One method is to look for authors of scholarly articles whose work is frequently cited by other experts in the same field. Authors whose results are used by other experts in their own research are more likely to be considered reliable.

Rankings and ratings are a less reliable metric because unfortunately they can be manipulated and there is often strong commercial incentive to do so.

The easiest way is to find someone who is a trusted authority in the subject area and get them to give you a bibliography that is suited to your level of knowledge. (You don't necessarily need personal access; they may have a blog or have posted online course syllabi, etc.) To identify an expert, look for traditional credentials, like publications in peer-reviewed journals and tenured positions at respected universities. This sort of structure is a lot more reliable than star ratings on online platforms.

A librarian at a good library can also be a really a good resource. If there are any universities in your area you can inquire whether you are allowed to use their library.

You have to be the gate-keeper here. I think the resolute and ultimate fact you're looking for in these subjects just doesn't exist. Weigh what you learn against your conscience and experiences.

For example, my favorite nutrition advice ever is from Micheal Pollan's "In Defense of Food," that ends with the simple thesis, "Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants."

There are thick volumes of antivaxx books chalked full of citations. I steer clear of them, because the medical community has come to the resounding consensus that vaccines are safe. If that doesn't tell you the state of medical science, I don't know what does.

In terms of psychology, there is rarely an idea or a law that can be pointed to as being absolute. Most of it is just what works, and that's very often different for different people. But I do know the protocol for someone experiencing an onset of schizophrenia is to try mood stabilizers first, and if that doesn't work, switch to antipsychotics.

I recently read "Just like someone without mental illness only more so" by Mark Vonnegut. In it, he asks rhetorically, "Whats the difference between someone who recovers [from schizophrenia] and someone who doesn't? The answer is not much."

Think of this all as exploring, not fact-checking. Often I'll meet someone who read a shady health blog that presented an alluring possibility, and the person goes head over heels and declares they've found the holy grail. It just doesn't work like that.

It brings to mind Atomic Habits by James Clear. He presents a simple formula for fostering new habits. I've heard it worked for many people. Is it scientifically backed? Not necessarily, but you can try it out and see for yourself. If it works, it appears Clear knew what he was talking about.

If all of this is too exhausting, read some poetry or philosophy. The human heart craves truth just as much as the brain, but only our heart sings it.

When it comes to finding good evidence-based information, books are best seen as starting points to provide you with a broad overview of a topic, so that you can then dive into academic journal articles about those elements of a topic that are most relevant for you or you are most interested in.

Generally, books by somebody who knows what they are talking about will be factual, and free from opinion, and statements will be supported in some way with scientific evidence / references. They will also be free from personal anecdotes and 'anecdotal evidence' (ie "after he used this miracle food, the diversity of her gut microbiota seems to have increased exponentially, so this food is fantastic" is not good data). Much like good journalism, you want a book that presents you with data in a structured and easy to understand way, but you don't want to waste your time reading about some person's 'opinion'. You can get an idea of what I mean by reading a couple of articles from your local newspaper, compared to a better news source like, say, The Guardian, where facts tend to be presented without the author's subjective view or interpretation.

My approach would be to find out which universities are well known for exceptional research or training in the field you'd like to learn about, then find the reading lists for relevant subjects at that university. Or you might write to a lecturer or two and ask for their recommendations. That should give you a starting point.

You can also search for books written by professors associated with a well-respected uni, and decide which of those you feel are most authoritative to write about a given topic.

Keep in mind though that all books, by their nature, will contain 'old' information. It takes time for a book to be written, edited and published. By the time it is available, there is a very good chance that some information it contains will be outdated - maybe improved upon, no longer 'best practice', proven to be false, etc. So, books are great resources, but limited in their usefulness depending on what level of knowledge you're looking to gain.

Academic journals can be more accurate and contain much more recent information than books. Google Scholar is a fantastic resource for finding journal articles. You'll still need to work out which articles are great and which are rubbish, but you won't need to deal with as much pop pseudo-science and quackery as you'll find at your local bookstore. And, you'll find more recent information with greater specificity. If an article is not available for free, email the author and ask if they would email it to you - most will be happy to.

Happy learning!

You don't, just look for their peer reviewed articles both new and old and put the references under intense scrutiny.

