BEWARE of claims that have a bad basis
Many claims about the effects of treatments are not trustworthy. Often this is because the reason (the basis) for the claim is not trustworthy. You should be careful when you hear claims that are:
• Too good to be true
• Based on faulty logic
• Based on trust alone
- BewareToo good to be true
“100% safe!”
People often think about the benefits of nutrition interventions and ignore possible harms. But nutrition interventions are not always 100% safe.
- BewareToo good to be true
“100% effective!”
Most claims that nutrition interventions will make you 100% better, or that they work for everyone, turn out to be wrong.
- BewareToo good to be true
“100% certain!”
We can rarely, if ever, be 100% certain about the effects of nutrition interventions.
- BewareToo good to be true
“100% natural!”
‘Natural’ nutrition interventions are not necessarily better or ‘natural’.
- BewareToo good to be true
“Nutrition interventions are very rarely curative!”
We can rarely rely on nutrition interventions alone to completely reverse or cure diseases or injuries.
- BewareFaulty logic
“Intervention needed!”
People who are sick often get better without an intervention. Sometimes a nutrition intervention will not help and may even make things worse.
- BewareFaulty logic
“It works like this!”
Nutrition interventions that should work in theory often do not work in practice.
- BewareFaulty logic
“Associated with!”
Just because using a nutrition intervention is associated with people getting better or worse, doesn’t mean that it was the nutrition intervention that made them better or worse.
- BewareFaulty logic
“Lots of data!”
More data is not necessarily better data, whatever the source.
- BewareFaulty logic
“No comparison needed!”
Unless a nutrition intervention is compared to something else, it is not possible to know what would happen without it.
- BewareFaulty logic
“A study shows!”
If a study of a single comparison of nutrition interventions shows that people who got one intervention did better or worse than people who got something else, it does not mean that is the final answer.
- BewareFaulty logic
“Old is better!”
Just because a nutrition intervention has been used for a long time, or by many people, it does not mean that it helps or that it is safe.
- BewareFaulty logic
“New is better!”
Just because a nutrition intervention is new, expensive, technologically impressive, or brand-named does not mean that it is better or safer than other nutrition interventions.
- BewareFaulty logic
“More is better!”
Taking more of a nutrition intervention may increase harms without increasing how much it helps.
- BewareFaulty logic
“Early is better!”
Earlier detection of ‘disease’ is not necessarily better.
- BewareFaulty logic
“Personalised nutrition!”
It is rarely possible to know in advance who will benefit, who will not, and who will be harmed by using a nutrition intervention.
- BewareTrust alone
“As advertised!”
Someone with an interest in getting people to use a nutrition intervention, such as making money, may overstate benefits and ignore possible harmful effects.
- BewareTrust alone
“It worked for me!”
If someone got better after using a nutrition intervention it does not necessarily mean that it was the intervention that made them better.
- BewareTrust alone
“Recommended by experts!”
Just because a claim about a nutrition intervention is made by an expert or authority, you cannot be sure that it is trustworthy.
- BewareTrust alone
“Peer reviewed!”
“Peer-reviewed” and published studies may not be fair comparisons.
- BewareTrust alone
“Claims about nutrition interventions are inconsistently policed”
International standards and laws about health and content claims for nutrition interventions exist, but are inconsistently implemented and monitored across countries.
