Skip to main content

Cute Mayo Clinic Videos. Bad Science

The prestigious Mayo Clinic regularly gets itself into hot water across evidence-based medicine and skeptics circles (see here) for its heavy promotion of questionable science; Mayo is particularly entrenched in the complementary/alternative/integrative/functional medicine (CAM/IFM) movement that is taking academic medical centers by storm (it even has a peer reviewed publication about its CAM use). Mayo, like other famous clinics, seems more than happy to promote its clinic with low-to-no evidence modalities that have been re-branded under the CAM/IFM movement.

 There's a nutrition video that Mayo has produced and is circulating around the social media spheres. I've seen it before but today it made me particularly annoyed so here we are. The video covers the role of a whole foods plant-based diet as 'powerful medicine' with a focus on cancer. You can see the video embedded below. A link to their tweet with the video can be found here and its also up on their YouTube. The video is absurdly unethical and the fact that it's coming from the 'doctors, nurses, and specialists for cancer care' at the Mayo Clinic only worsens this fact.





The video starts off with 'How Plant Based Power Foods Help Fight Cancer'. We could stop there and rage about how unethical this is but let's explore further. Other claims made in the video:

  • 'Eat more power foods for their phytochemicals that protect against inflammation and cancer' 
  • Cruciferous Vegetables have phytochemicals that protect cells from damage
  • The polyphenols in berries have an anti-cancer effect
  • Nuts and seeds help reduce inflammation in the body
  • Whole grains contain bran and phytochemicals that keep cells healthy
  • Mushrooms contain polysaccharides which promote health
  • Carrots contain carotenoids that activate important enzymes.
  • Allyl compounds in garlic and onions have 'healing properties'
There is no strong clinical evidence to support these claims.

 Where are these claims coming from? The evidence cited for this video is often what gets discussed within academic quarters about potential mechanisms by which food components might help prevent cancer; these mechanisms are proposed to underlie the reason why there is an association between consumption of plant-based foods generally and lower risks of certain cancers (AICR regularly updates this evidence-base). These mechanisms are hypotheses; indeed, there are no controlled trials showing that plant-based diets prevent diseases, including cancer. These mechanisms largely draw on cell culture work, with a bit of animal work in highly penetrant cancer models (read: likely not modeling cancer phenotypes in a human). At best, they provide biological plausibility to support associations seen in cohort studies that strengthen the thinking that, at a population level, consuming more of these foods may be beneficial. Even in this arena, calling any food a medicine is disingenuous.

The fact that these hypothetical mechanisms are being put forth stating that they help treat cancer is particularly absurd and unethical. To date, there have been 9 randomized controlled trials of antioxidant supplementation which have not shown an effect on cancer incidence, with some showing a signal of further harm in those at risk of cancer. Why are we promoting this mechanism of action-based treatment for people with cancer? To repeat catchy Netflix documentary quotables and get folks to come to your clinic?


Not that it matters much, but Mayo is even making a mockery of preclinical evidence here. Carotenoids activate important enzymes? Mushrooms contain polysaccharides? This is pseudoscience-y word vomit at best and complete ignorance at worst. For any who don't know, foods either directly or indirectly activate important enzymes and any food with carbohydrate (nearly all foods to some degree) contain polysaccharides. 

Mayo is making a mockery of nutrition science and clinical dietetics with this sort of video. Most registered dietitians working in the realm of clinical oncology focus their time monitoring a patient's weight status, and attempt to manage the symptoms of cancer. Cancer and its treatment can impact food intake and promote dangerous weight loss/wasting through a variety of mechanisms, so food/nutrient intake is a real concern. There are a few more promising areas of nutrition/cancer that are up and coming, such as the role of omega 3 fatty acids in cancer cachexia. To be clear, the role of food/nutrition in cancer that is supported by strong clinical evidence focuses on mitigating the negative impacts of the cancer/treatment, not the treatment of the cancer itself. Mayo misrepresenting what good nutrition care looks like when someone has cancer does little but sell false hope and add to the anxieties of what someone undergoing cancer treatment has to cope with. This video should be taken down.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Beware the Meta-Analysis: Fat, Guidelines, and Biases

Headlines were abuzz this week, reporting that a new review of randomized controlled trials at the time of the low-fat guidelines didn't support their institution. Time , Business Insider , and The Verge all covered the topic with sensationalist headlines (e.g. 'We should never have told people to stop eating fat' #weneverdid). I won't spend every part of this blog picking apart the entire meta-analysis; you can read it over at the open access journal, BMJ Open Heart (1) -- (note, for myself, i'm adding an extra level of skepticism for anything that gets published in this journal). I'm also not going to defend low-fat diets either, but rather, use this meta-analysis to point out some critical shortcomings in nutritional sciences research, and note that we should be wary of meta-analyses when it comes to diet trials. First off, let's discuss randomized controlled trials (RCTs). They are considered the gold standard in biomedical research; in the hierarc...
21 comments
Read more

On PURE

The PURE macronutrients studies were published in the Lancet journals today and the headlines / commentaries are reminding us that everything we thought we think we were told we knew about nutrition is wrong/misguided, etc. Below is my non-epidemiologist's run down of what happened in PURE. A couple papers came out related to PURE, but the one causing the most buzz is the relationship of the macronutrients to mortality. With a median follow up of 7.4 years, 5796 people died and 4784 had a major cardiovascular event (stroke, MCI). The paper modeled the impacts of self reported dietary carbohydrate, total fat, protein, monounsaturated (MUFA), saturated (SFA), and polyunsaturated (PUFA) fatty acid intakes on cardiovascular (CVD), non-CVD and total mortality; all macros were represented as a percentage of total self reported energy intakes and reported/analyzed in quintiles (energy intakes between 500-5000kcals/day were considered plausible..). All dietary data was determined by a ...
10 comments
Read more

The Singling Out of Golden Rice

I saw earlier today that  Steven Novella, MD, over at Neurlogica blog  covered some controversy surrounding Golden Rice and it reminded me I had some thoughts to throw down about the GR issue. Dr Novella's post was in response to some of the claims made in a comment written on his post about a recent Nature Biotechnology paper on crop biofortification .  This is an area I've seen a lot of commentary on, no doubt because Golden Rice is a transgenic crop. Dr Novella makes some good commentary in his post and I suggest reading it ( here ) before the rest of this post - it will contain some additional thoughts to Dr Novella's. Dr Novella did a great job fielding the opposition to Golden Rice, which is something I've always found rather odd - I guess if you're vehemently opposed to a technology that represents a diverse array of methods (there's not one way to genetically engineer a plant) and innumerable potential outcomes (plants can be engineered for any number ...
8 comments
Read more