Questions: Question 11 (3 points) Which of the following study designs would give us the strongest evidence with the most relevant to real-life nutrition decisions? Intervention Studies Meta-analyses Non-human studies

The answer is Intervention Studies.

Intervention studies, also known as experimental studies or randomized controlled trials (RCTs), involve actively intervening and then observing the effects of that intervention. These studies are considered the gold standard in research because they can establish causality by controlling for confounding variables and biases. In the context of nutrition, intervention studies can directly test the effects of specific dietary changes on health outcomes, making their findings highly relevant to real-life nutrition decisions.

Meta-analyses combine data from multiple studies to provide a more comprehensive understanding of a particular topic. While they can offer strong evidence by increasing the sample size and statistical power, the quality of a meta-analysis depends on the quality of the included studies. If the included studies are not intervention studies, the meta-analysis might not provide the strongest evidence for real-life nutrition decisions.

Non-human studies, such as those conducted on animals, can provide valuable insights into biological mechanisms and potential effects of nutritional interventions. However, their relevance to human nutrition decisions is limited because of physiological and metabolic differences between humans and other species. Therefore, while useful for preliminary research, non-human studies do not offer the strongest evidence for real-life nutrition decisions.