos took time out from the talk to give a belly rub), and thanks most of all to Dr Labos himself for a talk that, rightly or wrongly, I left feeling quite hungry for more.