‘Latest’ studies

And what to do with them

There are two problems with ‘latest’ studies, especially those pertaining to health. One: there are way too many of them. Two: if you tend to follow them religiously, you put yourself at a great risk of being left having to scratch your head when a new research will prescribe the exact opposite of the last study – one that you had been following over a prolonged period of time.

Remember how beneficial for health running used to be up until fairly recently? As per the then-latest studies, that is. But according to today’s latest studies, it is positively bad for your knees and your heart. Considering that the knees and the hearts of Homo sapiens could hardly have evolved so dramatically (in the wrong direction) in these last ten-or-so years, those conducting one or the other set of studies probably had no idea what they were talking about. (Could it be true of both sets?)

If you are old enough, you would readily recall the 1970s when animal fats suddenly started getting a very bad press apparently for all the health ills they brought. Doctors started passionately recommending vegetable oils for cooking instead, which for a long while were considered the healthiest things around after vegetables themselves. All this was based on the latest studies of their time, of course. The latest studies of today have overruled all that and they are recommending animal fats again, pointing out in graphical details the deleterious effects of vegetable oil on human health.

For a long time, letting toddlers sleep in the parents' bedroom was considered the greatest impediment to their correct psychological development. Not a few parents have lied to the paediatrician in this regard. Paediatricians were of course merely following the latest studies of the day. Today’s latest studies conclude that nothing makes babies and toddlers secure and psychologically sound as sleeping with their parents. So there!

You probably know doctors who not only advise other healthy individuals to regularly take small amounts of aspirin as a preventative against heart attacks and strokes, but who also put their money where their mouth is. You have probably also encountered doctors who strongly object to the practice. So much for medical recommendations!

As for eggs, no study– old or new– has been able to get the medical community to agree on whether they are good or bad. Quite oblivious to the controversy however, eggs continue to be a permanent feature at breakfast tables around the globe. And one can only wish more power to them!

There are countless examples of the fickle nature of conclusions of medical studies, but a further survey of them would be mere repetition. A much smarter use of the remaining space would be to focus on what the layman ought to do in response to the never-ending stream of such recommendations.

The first thing to do is to realize that medical science is not ‘science’ in the strict sense. It is all anecdotal, and there is no reason whatsoever to be overawed by it in the slightest.

The second thing (though no less important than the first) is to remind yourself that man, by his very design, is perishable. That is the way it is. Man’s decline starts the day he acquires peak health (usually around age 20). It is good sense to base whatever he opts to eat or do (or refrains from doing so), on the net balance of benefit over harm. But over-obsession in this regard is always useless, and often counterproductive. 

Thirdly, it is always advisable to look at the larger picture. Like the broiler chicken, pesticides and GMF are necessities considering the very real need of having to feed 8 billion mouths, a number that is only growing. Sure, all these items come with their health harms as well, but then, what is the alternative? Is there anything under the sun that does not have those? Why, an act as 'natural', common and necessary as sitting has its ill effects on health too.

Chemical pesticide-, herbicide- and synthetic-fertilizer-based agriculture is a practical solution to the problem of human hunger. (Organic farming is great, but can it feed everybody?) Mosquito repellents offer an illustrative example in this regard. No doubt they are bad for health. But mosquito bites can be worse. This is typical of problems of life for which there are no ‘perfect’ solutions. Almost always, it is a matter of trade-offs, where one hopes to make do with the best available alternative. It is never perfect; and often not good enough.

If one had unlimited time, money, patience and continuity of purpose at one’s hand, one could, in theory, spend the whole day searching for and then procuring healthy food that all the latest studies would approve of. It is not beyond the realms of possibility. But how many people possess that wherewithal?

Broiler chicken, cooking oils of all kinds, and conventionally grown food may all be bad for health (they probably are). But given the nature of the human condition, good sense demands avoiding going to the extremes. Trying to avoid them altogether would be impractical and would lead to inconsistencies. For where is one to find completely healthy food (is there any such thing?), and at what financial, physical and mental cost? Consuming these items with gay abandon is unwise too, considering the damage owing to quantity. The sane stance, as is so often the case, is somewhere in between. Moderation, thus, would probably be the best solution, though that too will not be perfect, considering the fact that we all are going to die any which way.

For a variety of reasons, the mere mention of moderation happens to be very unfashionable in most circles. To the modern man's ear, it sounds like a cliché. It is not new – in fact, as philosophies go, it is probably the oldest. It sure is not spectacular by any stretch of the imagination. In fact, it is positively boring for many. It should be pointed out to such folks that unspectacular and sensible need not necessarily be mutually exclusive. In fact, it is quite the contrary. For a convincing case could be made that there is a very strong correlation between moderation and wisdom.

A wise man keeps himself deliberately unaware of nothing, and that includes all these ‘latest’ medical studies, however imperfect or vacillating. He keeps himself abreast of them and carefully reads their recommendations, but only with a bucketful of salt.