Perspective: Are Large, Simple Trials the Solution for Nutrition Research?

Abstract

Nutritional research and policies have been criticized for relying on observational evidence, using self-report diet assessment methods, and supposedly being unable to present a consensus on what constitutes a healthy diet. In particular, it is often asserted that for progress to occur in nutrition science, large, simple trials, which have worked well in evaluating the efficacy of drugs, need to replace most observational research and small trials in nutrition. However, this idea is infeasible, and is unlikely to advance nutritional sciences or improve policies. This article addresses some commonly held and unfounded "myths" surrounding dietary assessments, effect sizes, and confounding, demonstrating how carefully conducted observational studies can provide reliable and reproducible evidence on diet and health. Also, there is a strong consensus among nutritional researchers and practitioners about the basic elements of a healthy diet. To move forward, we should continue to improve study design and diet assessment methodologies, reduce measurement errors, and leverage new technologies. Advances in the field lie in coalescing evidence from multiple study designs, methodologies, and technologies, and translating what we already know into policy and practice, so we can improve diet quality and enhance health in an equitable and sustainable manner across the world.

Changes in Consumption of Sugary Beverages and Artificially Sweetened Beverages and Subsequent Risk of Type 2 Diabetes: Results From Three Large Prospective U.S. Cohorts of Women and Men

“…The design of our study is a major strength. Indeed, the NHS, the NHS II, and the HPFS are among the few studies with long-term repeated assessments of diet, which allowed us to calculate changes in beverage consumption (37,38). This element increases the generalizability of our findings because changes in beverage consumption were made in a real-world setting.…”

N-of-1 Clinical Trials in Nutritional Interventions Directed at Improving Cognitive Function

“…Advances in the field of dementia prevention require the integration of evidence from multiple study designs, technologies, and methodologies with complementary strengths and weaknesses (235). We propose N-of-1 or single person clinical trials to address some of the current shortcomings of dementia prevention trials.…”

The Nordic Nutrition Recommendations 2022 – structure and rationale of qualified systematic reviews

“…In GRADE, RCTs without substantial weaknesses are judged as high-quality evidence, while observational studies a priori start with a low-quality grading (but may be upgraded). However, judging RCTs automatically as 'high-quality' evidence may be misleading with nutritional interventions due to inherent methodological challenges (6,54,55). With the exception of this, the aspects for strength-of-evidence considered by WCRF's and GRADE's tools are largely similar in concept.…”