HealthNewsReview.org | Independent Expert Reviews of News Stories | Holding Health and Medical Journalism Accountable |
|
|
Study fuels low-fat vs. low-carb debate
July 17, 2008
This article summarizes a recent research study comparing the long-term effects of three popular diets. It was accurate, balanced, reliable, and well written.
Our Review Summary
This article summarizes a recent research study comparing the long-term effects of three popular diets: low carbohydrate (Atkins style, unlimited meat and fatty foods), Mediterranean (high in olive oils, whole-grains, fruit, wine), and low fat (conventional American Heart Association diet). This study was done to fill in missing information about these different diets, specifically whether one was better than another for weight loss and to examine whether the non-conventional low carbohydrate and Mediterranean diets are safe. Previously, safety was a particular concern among the medical community as it was thought that weight loss resulting from non-conventional diets might be at the expense of increase heart disease risk. This is a 5-star article. Accurate, balanced, reliable, and well written.
Click on Criteria for definitions.
The three popular diet plans discussed in this article are widely available and have been used by thousand of people in the U.S. and elsewhere. This article does due diligence in pointing out that the dieters in the study received support in the workplace to help them stick to their diets. In addition, the study dieters had the advantages of purchasing meals in their work cafeteria with color-coded menu information corresponding to their diet requirements.
We wish the story would have at least mentioned whether there were any cost differences among the three diets. Was there a cost to the workplace cafeterias to offer these diets in the specialized manner in which they delivered them? We also wish the story had mentioned whether the study subjects had to pay, or were paid, to participate (a criticism of another diet study).
This article article does not pander to popular fad diets. Obesity is a significant health problem that has reached epidemic proportions among all segment of the population. Current dietary guidelines do not appear to be helping Americans maintain a healthy body weight.
This article receives high marks for accurate presentation of medical evidence. This article devoted enough space to adequately cover the study methodology, e.g. the study setting, participant characteristics, calories and composition of each of the three diets, etc., which is not always provided in the such stories. This article did a thorough job in presenting detailed results of the three diets for several outcomes in addition to weight loss: blood lipid profiles (LDL "bad cholesterol", HDL "good cholesterol", triglycerides), blood sugar levels, and adherence to the diets.
This article addressed the safety issue of of the three diets, which was a main outcome of the research study. There had been concern among medical and health professionals that low carbohydrate diets like the Atkins Diet, which allow large amounts of meat and cheese, could cause harmful increases in LDL ("bad cholesterol") and increase the risk of heart disease. An important message of this article is that alternative dietary approaches can be safe and beneficial to reduce serious health risk of overweight and obesity.
These diets are not new or novel and are not presented as such in this article. This article is clear that the new information being presented is the comparison of health benefits.
This article does a very good job of documenting the absolute and relative benefits of each of the three diets. Also see Evidence comments.
Because of the number of sources and perspectives represented, it's safe to assume this story did not rely solely or largely on a news release.
This study accurately summarized the results of the New England Journal of Medicine article on weight loss with three popular diets. This article provided a good balance of commentary by independent experts representing alternative opinions and interpretation of the results.
This article concludes with the bottom line for weight loss, cutting calories and exercising are the key, regardless of the type of diet.
Total Score: 9 of 10 Satisfactory
The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force is considered the gold standard of preventive health recommendations - including on screening tests. It's a good source for journalists and consumers.
About 70% of the stories reviewed from 2006-9 failed to adequately discuss costs, or to explain how big (or small) are the potential benefits and harms of treatments, tests, products and procedures.
We have documented a disturbing trend of news stories taking an advocacy stance, promoting certain screening tests outside the boundaries of scientific evidence.
Stories on new technologies like Cyberknife, DaVinci robotic surgery systems, and proton beam cancer therapy often fail to scrutinize the evidence and/or to discuss the costs involved.
Rather than suggesting that everyone should be screened for everything, news stories could explain: "All screening tests cause harm; some may do good."
The first 38 network TV network morning health news stories reviewed in 2009 earned an average score of 1.2 stars. 13 of the 38 stories got ZERO stars.
Both TIME magazine and BusinessWeek have published terrific stories explaining the importance of the Number Needed to Treat - or NNT.
Knowing relative risk reduction is like knowing you have a 50% off coupon but not knowing whether it's for a Lexus or a lollipop. Absolute risk reduction tells you what the "coupon" is worth. Read more.
The website NoFreeLunch.org posts "a database of health care professionals who have pledged to accept no gifts from industry and to rely on non-promotional sources of information."
To help journalists cover stories responsibly, we post a list of independent experts who state that they do not have financial ties to drug or medical device manufacturers.
We apply the same ten standardized criteria to the review of every story.
We have about 30 story reviewers. Each story is reviewed by 3 different people.
Gary Schwitzer's seven words you shouldn't use in medical news: cure, miracle, breakthrough, promising, dramatic, hope, victim. Read why.
Our reviewers include two former CNN medical reporters and a former editor of the Washington Post health section.