In previous posts, we discussed various opinions regarding health and fitness. It seems like everybody has an answer to what ails you, yet everyone seems to be saying different things. In this post, we will discuss how to sharp-shoot information for clarity and fitness of purpose, which helped us cut through the noise.
There is a Lot of Noise Now
With the growth of the internet, we have more and more information available to us. The consumable data created and available to us will be 175 Zettabytes (10^21) in 2025. That is expected to increase to 394 Zettabytes by 2028. This number includes a lot of user-generated content (UGC). Anyone with a keyboard, a little knowledge, and some time can try to become an influencer. Interestingly, data indicates that we are much more likely to believe other than authoritative bodies such as companies and organizations.
Search engines use various strategies and techniques to help us determine what is authoritative and what isn’t. However, this can also cause problems, such as affirming the wrong information based on reliance on ‘experts,’ which has had notorious historical examples. It takes time to discover what is real and what isn’t; sometimes, we can only speculate. The outcome is that we read, hear, and see conflicting things.
Good vs Bad is All About Context
You will hear that fat is bad, yet we know that fat is a necessary part of our DRI. One site will say you shouldn’t eat dairy, while another organization may say yogurt is considered healthy. Which of the pundits is correct? Sometimes, it is both. What matters most is the context of the statement and who the actual target audience is.
What exactly do we mean by context? Context means understanding the problem the particular statement is attempting to solve. Understanding context also means understanding who the target audience is and, more importantly, is not. For example, if you are at risk for high cholesterol, you may want to listen to a medical professional. On the other hand, if you are trying to be a bodybuilder, that information may not pertain to you. Let’s take a look at two articles about the Keto Diet.
Note: We are not giving our opinion on the diet but rather using two different points of view to illustrate why you must read the fine print when looking at this type of information.
A Tale Of Two Ketos
The first article by Healthline is a resource that gives the full details of the keto diet. The article paints it positively regarding how it can help you lose fat. It also talks about the challenges of getting into a ketosis state. As a resource, it does a great job of breaking this down for different types of people with varying levels of health.
The second article by Harvard Health Publishing (Harvard Medical School) is not as keen on the keto diet. It discusses its origins as a way to help a specific group of people and many more of the diet’s challenges around nutrition deficiencies. Further, it speaks to the fact that it is a short-term approach to health.
Apples to Peaches?
To compare apples to apples, let’s consider that both articles were written and reviewed by equally reliable authorities. Accredited professionals wrote and reviewed both articles. So then, which is correct? Both! Why? The articles are both written for a different purpose and in a different context. This is where we feel all the information we are bombarded with gets confusing.
Written by and from the point of view of a Dietician, the Healthline article takes a dietician’s point of view on Keto. The Harvard article takes the point of view of a medical doctor. They are two different roles, with similar but different points of view. The former wants to help you with your dietary needs. The latter wants to help you holistically with your health and may ask you to seek a dietician’s help. These are two different lenses on the same topic. When looking at the two, it is that context that matters.
Why does it matter? We need to be objective when seeking information to help us. It is very easy for people to end up in the trap of confirmation or negative bias. We hypothesize that these biases protected us at one time in our evolutionary history. Learning isn’t always easy. When seeking knowledge, we must be careful to be open to new information and challenge preconditions. If we are not, we can end up as expert beginners, which gives us a measure of success but limits our true potential.
Some Things To Help Be Critical
Here are some context-setting tips for reviewing information to help you be critical:
- Understand why the person is telling you the information. Do they stand to gain something by influencing you, such as selling you a diet plan or product?
- What lens is the person putting on the subject, and are they critical in their judgment? Does that lens help align the information with your goals?
- How old is the information? For example, health and fitness information is constantly changing, and an article, such as the 3,500-calorie rule, may be out of date.
- Confirm that you are in the target cohort or audience for the information. In our example, a significant difference exists between a person’s long-term medical needs and a short-term diet plan.
- Challenge anything without scientific evidence or non-emotional evidence quoted by the article. It isn’t that some influencer or pundit is wrong, but, without any sources, ‘it’s like…just their opinion, man.’ (Big Lebowski quote, apologies, but I had to use it.)
Wrapping Up
Bringing it back to where we started, the more research we did on our health and goals, the more we found this level of contradiction. By applying some basic scientific principles and being critical of the information, we could understand that misinformation wasn’t misinformation. Much of the information didn’t apply to us or our sustainability goals.
Further, we also had to look at what group was publishing the information. The American Heart Association can have a different agenda than the USDA. They will publish information based on that agenda, which may be focused on an area that is not your need or cohort. For example, the USDA probably doesn’t publish information targeting bodybuilders, while someone working in sports medicine may.
This article presented ways to help break through the noise of many health and fitness articles. The human body is a complicated system. Due to that complexity, we must be critical when seeking advice or adopting a new idea. This is why the context of the information given to you is essential. This context-based thinking changes how we start to look at other aspects of our lives. Just because we disagreed with what we found didn’t mean it was false or misinformation. Understanding that ‘noise’ was a lack of context was a game changer for us. We feel it will be for you as well.
