Say “chocolate” or “flavanols” and watch journalists leap with a Pavlovian response.
“A cocoa drink rich in flavanols — the same antioxidants found in chocolate — may help people with mild memory problems improve their brain function, according to Italian researchers….
About 40 percent of the improved mental scores were the result of lowered insulin resistance seen in the higher-flavanol groups, the study said.”
Whoa. No explanation was given for how 40% of the improved scores could be attributable to anything.
CBS News had this silly lead: “Move over apple a day: Could eating a daily dose of chocolate be the key to a healthy brain?”
ABC News’ headline wasn’t any better: “Chocolate Good for Heart and Soul and May Improve Minds.”
MedPageToday included some important details many stories left out:
The study was limited because its short time-frame didn’t allow for conclusions about the extent of cognitive benefits and their duration. Nor can it establish whether the observed benefits are a consequence of the cocoa itself or a secondary effect related to general improvements in cardiovascular function or health. Also, participants were in good health overall and without known cardiovascular disease, so the population may be representative of all subjects with MCI.
…
The study was supported by a grant from Mars, Inc., which supplied the standardized powdered cocoa drinks used in the study.
A co-author is an employee of Mars, Inc.
The Sacramento Bee – in what is apparently a growing trend among some newspaper websites – just posted a Mars news release.
Opinions on other issues in news, journals, PR, advertising, marketing
Monday at #ADA2021, an infectious disease epidemiologist, a journalist, and a researcher shared perspectives on communication of risk in the era of COVID-19: http://ow.ly/ROfR30rMeE7 @AstleyCM @garyschwitzer @berthahidalgo @ADA_DiabetesPro
Shoutouts to @susan_bewley @drkevinknopf @MichaelBaum11 in this call for more than fawning coverage from press releases for these kinds of stories.
Also, linked history inside goes back 5 years just on Grail apparently trying to become Holy Grail. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1408849696416841731
Comments
Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.
Dan Pendick
August 21, 2012 at 11:00 pmGary, good piece as always, but the HealthDay story actually has some nice critical perspective commentary on the research by Sam Gandy. Does this not deserve the spotlight, along with “silly” headlines?
And about that “silly” headline: The headline isn’t the story, and evaluating it as such seems unfair and perhaps a bit petty.
Gary Schwitzer
August 22, 2012 at 7:53 amDan,
Thanks for your note, but you apparently misread what I wrote.
I didn’t say anything about HealthDay’s headline. I wrote about an evidentiary claim that needed explanation while none was provided.
And as a journalist, I disagree that evaluating headlines is petty and unfair. It is part of the story, the lure of the story, the top of the story. It’s there for a reason and demands scrutiny. Many solid stories are undercut by silly headlines. Why shouldn’t they be improved?
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