I’m often saying that industry-funded studies tend to produce results that favor the funder’s commercial interests. This is true, but there are occasional exceptions.
Here, for example, are two studies based on grants from the American Pistachio Growers to the same group of investigators. Both are randomized clinical trials with results that must have disappointed the funder.
Results: Two weeks of pistachio consumption failed to elicit changes in any biomarker (p < .05).. .Overall, in healthy young men with normal blood lipid and glucose metabolism, little effect of either pistachios or intense exercise on cardiometabolic risk indicators was detected.
Results: Creatine kinase, myoglobin, and C-reactive protein increased over time following exercise (p < 0.05); however, there were no advantages following pistachio consumption. No significant changes in vertical jump or superoxide dismutase were elicited during any trial.
Comment: The second paper put a positive spin on the basically null results: “This study demonstrates that 3.0 oz/d of pistachios can reduce delayed onset of muscle soreness and maintain muscle strength, potentially promoting exercise tolerance and training adaptations.” My question is why anyone would think that pistachios would make any difference anyway. They are one food in the diets of people who eat many othere kinds of foods. I’m all for eating pistachios, if you like them, along with lots of other healthy foods. There is only one reason to do this kind of one-food research—for marketing purposes.
You don’t believe this? Check out the nutrition and health section of the Pistachio Growers website. You can’t make this stuff up.
Hey. If that’s all it takes, give it a try (I guess).
*******
For 30% off, go to www.ucpress.edu/9780520384156. Use code 21W2240 at checkout.
The post Industry-funded studies: null results! appeared first on Food Politics by Marion Nestle.
