Clams not a good source of iron?

(M) #1

This study says the iron is not as bioavailable as in meat. I didn’t really understand it.
Can somebody explain the reasons the article is listing as why? I kind of wonder that anything absorbs from clams, at least canned ones because they are quite chewy and seem hard to digest. I had some fresh clams once and they were not quite as chewy but a bit strange in taste.

On a side note, there is a study that the broth of clams has a lot of b12.

(Joey) #2

Unfortunately, the study is hidden behind a paywall, so it’s hard to explain much of anything beyond what the Abstract reports.

In vitro studies can be indicative as far as they go, but real human metabolism is highly in vivo-dependent. As such, it’s often misleading to conclude that how observable chemistry works in a Petri dish is a reliable model for how it works inside the human cell’s cytoplasm - where the mitochondria operate and make human metabolism work.

As for concentrations of Aluminum (Aluminium) found in certain seafood, that’s another matter.

(M) #3

Thanks, I guess you have to be careful reading too much into things you find on the internet like this.

(Bacon is a many-splendoured thing) #4

This is true, even for papers found on PubMed or Google Scholar. Read with care!

(Joey) #5

Yeah, sadly. As @PaulL rightly notes, just because you can find it out there doesn’t make it useful.

Researchers (and academics) get paid to publish papers. It’s a business, much like any other. There’s no shame in that (unless it’s dishonest), but it’s essential to recognize the financial incentives involved.

As has been the case for decades, most professors at “prestigious” universities will get tenure (= big career payoff) most easily by publishing in large volumes - far more easily than by being a really great highly-rated teacher on that same prestigious campus.

And what makes a university “prestigious”? Answer: How many papers its professors publish, get cited by authors of other papers, get government grants, alumni financial support, etc. (Sometimes football helps :wink: )

In short, publishing papers is a business. It’s a way to make a living. It sells and it gets attention (media) and funding (government, donors, corporate money, etc.).

But in order to publish something, you need to (a) do some kind of research - anything attention-grabbing will suffice - and (b) get headlines to draw attention to the results. uh-oh.

Personally, it seems to me that for every “peer” reviewed paper I actually read through in detail, clearly less than half of them draw conclusions based on meaningful, statistically reliable findings. The rest are based on some variety of bullcrap.

Some books that might be of interest…

“Bad Science” by Ben Goldacre (eye-opening)
“Statistics Done Wrong” by Alex Reinhart (a delightful romp)
“Introduction to Categorical Data Analysis” Alan Agresti (textbook)
“Modern Epidemiology” Timothy Lash (textbook)

All good reads of one kind or another. :nerd_face: