The following Mark's Daily Apple article was written by Mark Sisson, and is narrated by Tina Lehman.

15 reasons not to trust that latest nutritional study.

Nutritional studies are often the best we've got. Without them, we'd be plucking anecdotes from a swirling vortex of hearsay, old wives' tales, and prejudices. Some actionable information

would definitely emerge, but we wouldn't have the broader vision and clarity of thinking

offered by the scientific method. Most of them are deeply flawed, though, and to know which

ones are worth incorporating into your vision of reality and which only obfuscate and further muddy

the waters, you have to know what to watch for. Today I'm going to discuss many of the reasons you shouldn't trust the latest nutritional study

without looking past the headlines.

Number 1. Industry Distorts the Research

Last year, Marianne Nessel looked at 152 industry-funded nutrition studies.

Out of 152, 140 had favorable results for the company who funded it.

An earlier analysis of milk, soda, and fruit juice nutrition studies found that those sponsored by milk, soda, and juice companies were far more likely to report favorable results than independent studies.

The same thing happens in cardiovascular disease trials and orthopedics trials.

Two, ego distorts the research. People become wedded to their theories.

Imagine spending 30 years conducting research to support your idea that saturated fat causes heart disease.

How hard will you hold on to that hypothesis?

How devastating would opposing evidence be to your sense of self-worth?

Your research is your identity. It's what you do.

It's how you respond when chit-chatting at cocktail parties. You're the

saturated fat guy. Everything's writing on it being true. Scientists are used to being the smartest

person in their respective rooms. It's not easy to relinquish that or admit mistakes. Heck, that goes

for everyone in the world. Scientists are not immune.

...