#354: Problems with the Meta-Analysis in Nutrition

Sigma Nutrition Radio

Danny Lennon

Sigma, Dietetics, Evidencebased, Nutrition, Training, Health & Fitness, Science, Diet, Fitness, Evidence, Bodybuilding, Health

4.8 • 626 Ratings

🗓️ 29 September 2020

⏱️ 73 minutes

🔗️ Recording | iTunes | RSS

🧾️ Download transcript

Summary

Danny & Alan discuss issues with using and interpreting meta-analyses in nutritional science, they answer a question about methods of reheating food, and they highlight a recent paper published by quacks that experts have termed a "deception".

Today's Topic in Focus [08:50]

"I Have a Question!" [53:35]

Quack Asylum [59:32]

Something Random [66:42]

Show notes: https://sigmanutrition.com/episode354

Transcript

Click on a timestamp to play from that location

0:00.0	Hello, you are listening to Sigma Nutrition Radio. My name is Danny Lennon. This is episode
0:19.4	354 of the podcast. And we've got a number of interesting
0:23.6	topics for you today. Our main topic in focus is going to be centered around meta-analyses in
0:30.0	nutrition science and some of the potential issues that can come up with that. For our listener
0:34.9	question today, we have a question around the nutritional content of food changing upon cooking or microwaving and different options around reheating food.
0:45.4	And then, of course, we have another admission into the quack asylum where we pick out a particular claim, advice that has been perpetuated around the internet somewhere that is
0:57.6	clear quackery and try and bring that to you. And then as always, we'll round off on some random
1:04.5	recommendations from myself and Alan where we just give you something that we find interesting.
1:09.9	That's non-nutrition
1:11.0	or health science-related, that you might want to check out. So in relation to our main topic
1:17.0	today and looking at meta-analyses within nutrition science, the goal is to show some potential
1:23.6	pitfalls that can happen that can lead to a meta analysis being poor or a meta
1:28.9	analysis maybe failing to show a conclusion that it otherwise should or vice versa and how you can
1:35.0	potentially spot some of those things early on. But there's also going to be a focus on how we
1:40.1	interpret those. So not only how we spot some of potential flaws in meta-analysis or understand
1:46.1	where a meta-analysis wasn't used properly, but also how we view them more generally and trying to
1:52.9	get away from this idea that a meta-analysis is all we need to look at, and this is some sort of
1:58.6	proof of a certain question, and that all we need to look for is a meta- sort of proof of a certain question and that all we need
2:01.7	to look for is a meta analysis and this overrides every other type of evidence and trying to
2:06.8	challenge that claim that can sometimes pop up. So I think we're going to get into quite a bit
2:13.0	of detail and there's going to be some of it that, of course, is going to be pretty heavy going,
2:19.0	I think, for many people, which is entirely fine. What I will say is please do stick with
	...

Please login to see the full transcript.

Previous episode | Next episode

Disclaimer: The podcast and artwork embedded on this page are from Danny Lennon, and are the property of its owner and not affiliated with or endorsed by Tapesearch.

Generated transcripts are the property of Danny Lennon and are distributed freely under the Fair Use doctrine. Transcripts generated by Tapesearch are not guaranteed to be accurate.