Nutrition Accuracy in Popular Magazines

[isol8d]

American Council on Science and Health published a paper where by they studied the factual evidence of the claims made by the magazines.

Cheat sheet:

Excellent
Consumer Reports

Good
Glamour, Ladies’ Home Journal, Shape, Child, Parents, Cooking Light, Fitness, Woman’s Day, Good Housekeeping, Redbook, Self, Health, Runner’s World, Better Homes and Gardens, Prevention

Fair
Men’s Health, Reader’s Digest, Cosmopolitan, Muscle and Fitness

Poor
Men's Fitness

[PirateJon]

So you'd get a better level of nutrition advice in Glamor then you would in Men's health.


I hope matthius/bao/wtfever still lurks here to see this.

[daGorilla]

So you'd get a better level of nutrition advice in Glamor then you would in Men's health.


I hope matthius/bao/wtfever still lurks here to see this.

There are those who would likely posit the idea that the American Council of blah blah is full of crap. For example -- I've read plenty of interesting articles and studies that demonstrate or claim the science behind the whole "low fat" diet craze is hardly iron clad.

I'm not voting one way or the other.

However, I've read enough scientific and anecdotal studies from a variety of sources to conclude that the current science behind fitness and diet is anything but rock-solid.

There is still a whole lot we don't know or understand yet, and some of what we do understand -- or think we understand -- is still the result of looking at relatively smaller pieces of the whole puzzle.

[War Wizard]

That's my biggest beef with the article. They don't distinguish between stuff that was "proven" 50 years ago by science and stuff that has come out within the last few years. It's like creating a research paper and then only being judged on whether or not you properly cited your sources, not on what the sources are.

Edit: Also a lot of the magazines they laud as being "more scientific" always have those ridiculous spot reduction articles (Target Belly Fat! Lose 10" Off Your Hips!) that make me want to set fire to the magazine rack.

[feedback]

The accuracy of the information is probably from 0 to 40% accurate. It varies greatly within even one issue. The thing about nutrition and physiology is that these are fields where things are greatly different now than they were 10 years ago, where things we thought were one way we now think are another. That, and everyone is full of **** and wanting to make a buck off of the idiot public.