|
|
 |
|
Sign
up for the NDC Update for the latest dairy nutrition news, fast facts,
free tools for patients, expert nutrition advice and information on updated
dairy nutrition resources.
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Educate your patients on the importance of 3-A-Day of Dairy: Here's
a great
tool (PDF: 618k) to show families how to get their 3-A-Day of Dairy
every day for stronger bones.
Developed in conjunction with The American Academy of Family
Physicians, The American Academy of Pediatrics, The American Dietetic
Association, and The National Medical Association.
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Dairy Council Digest Archives
Nutrition Research: What Can Studies Tell Us?
Summary
Understanding the strengths and weaknesses of different types of nutrition research studies can help put the latest research findings about diet and disease into proper perspective. Contradictory stories in the media, which generally arise from single studies, contribute to consumers' confusion about what to eat for good health. Failure to appreciate the evolving nature of nutrition research and that some types of research studies carry more weight than do others can contribute to this confusion.
There are basically two types of nutrition research studies: observational and experimental. Each approach makes a contribution to elucidating etiologic factors indisease. Observational studies measure dietary intake and disease in groups (e.g., ecologic studies) or individuals (e.g., cross-sectional, case-control, and cohort studies). Among observational studies, cohort studies provide the strongest evidence of a link between diet and disease. In this type of study, dietary information is obtained from individuals in a large population which is followed over time to observe the development of the disease of interest. Cohort studies indicate whether individuals with differing dietary intakes vary in their rates of a specific disease.
Observational epidemiologic investigations are useful for generating hypotheses or critical questions. However, for several reasons, they cannot establish a causal relationship. Reasons include the presence of confounding factors, biases, and the difficulty in accurately quantitating dietary intakes of individuals consuming self-selected diets. Subjects' inability to accurately recall what they eat, or to estimate portion sizes, as well as variations in food composition and incomplete nutrient databases, can lead to errors in accurately determining nutrient intake in observational studies.
Experimental studies include randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and basic research experiments (e.g., in vitro and laboratory animal studies). Basic research experiments can help to identify diet-disease relationships and potential biologic mechanisms. However, in vitro and experimental animal findings cannot be readily extrapolated to humans.
The ³gold standard² for establishing a cause and effect relationship between diet and disease is well designed RCTs in humans. In this type of study, the investigator has direct control over the conditions of the study such as the difference in level of nutrient intake. RCTs provide strong evidence that increasing intake of dairy foods reduces the risk for osteoporosis and hypertension.
A meta-analysis is a quantitative technique of pooling the results of previously completed studies, preferably those examining the same question and using similar methods (e.g., RCTs) to arrive at a conclusion. The strength of conclusions from meta-analyses varies according to such factors as the quality of studies included.
Rarely do single studies provide evidence of a causal relationship between diet and disease. Although some studies (e.g., RCTs) provide more conclusive evidence than do others (e.g., observational studies), a causal relationship becomes more probable when findings from multiple types of studies are consistent.
Table of Contents:
|