The Top 2 Things I learned in Grad School

Research: it's how I spent 6 years of University. I did a Masters Degree in Psychology at the University of Western Ontario. Sure, I learned a bunch of really useful information about my subject matter - obesity stigma in children - but when I think back, there were two other things that I learned that will carry with me throughout my life and they both have to do with reading research... 

Most of you have probably heard a rumbling in the news or at the office about the recent study that showed that frequency of chocolate eating was related to lower Body Mass Index. Could it be? Has chocolate officially been recognized as an magic weight loss tool?

UGH.....Studies like this are frustrating to say the least, which is why I tend to steer clear of writing about them. Personally I just try to ignore them and steer my clients in the right direction (aka away from the chocolate). I thought I was in the clear on this one until I walked into work today to train a fabulous client, Cathy. She had lovingly brought in a copy of a local newspaper to show me these 'awesome' findings in hopes that I would sing praise to daily chocolate ingesting and put my official stamp of approval on this change to her nutrition plan. Now let me preface this by saying that Cathy is smart. Not just kinda smart - really smart. She is a biostatistician - meaning her job is working with statistics in research studies. She knows her stuff. So how is this brilliant woman falling for sensational research findings?

Because she wants to believe them.

Who doesn't want a magic pill to get the body they want? Even better - who doesn't want to eat their favourite foods en route to fat loss? Despite her thorough understanding of research, she didn't want to believe that this study could be misleading. She asked me to write this article on why I won't promote the findings of this study...and so here I am writing the post I thought I'd never write!

I won't get into the specifics, but my main problem with this article is the same problem I have with many 'newsworthy' studies out there. They take a small bit of info out of a much bigger puzzle and broadcast it to the general public claiming major findings. So lets break it down. First - the study in question: the chocolate dilemma. There is a great blog www.weightymatters.ca where Dr. Yoni Freedhoff comments about weight-related research. He puts in his two cents about this study and says it better than I ever could. The bottom line? Sure, a correlation was found between lower BMI and frequency of chocolate eating - but they didn't account for a TON of other variables that could explain this relationship, therefore assuming causation is off-base. Sadly, as Dr. Freedhoff states, '...I'm left scratching my head trying to understand how this could possibly have made it to - let alone passed - peer review, and why it is that ethics and accuracy don't seem to matter to the folks who write press releases, or to the respected researchers who are drawing these unbelievably irresponsible and over-reaching conclusions despite undoubtedly knowing better.'

Okay - so what do we do when we come across 'research' in the news? Here are my two cents. What I hope is that next time you read 'research' that you see in the newspaper, you think of these two points....

1) CORRELATION DOES NOT EQUAL CAUSATION!!! Okay, so let's look a simple example. You're at a party. You spill your drink all over your sweater and the best looking guy in the room starts laughing uncontrollably. There is a correlation. You spilled your drink. He laughed. You assume causation: 'he's obviously laughing at me! Damn it.' BUT think about it - there are so many other options - maybe the person he's with cracked a great joke, maybe he's trying to impress the girl he's with by pretending to find her entertaining, maybe he didn't even see you and is watching something awesome on tv. Sure. There's a chance that the reason he's laughing is because you spilled your drink. But without any other info, and eliminating all other variables it's not likely. One study found that children's shoe sizes were correlated to arithmetic skill level. Does it even make sense to think that having bigger feet causes math skills to improve? Or that improving your math skills makes your feet grow? NO! Ridiculous. Just because two things occur together, does not mean that they are necessarily related to each other. So next time you come across 'correlation' in research, ask yourself: Is there something else that could be causing it that isn't being accounted for? And even simpler, does this relationship even make sense??

2) That leads me to my second point. IF IT SEEMS TOO GOOD TO BE TRUE, IT MOST LIKELY IS. This is especially common in the health and fitness field. No, in the absence of proper nutrition and a sound exercise program, green tea will not be the reason you lose 100 pounds. No, some berry extract Dr.Oz claims to be the 'secret' to weight loss is not the 'secret'. In the world of fitness and nutrition, there is no magic pill. Sure, there are things you can use to help you along the way and bump your progress in the right direction, but without proper nutrition and exercise (aka hard work!)  no little pill will get you where you want to go.

So taking it full circle, despite what the news has been claiming, no, eating chocolate more often will not make you thinner. It is not a neutral/negative calorie food. Chocolate is made from sugar and cocoa. Last I checked, sugar isn't the secret to weight loss. There is way more evidence to suggest the opposite effect. Sorry if I burst your bubble but take my advice and put down that O'Henry before you learn it the hard way :)