As health and fitness professionals, we often encounter sceptical remarks about health advice, such as, “They’re always changing their minds about what’s good for you – eggs used to be bad, now they’re good,” or, “My nan smoked every day of her life and lived to be 98.” While these phrases might seem dismissive or even frustrating, they offer valuable insights into the speaker’s attitudes, beliefs, and reasoning patterns. By understanding the underlying psychology and epistemic development behind such statements, professionals can respond more empathetically and effectively, fostering trust and encouraging informed decision-making.
What do these phrases reveal about the speaker?
Epistemic development and judgement
One of the key drivers of such sceptical remarks is an individual’s epistemic development – their understanding of knowledge and how it evolves. Many people expect knowledge to be fixed and absolute, so when scientific recommendations change, it may seem inconsistent or unreliable. This stage of thinking, often referred to as “absolutist,” assumes that there is always a clear right or wrong answer. Others may operate in a “multiplistic” framework, believing that all opinions are equally valid, which can lead to the rejection of expert advice in favour of personal beliefs or anecdotes.
Additionally, these remarks often reflect a low tolerance for uncertainty. Health and fitness advice is inherently probabilistic, based on evolving evidence from large-scale studies. For some, the idea that science can change as we learn more is unsettling, leading to frustration or mistrust of new recommendations.
Cognitive biases and reasoning patterns
Sceptical remarks are often shaped by cognitive biases, which influence how people process information and make decisions. For example, the availability heuristic means that personal anecdotes, such as “My nan smoked every day and lived to 98,” feel more compelling than statistical evidence, even if the latter is far more reliable. Similarly, confirmation bias leads individuals to seek out information that supports their existing beliefs and dismiss evidence that contradicts them.
Another common bias is the outcome bias, where people judge the validity of advice based on individual cases rather than population-level trends. For instance, someone might conclude that smoking is not harmful because they know someone who lived a long life despite smoking, ignoring the overwhelming evidence of its risks for the majority.
Attitudes, beliefs, and cultural factors
Phrases like these also reflect deeper attitudes and beliefs. A common theme is distrust of authority, which could stem from past perceived inconsistencies in health advice or a belief that experts, such as doctors or public health officials, are influenced by ulterior motives like profit. This scepticism is often compounded by cultural narratives that elevate tradition and “natural” remedies over modern science. For example, the belief that “people have eaten this for centuries and were healthy” reflects a preference for what is perceived as traditional or natural over what is seen as artificial or modern.
For some individuals, such phrases may also function as a defence mechanism to protect their autonomy or identity. Health advice can sometimes feel prescriptive or controlling, and scepticism can be a way to assert independence or resist perceived external pressures.
Common sceptical phrases and their implications
Certain phrases tend to surface repeatedly in conversations about health and fitness. These include:
- On changing advice: “They’re always changing their minds about what’s good for you.”
- On anecdotes: “I know someone who never exercised and was fine,” or, “My uncle drank every day and lived to 90.”
- On authority: “Doctors just want to make money,” or, “Big Pharma is behind all these recommendations.”
- On tradition: “People have eaten this for centuries and were fine,” or, “Natural remedies are better than chemicals.”
- On fatalism: “If it’s my time, it’s my time,” or, “Everything causes cancer these days.”
- On general scepticism: “You can’t believe anything anymore,” or, “Who knows what’s true these days?”
These phrases serve psychological functions, such as reducing anxiety, resolving cognitive dissonance, or reinforcing one’s worldview. Recognising these patterns enables professionals to address the underlying concerns instead of focusing solely on the content of the statement.
How to respond effectively
Validate and empathise
The first step in responding to scepticism is to validate the speaker’s feelings and concerns. Dismissing their perspective outright is likely to create defensiveness and shut down the conversation. Instead, acknowledge the complexity of health advice and empathise with their frustration. For example, you might say, “I understand why it can feel confusing when advice seems to change – it’s not always easy to keep up.”
Recognising the importance of personal anecdotes can also help to build rapport. While individual stories don’t provide the same level of evidence as scientific studies, they are meaningful to the person sharing them. Acknowledging this can help bridge the gap between anecdotal evidence and broader scientific findings.
Address cognitive biases and misinformation
When addressing biases such as the availability heuristic or confirmation bias, focus on gently educating the individual without being dismissive. For example, you can explain that while their nan lived a long life while smoking, population-level evidence shows that smoking significantly increases the risk of serious diseases for most people. Using relatable analogies can also help. For instance, you could compare health risks to seatbelts: “Not everyone who doesn’t wear a seatbelt will have an accident, but we wear them because they greatly reduce the risk.”
It is also important to communicate the evolving nature of scientific knowledge in a positive light. Frame changes in recommendations as a reflection of progress and increased understanding, rather than inconsistency. For example, “Scientific advice changes because we’re always learning more. That’s a good thing – it means we’re improving our understanding and doing better for people’s health.”
Build trust and foster engagement
Building trust is vital when addressing scepticism. Take the time to understand the individual’s perspective and concerns by asking open-ended questions like, “What are your thoughts on this advice?” or, “What have you heard about this topic?” This not only demonstrates respect but also provides insight into their beliefs and the sources of their information.
When explaining health advice, use plain language and avoid medical jargon. Translate statistics into terms that are easy to understand. For example, instead of saying, “This increases your risk by 50%,” you might say, “For every 100 people who do this, 10 may experience this outcome instead of 5.”
Finally, where misinformation is a factor, respond gently and focus on providing accurate information rather than directly challenging the false claim. For instance, instead of saying, “That’s wrong,” you could say, “Actually, recent studies have shown something interesting about that…”
Practical strategies for conversations
To summarise, here are some key strategies for handling sceptical remarks:
- Validate concerns: Acknowledge the speaker’s frustrations and feelings.
- Explain anecdotes vs evidence: Highlight the difference between personal stories and population-level trends.
- Communicate uncertainty positively: Frame changes in advice as a sign of progress.
- Use relatable analogies: Help make abstract concepts more tangible.
- Ask open-ended questions: Encourage dialogue and show genuine interest.
- Focus on shared goals: Emphasise that both you and the individual care about their well-being.
- Correct misinformation gently: Provide accurate information without being confrontational.
In summary, scepticism about health advice is not just a sign of ignorance or resistance – it often reflects deeper cognitive biases, epistemic development, and cultural beliefs. By understanding the psychology behind these sceptical remarks and responding with empathy, clarity, and respect, health and fitness professionals can build trust and foster meaningful conversations. Ultimately, this approach not only helps individuals make better-informed decisions but also strengthens the relationship between professionals and the communities they serve.
