In spite of recent criticism that epidemiological research in nutrition needs an overhaul, nutrition expert Walter Willett of Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health contends that conclusions from high-quality studies over time have provided a solid and consistent evidence base for nutritional guidelines.
A recent commentary published in JAMA suggested that nutrition researchers rely too heavily on epidemiological methods to address extremely complex questions and that the field needs radical reform. The author noted that the associations reported between different chronic diseases and different foods imply causation and confuse the public.
In a September 14, 2018 Medscape article, Willett, professor of epidemiology and nutrition, said the argument in the JAMA commentary is unconvincing and misrepresents existing nutrition literature. He maintained that the author greatly exaggerated the challenges of epidemiological research.
“We agree that we have measurement error, but it’s not to a degree that would make the information not useful,” Willett said. “Of course we understand that we cannot measure anything perfectly, but your study doesn’t depend on perfect measurement.”
Willett explained that meaningful epidemiological research relies on replicating studies and on correcting and repeating measurements over time to reduce errors.
Read the Medscape article: Is Nutrition Research Seriously Flawed? Can Hazelnuts Really Add Years to Your Life?