eli5: Why do articles about nutrition always refer to what benefits “may” occur from the intake of nutrients rather than what benefits “will” occur?
In: 2
Because no tow human bodies are exactly the same, and no two people digest food in the exact same way. Most people eat bread and have no problem. Someone with a gluten problem will get sick.
The same applies to any nutrient. There’s always going to be a few folks who can’t process a particular food.
A *major* reason for this is because of the difference between food and medicine.
Medicine *treats* conditions, needs to be proven to do so scientifically, and is regulated by various governmental agencies.
Food, “nutrients” and “supplements” are not intended to treat medical conditions, and will you will notice that language on packaging as well. As such the do not need to be tested to prove they help, they do not need to be tested to prove they don’t cause other problems, and they do not need to be regulated by governmental agencies outside of food-safety type concerns.
For example, a prescription skin cream *will* treat a rash and is meant to treat that condition.
Supplement X, marketed to improve libido, *may* improve libido because *anything* might do *something*. The company is specifically, legally, claim the product isn’t *meant to* improve libido, “but it *might* help”.
Nutrition industry is shady as hell at the best of times, and research and trends are constantly shifting. Using CYA terms like “may” or “can” do this or help with this allows the shady people to make unfounded claims, and covers the people legitimately trying to help from lawsuit.
Latest Answers