Ask HN: Where to get reliable information on nutrition/health?

Thanks for the links! Reading from a source and weeding out "low-quality stuff" is a valuable skill to have. Not so long ago a study on telomere length was lambasted by HN community for having low sample size [0]

How do you choose which papers to follow? Any rules of thumb/red flags for assessing a paper?

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14575361

Just go to http://www.dannyroddy.com/ and start from there.

I have been watching the videos on nutritionfacts.org for years. If you want to see nutrition information backed up by scientific studies, that's the place to go. In a nutshell, the website and the science espouses a whole foods plant based diet.

I find the information they provide so valuable that I developed and currently maintain their Daily Dozen Android app that helps you track that you're eating the correct foods for good health. Check it out here: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=org.nutritionf...

I'm a co-founder of a company doing science-based tailored meal plans for people here in Shanghai, China, and over a few years of pre-study on this, we developed a framework to sift through the body of nutritional knowledge.

As a part of it, we're also making something similar to SpamAssassin for articles. "A friend of mine" is co-hosting SciHub mirror, so we parse and index an extensive collection of papers.

We ban for any "toxins", "detox.+", "mycotoxin", juicing, for anything "leaky gut"-related, any "meso-/ecto-/whatever-"-morph (somehow this stuff is popular here in China), any trademark mention, all Bulletproof® Coffee™ and such; ban most "doctors" mentioned on quackwatch.org + our own blacklist (Mercola, Osprey, Taubes etc).

Generally, we don't trust anything from the Internet, double-check the books, and re-check the scientific papers. Many papers study very small cohorts (N=10-20) or miss important correlation issues (like the famous Blue Zones study or China study).

Learn to recognize that ~30% of current proven knowledge will be disproven in the future, like cholesterol.

Personally, I trust Dr. David Katz, examine.com, to less degree consumerlab.com, healthnewsreview.org, sciencebasedmedicine.org, nutritionfacts.org.

Yes, definitely!

First, I start with a clear goal/question in mind: e.g. which lifestyle changes could help me live longer? Then there are several things I look for when assessing a specific paper:

a) Sample size is key. Small samples are not very reliable as you can reach almost any conclusion you want. I also prefer looking at meta-analysis (this is when scientists look at all the studies that analysed a given topic). This means more data (larger samples) and less risk of biases.

b) Low P-value (below 5% is what you're looking for). This is the probability that the effect found was due to randomness. If this is too high, then you cannot rely on your conclusions.

c) Adjusting for other variables that could explain the effect that was found in the study. E.g. if you want to find if eating more vegetables is healthy, you should adjust for exercise, so you can compare people that do the same amount of exercise but eat different amounts of vegetables. Otherwise the effect found could be explained by other variables not adjusted for.

d) No funding bias. Is this a study stating that eating X is good but funded by the Association of X Producers? Avoid those :)

e) No publication bias (this only applies to meta-analysis). This is when scientists don't publish their findings (e.g. because they did a small study, or found an insignificant effect, or found an effect they or their funders "didn't like"). Most good meta-analysis will comment on this (it's also called Funnel test/analysis).

f) Human studies. I tend to ignore studies that aren't done with humans as the probability the conclusions will hold in humans is actually very low (probably less than 10%). It's also preferable to have intervention studies (when you get two groups of people that receive two different interventions - e.g. eating beets juice and placebo - and compare outcomes; they generally don't know which intervention they're getting) vs. observational studies (when you study a group of people and try to assess if differences in what they say they do lead to different health outcomes). But in this field, most studies are actually observational, hence the importance of all the other things I've mentioned.

Hope this helps!