Wonderful World Of Research-Part Two

I wrote a few weeks ago in this space concerning the vagaries and scams associated WITH “research” due to the frequent influence of corporate sponsorship OF research. Of course, I received e-mails that seemed to indicate, although very politely, that I was a little over the top in negatively describing the corporate research “process” and the subsequent validity of research findings. It was an interesting week. But here’s a little more information that may help to bring home the message that I was trying to deliver about how the consumer needs to be wary and, at least, carefully critical of the results of research especially when it applies to consumer goods and, even more especially, food products and supplements.

During the last few years, for example, the American Beverage Association has bellowed about the accuracy of studies that have shown that some “drinks” (mostly the sugared water and sport drinks) might not be providing the nutrition that it claimed and whether, in some cases, the drinks were even necessary for improved performance and health. Many of these studies have been trashed by the beverage industry as being performed and analyzed by “activists” and, therefore, biased. Nice try. Indeed, a collection of studies (known as cohort studies) and advocated by one of the best known and respected health consumer advocacy groups in the world—The Center for Science in the Public Interest—found that nearly 60% of research concerning beverages and their health benefits was either partly of fully funded by the beverage industry. Not surprisingly, nearly half of the studies reviewed did not identify the financial sponsors (if any) of their research and so the percentage of groups with a financial interest in the research could be (and probably is) even higher.

Now, someone has to pay the freight when studies are suggested, needed or proposed and, with the government contributing less and less to research, someone has got to pay the bill. But here’s another little item that should be understood when trying to figure out what research results to believe and what research results should be ignored—or at least repeated in an unbiased way. Of the 22% of the studies reviewed that were FULLY funded by a corporate sponsor or group, the results were far more likely to be in support of the product produced by the “sponsor”—four to eight times more likely! Moreover, the collection of studies reviewed (the cohort study), in an effort to remain neutral, was not sponsored by ANY corporation or “for profit” entity. In other words, no bias.

So once again, it’s up to the consumer to be wary of vague language and possibly unjustifiable claims made by those that produce programs, foods, beverages and supplements. Are there some good ones out there? You betcha. And chances are that they try to remain neutral when analyzing their products so that the final result is one that the public can trust and from which they can actually benefit. Some times the good guys win!

I’m Dr. Paul Kennedy and that’s the “Be Fit, Stay Fit” Topic of the Week. Good luck with YOUR program I KNOW you can do it!

Copyright © 2003-2005 by Dr. Paul Kennedy. All rights reserved.
May not be reproduced without expressed written consent of Dr. Paul Kennedy