Whole grain deficiency increases risk of death? Why this is nonsense

Can you summarize the main results of the current Friedrich Schiller University Jena study on nutrition and heart health?

The aim of this study was to establish the connection (i.e. the correlation ) to estimate between individual nutritional risk factors and cardiovascular diseases in Europe. The core result is: In cardiovascular diseases correlated around a third of deaths with special dietary patterns. The Jena data analysis is based on a second evaluation of the Global Burden of Disease Study (GBD) – which is a classic observational study.

This in turn means that both the GBD and the Jena results only provide information for formulating possible hypotheses. Because a correlation only means: two factors are related. In particular, a low consumption of whole grain products was associated with a slightly increased risk of cardiac death. However, this in no way allows the causal conclusion to be drawn: “Lack of whole grains increases the risk of death” or “Too little whole grains causes early cardiac death.” That’s nonsense. But unfortunately it still seems to be the “scientist’s wishful thinking” and that of many media outlets.

So based on this study, can’t we say that certain eating habits are the cause of cardiac death?

Correct. This causal statement is scientifically serious not possible. because these are just correlations. But both the university PR and the researchers know: You can’t attract journalists with subjunctivisms. This means that if they were to correctly “translate” the context of the observational study, then this would only be possible in the subjunctive: “Too little whole grain bread could probably contribute slightly to early cardiac death.”

Advertisement

Which journalists are provoked into alarmist reporting with such vague, wishy-washy statements? Not even one. Ergo, causality is still being suggested and communicated, even though everyone knows – including the researchers from Jena, of course – that it doesn’t work, that’s unfair, that’s scientifically untenable. It is simply pure disinformation, fake news.

What other factors might have contributed to the observed deaths and how were these taken into account in the study?

One can only speculate about this. There are so many lifestyle factors that play a more or less important role. Some of these are calculated mathematically (e.g. smoking, exercise), but others always remain hidden and therefore unknowable. These are the “researcher’s enemies” called “confounders”, i.e. unpredictable disruptive factors such as: How good is the test subjects’ sex life, how satisfied are they with their social environment, their friendships, their free time or what relaxation of blood pressure occurs after looking at the account balance, etc. All important, but always ignored.

And there is one thing you have to keep in mind, especially when it comes to nutrition: All information collected in nutritional studies is always based on the test subjects’ own, absolutely unverifiable information. Whether the documented amounts of whole grain products, apples and fries supposedly consumed are correct: Nobody knows. This means that this branch of research is already seriously suffering from its extremely weak data base, the truth of which no one can determine. And the subsequent correlation-centered nutritional proselytizing is based on this highly speculative foundation – hard to believe, but true.

What are the practical implications of this study for the general population and how can these findings be used to reduce the risk of cardiac death?

There is none. At best, one could formulate a recommendation as a hypothesis that might protect against something. But that would be absolutely dubious, for example to encourage people to consume whole grains so that they might live a little longer. That’s ridiculous. People in: Liechtenstein, Switzerland have the highest life expectancy in Europe. Spain, Sweden, Luxembourg, Italy, Malta, Norway and Ireland. It’s all there: Mediterranean, Atlantic and Nordic countries – and they all eat differently.

For example, the Swiss in second place consume the most chocolate, so: “Eat chocolate for a long life!” And in the “land of the longest life”, Liechtenstein, the pastry “Rebl” is the kitchen classic that is prepared by every family in its own way – with a lot of “unhealthy” ingredients at once: flour, milk, salt, butter and fat . From this alone you can see that no one knows what influence nutrition has on the length of life in oversaturated industrialized countries where no one goes hungry. Ergo: Nutritional science is and remains simply reading crystal balls.