In the absence of a sufficient amount of knowledge in a particular field, half-truths can sometimes cause you to question very robust theories that have stood the test of time and scientific scrutiny. One example of this is the role that diet can play in the development of cardiovascular disease (CVD). As a brief background, one of the variables (not the only one) that contributes to the development of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease is elevated LDL cholesterol. The evidence to support this is fairly overwhelming at this point, with separate meta-analyses of >200 prospective cohort studies, Mendelian randomization studies, and RCTs including more than 2 million participants and over 150,000 cardiovascular events (Ference et al. 2017). And, of relevance to us, one of the dietary variables (again, one of many) that can drive this increase in LDL is a high intake of saturated fat in the diet.

 

Despite all of this evidence, the conspiratorial thinkers out there will chime in with very shallow half-truths such as "our cells are made of cholesterol" to justify diets that deliberately increase saturated fat to very high levels. These half-truths can be very convincing for someone without much knowledge of the field, and can drive that conspiratorial thinking, encouraging the view that doctors, dieticians and health organisations are genuinely trying to harm you by eating less of something that is essential for cellular function. 

 

Where does this conspiratorial thinking take you?

 

Well, it can lead to someone questioning 1) very valuable dietary changes, and 2) pharmacological interventions. For example, if someone takes one of these half-truths on board, this may lead to them focusing more on eating foods high in saturated fat and cholesterol, less on plants, and no longer adhering to statins (or other medications).

 

The problem here is that, in cases like this, we are looking at more than just "getting the edge" in terms of body composition/performance. This can be the extent of the damage in sports nutrition debates. But, when we are talking about nutrition for health in disease, you are weighing up risks related to heart attacks, strokes, etc.. 

 

The point?

 

If you are going to take half-truths on board, do so for things that don't matter that much. If you want to believe that sweet potatoes are the secret to big biceps, that's no problem, as the downside is minimal. But, if you are going to intervene in the case of cardiovascular disease (e.g. if you are someone currently at high risk, or you have had an event already), it is probably wise to think twice before taking such half-truths on board. In this case, the half-truth of "we need cholesterol" is a totally reductionist view of physiology/biochemistry that ignores the fact that cholesterol can be made endogenously within the body, and that this process is regulated based on intake. If you do not have that background knowledge, it can be hard to get to the truth.

 

Don't blindly follow authority, but you'd be wiser to trust genuine expertise and guidelines based on decades of evidence than to trust a single point presented by someone on social media. This happens... trust me.

 

This was just one example that I wanted to use, as I know a lot of you will be familiar with this discussion, but you can also take this message on board when you see discussions of flat earth, moon landings, vaccines, etc.. Conspiratorial thinking often involves people believing in multiple conspiracies or "grand conspiracies", so why not be skeptical about your own skepticism.