Randomized studies are not foolproof
When some people learn how powerful resources like Pubmed and others like it can be, they start wielding the pages and information inside as weapons to argue their points. Whether one is for or against a certain subject, they can always find research to back up their position.
Sadly, this is not how rational argumentation works. Even if it originates from a source such as Pubmed, a study is still only one study. It may include potentially useful information. But in many cases, it can also contain information that is irrelevant or even misleading. Studies sponsored by various companies are an example of this. When it comes to carbonated beverages containing sugar or sweeteners, research sponsored by a soft drink manufacturer is more likely to discover neutral results, but studies supported by non-profit organizations are more likely to show negative results. Most likely, non-profit groups do not have a reason or purpose to eliminate for-profit organizations. The far simpler answer is that corporate-sponsored studies are frequently planned or published to emphasize the positive outcomes and minimize the negative ones.
Randomized trials may be the "gold standard" for evidence, but many of these studies have methodological flaws and are biased, so their findings should not be regarded as absolute truth.
References are not always proof of expertise
It is not unusual for unethical writers to build the appearance of authority in their writings by citing multiple studies that may appear relevant at first glance. However, if you read the studies, you may find that they do not truly support the author's statements or that they even contradict them. Knowing that relatively few individuals will take the time to read these studies in their entirety, unethical authors still opt to use them. Instead of just believing what you read, do your own research.
Research doesn't happen by itself
As a nutrition enthusiast, you're likely aware that reading a single research article is insufficient. You should also learn about other relevant studies in the field and how to compare what they say (such as biostatistics, participant characteristics, etc.). It is possible to identify connections between research that appear contradictory at first glance by examining these factors.
The scientific process is built on gathering numerous observations and refining your hypotheses in light of them. You might quickly find yourself in trouble if you rely solely on a single research study without examining other related studies.
Not everything requires academic study
This is worth repeating! Suppose you have a buddy who may have developed a red meat allergy some years ago. But, unlike most people with allergies, he doesn't feel the allergy right away after eating red meat. Instead, he feels it a few hours later. You conduct exhaustive research, but you are unable to locate any papers that support the existence of this purported allergy. Does the absence of research indicate that you should disregard your friend's idea and presume that his symptoms are psychosomatic?
If you don't believe your friend, you'll be wrong. In recent years, a number of studies have shown a link between tick bites and a red meat allergy.
Occasionally, we humans are so certain of our position that we cannot accept new information. If a person gets an allergic reaction every time they consume red meat, this is a significant observation that should provoke thought. It should not be mistrusted unless it is supported by research. As a matter of fact, there is not always research that can explain why anything occurs. The human body is far more complicated than we can comprehend, and isolated testing can never answer all of our questions. Your own experience of the situation is just as important, if not more important, than any study.
Conclusion
Diet and nutrition Clickbait articles are extremely common. Even the largest media outlets occasionally publish clickbait pieces when their audience drops and their readers look to alternative channels for quick solutions to their problems. Avoid falling for these articles. Use unbiased sources to learn about topics of interest, and analyze material written from many perspectives. It can often be time-consuming and complicated, but it is always worthwhile.
