At this time of year a large proportion of the population of the developed world will once again be resolving to get fit, lose weight and generally lead a healthier lifestyle.
Certainly over the last 12 months there has been no shortage of advice, much of it conflicting or counterintuitive, about what is good or bad for us. The difficulty facing the average consumer is making an informed decision about what to believe.
For example, in 2011 we were told that chocolate is as good as exercise, that children who eat sweets are less likely to be overweight, and that exposure to magnetic fields during pregnancy results in children developing asthma. Unsurprisingly, none of these stories was borne out by the research, although they did make amusing headlines.
It was also suggested that saucepans can cause early menopause, and that taking up the hobby of quilting can make you happy and healthy, both of which findings were based on an overenthusiastic interpretation of small or unrepresentative trial results.
The usual crop of cancer-preventing superfoods made an appearance again: last year it was tangerines, beans and crocuses, and again the findings were based on trials in mice or in human participants with a reduced cancer risk in the first place.
And then there were the ‘miracle pills’ to help weight loss, halt ageing and even cure acrophobia, although nobody would be wise to turn to these to lose the flab or the wrinkles or stop sweaty palms when standing on the top of tall buildings.
There are numerous authoritative sources for debunking the myths put about by the popular media, and most of them don’t require a science degree to understand. Behind the Headlines from NHS Choices in the UK is particularly accessible, but doesn’t receive the exposure it deserves.
Alas, it is human nature to look for a quick and easy cure for the lifestyle-induced ills plaguing modern society. Rather than believing bizarre headlines, a healthy dose of scepticism would do most people a lot more good.