Nutrition psychology. "Onko sokeri todella terveytemme pahin vihollinen? Asiantuntijalta selkeä vastaus" (Yle). Another case of contued influence bias. Likely by langauge

Emma Karasjoki, reporter at Finnish state media Yle has interviewed Maria Lankinen, docent of nutrition science at the University of Eastern Finland. The interview was conducted in uralic-finnish where Dr. Lankinen claims that saturated fat and salt, but not sugar is the biggest health problem. Previously her colleague, Mikael Fogelholm has claimed that eating meat causes colon cancer. International research has rejected the risk of saturated fat, salt, and meat, and point to sugar as the cause of most welfare diseases. In 2023, the research at the University of Helsingfors collapsed. Why do Finnish researchers stick with the false narrative? According to Max Planck, “Science progresses one funeral at a time”. Why? Continued influence bias. But here is the sad part. The risk of dying of: – Alzheimer's, is 100% higher in Finland compared to Sweden, – Ischemic heart failure is 50% higher in Finland compared to Sweden. Because Finns and Swedes have very similar biology, the only reasonable answer will be that its about culture. And culture is mostly formed by language. 6 pages.

Please support the blog via Swish (Sweden), MobilePay (Finland) or Wise.

Emma Karasjoki, reporter at Finnish state media Yle has interviewed Maria Lankinen, docent of nutrition science at the University of Eastern Finland. Finland has two official langauges. Swedish-finnish, which is the typical trade langauage around the Gulf of Bothnia and the Baltic sea, and uralic-finnish. The interview was conducted in uralic-finnish.

Kysymykseen, onko sokeri terveytemme pahin vihollinen, Lankisella on suora vastaus.

– Ei ole.

Suomalaiset pysyvät keskimääräisesti hyvin saantisuosituksissa. Isompina ongelmina terveydelle Lankinen pitää ihan muita asioita. Ne ovat tyydyttyneen rasvan ja suolan liiallinen saanti.

Link to source When translated into English, this is what the quote sais:

When asked whether sugar is the worst enemy of our health, Lankinen has a direct answer.

– It is not.

On average, Finns stick well to the recommended intake. Lankinen believes that the bigger health problems are completely different things. They are the excessive intake of saturated fat and salt.

Is this true?

Well, according to international research, there's no association between saturated fat and cardio vascular disease (Howard et al. 2006; Ramsden et al. 2016), but saturated fat crucial for brain health (Mayo clinic, 2016). And salt is crucial for health (Mente, 2018; Mente et al. 2021). In fact, sugar is known to cause most welfare diseases, like type 2 and 3* diabetes, and non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (de la Monte and Wands, 2008; Lustig, 2008, 2017; Mudge, 2022; Steen et al. 2005; Yukkin, 1972).
*Type 3 diabetes=Alzheimer's disease – “the most common cause of dementia” (Mayo clinic).

Nutrition is a very complex topic to study. That's because it's hard to control what people eat over a long period of time, like in a randomized control trial (RCT). Instead, many nutrition researchers use self-reporting, or food frequency questionnaires (FFQ), where they ask respondents to remember what they have been eating.

That means they have to consult their episodic memory. Common knowledge in psychology is that it's hard to trust episodic memory (Schacter and Addis, 2007):

“Since the future is not an exact repetition of the past, simulation of future episodes requires a system that can draw on the past in a manner that flexibly extracts and recombines elements of previous experiences” (p. 774).

And recently that was repeated by Geoffrey Hinton, a cognitive scientist:

“When we remember, what we're doing is just making up a story that sounds plausible to us. That's what memories are”

For more details about memory (Österberg, 2025).

So, if the evidence has rejected the claim that saturated fats and salt are bad for health, but that sugar is, that is, the opposite to the claim by Dr. Lankinen, why does she, with a docentship in nutrition claim the opposite to international research?

Well, she's not the only Finnish researcher who Yle allows to make claims which goes in the opposite direction to international research. In 2021, her Finnish colleague – Mikael Fogelholm – claimed that the relationship between meat consumption and colon cancer is clear (Yle News, 2021)

“The link between colon cancer and red meat is clear. But when it comes to the other diseases, the causes can be linked to unhealthy lifestyles in general," Fogelholm said, adding that there are no disadvantages to cutting back on meat”.

Fogelholm is well aware that that proposition was rejected two years prior by NutriRecs. They applied a method called GRADE which, simplified, put lower weight on FFQ-studies, and higher ditto on RCT-studies (Han et al. 2019; Johnston et al. 2019; Zeraatkar et al. 2019). Fogelholm even commented on them on October 1, 2019:

“Tässä vielä ihan hyvä pidempi kommentti tuosta kohulihatutkimuksesta (ks. Prof. Katzin juttu alla olevasta linkistä). Tulos oli siis sama kuin ennen, tulkinta vain eri. Kyse on mm. tutkimustyyppien arvottamisesta. Paras näyttö tässä lihaa vastaan jätettiin kokonaan huomioimatta”.

Translated to English:

“Here is a really good longer commentary on that controversial meat study (see Prof. Katz's article in the link below). So the result was the same as before, just the interpretation was different. It's about, among other things, evaluating the types of research. The best evidence against meat was completely ignored here”.

Here's a longer comment on animal source food and health (Österberg, 2024).

But Fogelholm and Lankinen are not alone. In August 2023, Helsingin sanomat, Finland's largest tabloid, reported that the research at the University of Helsingfors had collapsed. Watch the dark blue line in the image below.

Link to source.

So, if international research has rejected claims that animal fat, meat and salt are bad for you, why do Finnish researchers stick with the false narrative?

It's of course a rather complex question to give a simple answer to. History and psychology can give some hints.

In 1950, Max Planck, the father of quantum physics, and whom the Max Planck institute is named after, published his autobiography. On page 33 and 97, he wrote:

“An important scientific innovation rarely makes its way by gradually winning over and converting its opponents: it rarely happens that Saul becomes Paul. What does happen is that its opponents gradually die out, and that the growing generation is familiarized with the ideas from the beginning: another instance of the fact that the future lies with the youth” (Chat Gpt).

The simplified meaning:

“Science progresses one funeral at a time”.

Why do scientists cling on to theories which have been rejected?

One answer is Continued influence bias – the phenomenon where people continue to rely on misinformation in their reasoning or decision-making, even after it has been corrected or retracted (Cacciatore, 2021). What's the consequence of continued influence bias?

One way to answer that question is to compare Finland with its neighbor Sweden. Between the Vendel period (540 – 750 AD) and 1808, Finland formed the eastern part of the Swedish kingdom. This implies that Finns and Swedes are essentially the same people – similar biology. But here is the sad part. The risk of dying of:

• Alzheimer's, is 100% higher in Finland compared to Sweden.
  
  
• Ischemic heart failure is 50% higher in Finland compared to Sweden (EU/OECD, 2023).

Because Finns and Swedes have very similar biology, the only reasonable answer will be that its about culture. And culture is mostly formed by language (Reich, 2019, 2022).

Please support the blog via Swish (Sweden), MobilePay (Finland) or Wise.

More about my expertise:

Executive coaching for CEOs/managers and workshops to facilitate Organizational Performance, Learning, and Creativity for Problem Solving | Lectures: Nutrition for physical and mental health | Course/lecture: children's emotional and social adjustment and cognitive development | Language training - Swedish | Academy Competency | CV | Teaching skills and experience | Summary of research project | Instagram | Linkedin | YouTube-channel | TikTok | Twitter