Types of Evidence
Authorised Health Claims
These have undergone rigorous regulatory review (like the EFSA evaluation for LDL protection). These represent the highest standard of evidence for food-health relationships and can be stated as established facts.
Randomised controlled trials in humans
The gold standard for clinical evidence. Studies like PREDIMED provide strong evidence but may examine whole dietary patterns rather than isolated compounds.
Observational studies in humans
These can identify associations but cannot prove causation. Mediterranean diet studies often fall into this category.
Animal studies
Provide mechanistic insights and test specific hypotheses under controlled conditions. Essential for understanding biological pathways, but findings must be interpreted cautiously when extrapolating to humans.
In vitro (cell culture) studies
Useful for understanding mechanisms at the cellular level but represent the earliest stage of research. Effects in isolated cells may not translate to whole organisms.
Appropriate language
Authorised claims
"Contributes to," "supports," stated as established fact
Strong human evidence
"Research shows," "studies have found," "clinical trials demonstrate"
Emerging evidence
"Research suggests," "may help support," "studies indicate"
Early-stage research
"Scientists are investigating," "preliminary research," "in laboratory studies"
The publication process
Peer-reviewed publication doesn't mean research is definitive - it means the study met methodological standards and other scientists have reviewed it. The scientific process involves replication, debate and gradual convergence toward consensus through accumulating evidence.
Why this matters
This research page uses language calibrated to the strength of evidence. When we say "research suggests" rather than "proven to," we're being scientifically accurate and legally compliant. This doesn't diminish the significance of the findings - it reflects honest scientific communication.