Scientific evidence comes in layers, like onions: at the core, there is what we call “primary sources”. These are the first-hand, experimental research results published in peer reviewed journals. “Peer reviewed” means that the paper is analyzed by other researchers through a process known as “double-blind” evaluation: reputable researchers read the paper ignoring who the author is, judge its quality and approve (or not) its publication for a scientific periodical.<\/p>\n
Reviews are publications prepared by researchers who read a number of primary sources and organize the content according to the context of that subject: \u00a0is it controversial? What are the prevailing points of view? What does it have to do with previous knowledge?<\/p>\n
In these first layers, the language and data presentation is somewhat hard to understand for outsiders: its audience are fellow researchers.<\/p>\n
The following layer is targeted at wider audiences: there are other types of reviews, written in more journalistic style, yet preserving scientific accuracy. There is a whole class of publications devoted to that.<\/p>\n
Textbooks make the last layer still in the scientific realm.<\/p>\n
This system has worked – with minor or major flaws – until recently. We have some serious problems now: primary sources are produced in a speed that makes it utterly impossible for any researcher to keep up with it, let alone the front line professional, such as the physician or the nutritionist. A few years ago it was calculated that one would need at least 19 hours of uninterrupted reading to accomplish that, obviously just a hypothetical number. The second serious problem is that the system, originally designed to protect the credibility of scientific information, has been corrupted by pseudo-scientific publications popping up in the digital environment of users. How is the nutritionist or researcher supposed to know what is reliable information and what is nonsense?<\/p>\n
A number of solutions have been devised through the years, none effective. Until Examine.com showed up and created its own Research Digest: the ERD. With the ERD, the researcher and health professional has access to the best evidence-based information presented with accuracy and clarity. A panel of experts was put together to make this possible and designers made content presentation attractive and functional.<\/p>\n
Audio transcripts are provided so that the busy professional can have access to good content at any time. Peer communities of subscribers were set up to promote productive interaction.<\/p>\n
ERD is my choice as a professional: of all the solutions I have examined, ERD is the only one that delivers what I need. If you care about and need high level scientific information about nutrition, ERD is what you want.<\/p>\n