Kind of bottom level but the Fakespot browser extension analyses Amazon reviews. Just because a book has lots if positive reviews does not in any way add to the veracity. As a matter of fact, if I see a non-fiction book with thousands of reviews and five stars I immediately think it is probably bs along the lines of Dr. Oz or Oprah.

Unfortunately I don’t think popularity is a very good metric in this case, there are a lot of wildly popular books that are full of bullshit. Because there is just so much research out there in the world, you can find studies that support pretty much anything you want to promote. That doesn’t mean they’re good studies: A book can just say ‘Studies have found that X is good for you’, and it’s only when you actually look into the studies they cite do you see that it’s just one study with a tiny sample size or no control group etc.

For diet, good studies are generally long term cohort studies - that means they’re tracking the eating habits and health of a very large group of people over a very long period of time, because only then can you really say anything meaningful about long term health effects. Examples are the EPIC Oxford study, Nurse’s health study, and Adventist health study. You can look those up and see what some of their main findings are.

In terms of diet and nutrition, most countries also have a national dietetic association - an association of professionals in the field - and also a government agency that provides nutrition guidelines. While in some countries certain industries have a little too much influence, the guidelines produced by these national associations and government agencies are still mostly pretty good and based on the scientific consensus.

There are several annual rankings of diets by health and sustainability (as in, it’s not hard to keep up long term), and the Mediterranean diet consistently comes out on top.

I don’t know much about where to look for good advice on fitness and psychology I’m afraid.

Quite a good hack is to look at the first year reading lists on uni courses. Generally, these are online on the course descriptions and are at the level it sounds like you're looking for with the added bonus of being vetted by the respective uni. Some of it might be textbooks but most also have shorter summaries or other types of materials. One of my courses had a small detective novel.

Also, don't get too intimidated by journals; they're just structured in a specific way and with academic language but at the core, there's a question, a bit of research and data, then a summary. Read the intro and the summary and you'll get all the info you need.

I'd also suggest you look into some basic stats to help understand what the results of a study actually mean. Probably a YT video on it somewhere, but it'll help in comparing research and in understanding how certain (significant, in stats terminology) a result is.

Your library online will have a "Popular Science" section. If you look up author's names in Wikipedia you should get an idea of their reputation. If you read somebody, double-check some of their sources, too.

Read very viewpoint, and avoid anything that tries to manipulate you with emotional buzzwords

It ain't easy.

I understand the first principles of these fields. I then make sure I can follow the logic about what's being said from these first principles. Also, by reading different sources, one begins to abstract and see different themes and patterns.

For authors just look if they have published peer-reviewed papers and how often they are cited, or what their experience is (for example a journalist that was based in a foreign country for 2 decades could write just as well about an event as a historian might, but from a different point of view).

And for books I'd look at Wikipedia. For most popular books there is usually a Wikipedia page with a section that aggregates the book's reception by scholars with sources. For example:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sapiens:_A_Brief_History_of_Humankind#Reception

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_War_for_Civilisation#Reviews

I’d stick to the websites of reputable institutions. For example, if you want diet advice, try the American Heart Association’s website. That will summarize the current state of the research in a format accessible to the general population.

Anyone writing books is making a living by selling something.

Self-help books are usually out there to make money, rather than to inform. Textbooks or published research would have more up-to-date and accepted knowledge.

I'd caution trying to get super knowledgeable about something you don't need to as well. Some things, like eating healthy, are actually quite simple and would take a few sentences to explain about counting calories, and hitting macros. What use would more information be after that? You follow the basics, you're healthy. Unless you're trying to apply this in a professional setting where it's part of your job to stay up to date on the most recent research, you might be using these books as a way to feel like you're making progress on a goal.

Similar for fitness, there's really some basic advice you can get from a place like the CDC or WHO on exercise.

Psychology really can be a minefield - you aren't out there getting your doctorate, you aren't going to be practicing, so what are you trying to learn? How to make friends?

So yeah, while research and textbooks will provide up to date, or comprehensive knowledge, be aware you might not even need that much. And if you do need that much, well, you should already have those resources available from your university or employer. Other than that, self-help is helping their self to your money with repackaged basic info you can find online.

