Nutrition Advance is committed to providing trustworthy and reliable content. In this editorial policy, we explain our focus on high-quality scientific evidence, the importance of nuance, and how we strive to ensure our content is accurate and objective.
Table of contents
Accuracy and Reliability of Sources
All nutritional data we use, such as the nutritional profile of specific foods, comes from reputable databases.
Our primary source is the USDA’s FoodData Central nutrition database.
Read more about FoodData Central here.
In cases where the USDA does not have data for a particular food, we may refer to other reliable databases, such as the University of Minnesota’s NCC Food and Nutrient Database.
Read more about the NCC Food and Nutrient Database here.
In every article, you’ll find hyperlinks or numerical links in parentheses to peer-reviewed studies to support any health claim or scientific finding. We encourage readers to click through and explore these studies for deeper insights and to access the primary literature directly.
Objectivity
Nutrition Advance does not promote any specific diet or favor particular foods. We adhere to the philosophy that “no one-size diet fits all.”
When discussing specific foods or nutritional topics, we strive to provide balanced and trustworthy information, evaluating both sides of the story.
For example, if a reputable study finds a benefit of consuming fish, we’ll include it. If another reputable study finds a potential downside, we’ll include that too.
In other words, we give you the full story — not just one side.
People deserve factual, objective information.
Evidence-based
Evidence-based is an often misused term, particularly in diet books and on social media.
Let me explain: simply supporting your opinions with a reference to a single study, regardless of its quality or the existence of contradicting evidence, does not meet the true standard of being evidence-based.
Further, many nutrition claims on social media and websites often take evidence out of context.
For example, a small cell culture (test tube) study may show that a high-strength extract of a compound found in fruit has a particular effect. However, eating a piece of fruit would be unlikely to provide the same effects as a highly concentrated extract.
If a study is weak evidence for confirming a particular health effect in humans, we’ll tell you that straight.
Evaluating the Strength and Type of Evidence
To understand the impact of a specific food, nutrient, or diet on human health, it’s essential to consider the strengths and limitations of different study designs.
When we evaluate the potential health effects of different foods and nutrients, we first look for studies that provide the strongest and most relevant evidence. We do this by considering the hierarchy of evidence, which is a framework for understanding how reliable particular study types are when answering health and nutrition questions.
These are randomized controlled trials, systematic reviews and meta-analyses, and large observational studies.
Randomized controlled trials (RCTs): These studies test interventions in human participants and can provide strong evidence for determining cause and effect. However, they may be small in size or have other limitations that can affect how reliable they are.
Systematic reviews and meta-analyses: These aggregate, examine, analyze, and help to communicate the totality of evidence, offering a high level of reliability as they consider findings from multiple studies, not just one. However, their strengths are tied to the quality of the studies they include and the quality of their methodology.
Large observational studies: These are particularly important for understanding long-term health outcomes. When multiple large observational studies report similar findings, their conclusions gain greater legitimacy. However, a limitation is that they typically can’t confirm causation.
True evidence-based analysis involves evaluating the totality of the evidence, identifying potential benefits and drawbacks of specific foods or diets, and presenting the findings in an objective and unbiased way, backed by relevant, high-quality references.
This is the approach Nutrition Advance takes when writing and publishing articles.
References and Citations
Our articles contain references and citations to support the scientific findings discussed. These will either be through text-based hyperlinks or numerical hyperlinks in parentheses.
Updates and Corrections
Nutritional science doesn’t stand still and evolves over time as new studies are published and consensus builds or changes.
For this reason, we strive to regularly update our articles. When we review our older articles, we will perform a literature search and assess if there are any key new studies of relevance.
When there are new scientific findings that warrant inclusion, we will update our content to reflect these new findings, whether they support a particular segment or contradict it.
We will also correct any clear mistakes in our content if we come across them.
Authorship
Michael Joseph Hartley writes and reviews all the content on Nutrition Advance. Michael is a qualified nutritionist, a Registered Associate Nutritionist with the Association for Nutrition and holds a Master’s degree in Clinical Nutrition.