Salt is bad for you. No, salt is fine. Floss after every meal. No, flossing is actually bad for your oral health. And so on. People are constantly bombarded with health news that is conflicting and confusing, leaving them unsure whether well-established health advice is actually trustworthy.

Consider the case of red meat. Heavy consumption has long been linked to heart disease and other illnesses. That is until just recently, when the Annals of Internal Medicine published researchconcluding that there is no compelling evidencethat people stand to benefit from eating less red meat. Theres alsothe curious case of the egg, which has been both celebrated as a staple of the American diet and maligned as a contributing factor in cardiovascular disease several times over.

Although these are only a few examples, the way they shape our lives is striking. The problem is that the rigor for most health studies is not the same as those for clinical trials for pharmaceuticals, yet they still find their way into mainstream health conversations. One of the key limitations to the way health news is presented is that its difficult to translate insights and observations into meaningful action across entire populations when the depth and length of research generally dont stand up to statistical scrutiny.

Understanding the Conflict

Theres a reason Mens Health magazine has tens of millions of monthly website visits and the Journal of Mens Health does not. The former packages health answers in quick, easy-to-digest articles, while the latter is a peer-reviewed academic journal focused on more in-depth research the kind of presentation that doesnt lend itself to capturing todays readers. The value people place on types of content plays a huge role in what does and doesnt gain traction on the internet and, therefore, what types of content health news publications continue to create.

Internet content is crafted with different goals. Theres no doubt that some of it is designed to inform, but the vast majority is made to drive engagement, solicit clicks for ads and sell subscriptions. When editorial teams find topics that achieve those goals, they create more and more content built from that template.

Unfortunately, it can misinform and cause some readers to make poor short-term decisions for themselves. Just think about the craze over cleanses. Fasting for 24, 48 or 72 hours has some benefits, but the fervor surrounding specific ingredient cleanses like the cayenne cleanse can yield unreasonable expectations and set people up for disappointment. Fad diets and yo-yo cleanses dont add up to become a healthy lifestyle. Instead, they lead readers to lose faith in the credible research and science that is so crucial to health news and information.

With so much misleading and incomplete information circulating around the internet, it can be difficult to know what to trust. To contextualize health news and make good decisions, there are a few tips we can follow:

The people who conducted the study, the writer, the editor who are they? It might not always be possible to understand the motivations of the publishers, but looking into their backgrounds and specialties can shed light on their qualifications. Think about the latest red meat study, which we now know was led by a man whoneglected to disclose his tiesto the meat and food industry.

Remember that most online articles exist to drive traffic, not inform readers.When you come across a story that doesnt link to a specific study, copy the claim or statistic and do a quick search onPubMed, an online database of research studies with non-biased funding, to see whether you can verify the claim being made.So much web content is built in the form of digestible bits there can be a lot of factual errorsor incorrect assumptionsthat slip through the cracks. Just as concerning, key pieces of information can be obscured or misrepresented in order to further an agenda.That being said, there is good content out there.To separate those articles from the bad ones,do a little digging.

If something feels oversimplified and the story has no contextual data, it probably isnt worth your time.

Just start with the headline, which might not always reflect the conclusion of the story its discussing. Considera recent headlinewarning that hospital lights could increase death risks in patients dealing with heart disease. What that headline didnt say was that the study was limited and only conducted on mice.

As another example, most diet studies rely on a limited survey of what people ate over the past six months. Usually these are weaker than studies based on food journals because people forget. I cant remember what I ate for lunch four days ago, let alone over the past six months.

Understanding the operational chain at news outlets (or websites masquerading as news outlets) can sound an alarm when something feels off. Many writers do not create the headlines for the stories they author. Often, that responsibility falls on an editor or a social media manager. In that handoff, that person might write something punchier than the substance of the story, misrepresenting the issue in the process.

In an ideal world, online content could be trusted to be an accurate reflection of the latest and most important updates in the world of health. Unfortunately, thats not always the case. Some publications are known to create new articles based on older studies, passing them off as if they touch on the latest information. But sometimes the information presented has since been debunked.

Its important to check to see whether the information is new and verified. If it has been disproven since the original studys publish date, be sure to closely analyze everything coming from that publication and/or partner publications going forward. Credible sources will link to the original study, so you should usually be able to find the full brief within two or three clicks. If the piece does not include a link, that should be a red flag to continue reading with a bit of caution.

By default, checking the following details can help you separate clickbait from credible research.

With so much misinformation circulating on the internet, its important to understand how we can differentiate the good articles from the bad ones. Examining motivations, breaking apart the claims and methods used, checking the timeliness of the information and discussing the findings with trusted friends and colleagues can equip us to contextualize the information and judge the usefulness for ourselves. When we take such steps, we help ensure the health news we digest is truly right for us.

Shutterstock

See the original post here:
4 Ways to Make Good Health Decisions - The Good Men Project