Dr. Yoni Freedhoff, self-described as founder of “a multi-disciplinary, ethical, evidence-based nutrition and weight management centre,” is also an active blogger. (An editor of the BMJ reacted on my blog to Freedhoff’s piece from last week about a white rice & diabetes study. See the exchange of comments at the end of the piece.)
His latest is: “What Reading That Eat Chocolate be Thinner Article Actually Told Me.”
Quicker than a candy bar can melt, he got to the point:
It told me that the University of California in San Diego’s PR department is beyond shameless, and that the Archives of Internal Medicine will publish pretty much anything.
You can go to his blog to see how he dismantled the UCSD news release. But here’s his summary about the study:
“Basically here we have a study with no controls whatsoever rendering conclusions impossible, authors who rather than mention their study’s pretty much insurmountable methodological limitations instead made up a “growing body of literature” on magic calorie neutral or negative foods, a press release that spins it all as fact and as a result, as of early this morning, less than 24 hours after publication, there were already 423 chocolate makes you thin stories on the newswire to further misinform an already nutritionally confused world.
Once again I’m left scratching my head trying to understand how this could possibly have made it to – let alone passed – peer review, and why it is that ethics and accuracy don’t seem to matter to the folks who write press releases, or to the respected researchers who are drawing these unbelievably irresponsible and over-reaching conclusions despite undoubtedly knowing better. It also makes me wonder just how exactly they all manage to sleep at night.
[Even more amazing? This study was NOT funded by the chocolate industry]”
See how often you can find that kind of analysis in any of these news stories:
The Wall Street Journal – quoting the lead researcher saying “It’s my favorite vegetable.”
The New York Times, reporting “Chocolate may not be as hazardous to your waistline as you think — at least in moderation.”
USA Today at least noted, “The study was observational, meaning it analyzed data based on how much chocolate people said they ate, rather than a controlled trial in which some people are given chocolate and compared with others who did not get chocolate.”
Reuters included this independent expert’s perspective: “Because the new study is relatively small and couldn’t prove cause-and-effect, it’s hard to take any lessons from the findings.”
The Boston Globe at least reflected uncertainty in its headline: “Can chocolate help you lose weight? Study says yes, but evidence is uncertain.”
NPR also offered caveats: “this study certainly does not prove that frequent chocolate consumption causes people to be leaner.”
Huffington Post posted: “Dr. David Katz, founding director of Yale University’s Prevention Research Center and a blogger with The Huffington Post, said that attempting to establish a causal relationship from a cross-sectional study would be “informed guessing at best.”
HealthDay allowed the lead researcher to say that the findings “reduce any possible guilt that might come with chocolate consumption.” (Huh?)
WebMD’s story started with fluff: Eat More Chocolate, Weigh Less? in the headline. Followed by the lede line: “People who are trying to lose weight may not need to bar chocolate from their diets.
Comments (2)
Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.
P S Reynolds
April 9, 2012 at 3:05 pmJust in: The same Arch. Int. Med. article “More Intake of Chocolate May Yield Lower Body Mass Index” appropriately rubbished by Dr. Freedhoff, is actually being offered up for CME/CE credits by Medscape Education Clinical Briefs today (April 9th 2012). Depressingly this is not a one-off – lots of poorly designed observation studies are offered up on a weekly bases for “educational” purposes.
Our Comments Policy
But before leaving a comment, please review these notes about our policy.
You are responsible for any comments you leave on this site.
This site is primarily a forum for discussion about the quality (or lack thereof) in journalism or other media messages (advertising, marketing, public relations, medical journals, etc.) It is not intended to be a forum for definitive discussions about medicine or science.
We will delete comments that include personal attacks, unfounded allegations, unverified claims, product pitches, profanity or any from anyone who does not list a full name and a functioning email address. We will also end any thread of repetitive comments. We don”t give medical advice so we won”t respond to questions asking for it.
We don”t have sufficient staffing to contact each commenter who left such a message. If you have a question about why your comment was edited or removed, you can email us at feedback@healthnewsreview.org.
There has been a recent burst of attention to troubles with many comments left on science and science news/communication websites. Read “Online science comments: trolls, trash and treasure.”
The authors of the Retraction Watch comments policy urge commenters:
We”re also concerned about anonymous comments. We ask that all commenters leave their full name and provide an actual email address in case we feel we need to contact them. We may delete any comment left by someone who does not leave their name and a legitimate email address.
And, as noted, product pitches of any sort – pushing treatments, tests, products, procedures, physicians, medical centers, books, websites – are likely to be deleted. We don”t accept advertising on this site and are not going to give it away free.
The ability to leave comments expires after a certain period of time. So you may find that you’re unable to leave a comment on an article that is more than a few months old.
You might also like