Addendum to other's posts: Published work that entertains people is not the most informative, correct, or even truthful. You see this phenomenon on YouTube with finance "influencers". They'll peddle all these wild investments, crypto scams, and personal seminars to make money. Don't confuse popular entertainment with information.

The sad reality is that a Get Rich title with the words "Make more, spend less, invest the difference" would be one boring, mostly empty page. A Gain Weight book would have no market and a "Lose Weight" book would be "Calories in, calories out, take care of eating disorders."

Open Textbooks

Free courses from Stanford, Yale, or Harvard

I’d be fairly cautious about using popular reception as a metric in this case, books which appear to be a breezy, comprehensive take on a given subject(“Guns, Germs and Steel”,”Sapiens”,”Zealot” and the like) tend to be very well received popularly but largely derided by subject matter experts. I would generally recommend either an academic in the field you’re interested in who also writes popular texts(a Bart Ehrman or Irving Finkle for example) or else just find an online community of scholars in the field you’re interested in and ask what their recommendations for a layperson delving into the field is.

Sorry I don’t have any more specific recs for you, nutritional science isn’t really one of my areas of interest.

Find out if their research is peer reviewed

For general introduction to any subject, I use 2 resources. Wikipedia and Dummies. Both are relatively well sourced and checked, and good general overviews on a subject.

Reading either gives you an overview on how the subject operates, and what it's specialities are.

Neither are perfect.

Once you have done reading them, looked at the sources, understood how they fit in with other subjects you may know and the timelines of knowledge, then its time to deep dive or move on.

​

However, at least by now you have an understanding, not only of the questions to ask, but also the terminology specific to the subject. Those questions, and that terminology can lead you to other sources, that either Wiki or Dummies both can lead you to.

You comment wanting to know if K12 can increase the uptake of carbs.

By this point you are so deep into a subject that the only source, is either specialists you can contact, or Google Scholar articles.

​

I was in debate with someone recently who I disagreed with. The linked me to an NIH published scientific article that proved their point. I had no choice but to accept that the conclusions of the article where based upon the methodology of the research.
However, I pointed out several fundamental flaws with the research and methodology and so I could not accept that paper as the be all and end all, and that is where your bias experience comes in.

​

Vaccines are 'settled' science, in we understand the aim of what they do, what we see on how the human body interacts with them, and the resulting benefits, but there is no guarantee that the use of them will be exactly the same in 10 or 100 years. Our ability to peer into biology improves everyday and there may come a time when we understand that the conceptual idea we hold today, does not ring true in the future.

Climate change is a political term for what is considered Anthropogenic climate modification. It's 'settled' science, we have measured co2 and other gas emissions in the past, seen how the climate reacted then, and make predictions based on our current emissions and see if those predictions match current conditions.

Is this settled status going to change, absolutely, it has between COP 1 and the latest (primarily due to political pressure). Is it going away, no, is it going to modify in the future, yes.

All you can do, unless you are looking to be a specialist, is understand how we come to the conclusions that make 'settled' science settled.

​

As a bit of a geek, I love popsci books, but reading the one star reviews on good reads and Amazon can be very enlightening, that most publications miss or get wrong what some people consider fundamental problems in what is supposed to be covered.

Searching the references indicated in these negative reviews can also help you understand if the person leaving the bad review knows what they are talking about, or unfortunately has some political reason for doing so.

​

I recently purchased the 'New York Public Library - Science Desk Reference' (978-0028604039) as a broad overview of scientific theory and facts and the interrelated nature of information. I would consider this to be a well researched and upstanding publication, printed in 1995.

But the science has moved on, and even to an untrained eye there are fundamental glaring issues not with the copy, but based upon our 30 year updated understanding of our reality, and this was at the time probably close to the best of the best book.

​

No book can ever be perfect, no one can know all. Science changes, knowledge changes, philologia is all there can be.

I assume from the subject matter your interested in that you are trying to lose weight. Well your in luck. The diet industry is a multi billion dollar industry, everyone has a book out to take your money. I have the answer for you for free. Ready? Eat less, exercise more. That’s it. How am I an expert?? I have lost 30 lbs and well on my way to losing 30 more. I have read all (well most of) the books written by drs and nutritionist. And it all comes down to eat less exercise more. If you want specifics DM me.

they're all bullshit, don't read books like that