Lifestyle modification and pseudoscience

As I've noted before, I can usually understand the opening sentences and summaries of medical articles, but I'm over my head with the details, statistics and funny upside down numbers. So when Mike Mitka wrote in the January 14 issue of JAMA that two major studies exploring the benefits of lifestyle modifications for primary and secondary prevention of cardiovascular events (FIT Heart and HF-ACTION) failed to demonstrate what the researchers had hoped for, I decided it was time to turn to Sandy Szwarc's JunkFood Science. Sandy's good at explaining why failed studies are still called a success and why ideology trumps science.

Me? I usually say follow the money, whether it's Congress and earmarks (pork), Al Gore and carbon credits, or the latest diet and exercise fad that lands an academic a USDA grant. I think Sandy may be saying something similar (without my politicking), but read her whole article, just to be sure.

"The preventive health movement has become a major industry, though, and the healthy eating and lifestyle ideology has been an easy one to sell. Just like alternative modalities, everyone wants to believe in a simple magical solution that can keep them well. Various dietary ideologies have come and gone through much of human history, all giving food more power than the evidence supports. But, beyond preventing deficiencies, which is easily achieved for most people by eating an unrestricted and varied diet, food is primarily sustenance, not magic. Humans around the world have eaten very differently, with no one food or way of eating itself related to longer life.