Alan Flanagan

It is important to note that the assumptions discussed in the last article are not arbitrary to the biomedical model, but legitimized through common sense in the context of a given research topic (32). A common-sense approach to nutrition, therefore, is one which can legitimize a modified approach to scientific inquiry into diet-disease relationships. Although …

Nutrition Science, Part IV – Moving Forward: Improving the approach Read More »

In the second part of this article series we discussed the utility, limitations, and misconceptions related to the prospective cohort design for nutrition science. As discussed in part I, the reductionist biomedical model and its gold standard randomized controlled trial (RCT) is ill-equipped for studying complex dietary patterns in a way that can effectively inform …

Nutrition Science, Part III – The Awkward Fit: RCTs and Nutrition Science Read More »

In the first article in this series we discussed the history of nutrition science and traced its evolution alongside the biomedical model. We also introduced the discussion of nutritional epidemiology in comparison to the “gold standard” biomedical trial design: the randomized controlled trial. In this second article, we’ll discuss the utility, limitations, and misunderstandings about …

Nutrition Science, Part II: The Prospective Cohort Design Read More »

To anyone versed in biomedicine, the so-called “hierarchy of evidence” is well-established and unquestioned. The randomized , double-blind, placebo-controlled trial (RCT) is considered the gold standard trial design, because it offers the ability to randomly allocate a treatment, minimize potential sources of bias, and compare the exposure or intervention of interest to a placebo. There is …

Nutrition Science, Part I: How Did We Get Here? Read More »