Take a look at the headline and subheading of this news release, because the former is very misleading, and the latter comes closer to the truth:
Headline: ‘Can’t exercise? A hot bath may help improve inflammation, metabolism, study suggest’
Sub-head: ‘Hot-water immersion improved inflammatory markers and blood sugar in overweight men’
The subheading is a fairly good summary of the study.
But the “Can’t exercise? …” headline promises much more than this small study can support. The research question? How does hot water immersion — that is, ten 1-hour soaks at 102ºF over two weeks — affect metabolic and inflammatory biomarkers in the blood of 10 overweight and sedentary men. The answer? Some mild, transient changes were noted that could theoretically be beneficial.
Just because exercise has been shown to transiently increase inflammatory markers and decrease blood sugar, and hot water immersion does the same thing, doesn’t mean that the latter might substitute for the former.
Furthermore, the research into the relationship between inflammation and sugar/insulin levels is mostly in rodents, and extrapolating these benefits to humans is unrealistic.
Yes, exercise can temporarily trigger an anti-inflammatory response at the molecular level, as well as decrease sugar/insulin levels. This study suggests repeated, lengthy hot water immersion can do the same thing in 10 overweight men. But that hardly means the two interventions are comparable in any way, or that these blood changes have any meaningful or sustainable clinical benefits.
Cost isn’t really applicable here; but it’s important to point out that probably the best way to access a hot water source that consistently stays around 102ºF would be a hot tub, and that would involve cost for most people.
This is a major weakness of the release. We’re told that hot water immersion (60 minutes, daily at 102ºF) elevated levels of:
This is nebulous, if not unhelpful language, that suggests (unquantified) benefits that are hard to make sense of. Furthermore, it’s mentioned 10 soaks over 14 days led to:
“a reduction of fasting blood sugar and insulin levels as well as improved low-grade inflammation at rest.”
Both diabetics and non-diabetics alike would appropriately ask, “really? By how much? For how long?” But that information is not provided.
Nor is any context provided for readers wondering how changes in metabolic and inflammatory biomarkers translate into noticeable or measurable clinical effects that matter to them.
Harms are not mentioned.
Anyone who owns a hot tub, or uses a public bath, is likely familiar with warnings regarding who might want to consult their physician before using one.
Prolonged exposure to hot water can lead to increased heart rate, decreased blood pressure, and dehydration … all of which may be ill-advised for some heart patients and pregnant women.
The study was extremely small (10 volunteers), short (2 weeks), and because the subjects were only men who were obese or inactive, probably not applicable to the general public. This wasn’t mentioned.
Nor is it mentioned that most of the existing research on the relationship between inflammatory biomarkers and glucose/insulin levels — which is strongly touted in this release — is based on animal models.
That should have been clarified since the headline of this news release suggests human benefits. That’s speculative at best, and at worst misleading.
No overt disease mongering but there’s an inappropriate and baseless implication that those who are unable to exercise — or are obese or sedentary — have problems with blood sugar or ‘inflammation’; and that those two problems are likely related. That’s just not the case and misleading enough to warrant an unsatisfactory rating here.
Funding is not mentioned.
A review of the published article doesn’t suggest conflicts of interest among the researchers.
Alternatives to what?
If the gist of this release is that overweight and sedentary men can’t exercise (and hot water immersion might be a good replacement), then this news release never should have been published because the premise and conclusion are both erroneous.
But if the gist is that there ARE people — such as those who are frail, disabled, or paralyzed — who might benefit from an intervention that offers the benefits from exercise they can’t do, then this news release is misleading.
Because all this study shows is that hot water immersion changes some metabolic and inflammatory biomarkers. Yes, exercise can do that too, but the real benefits and sustainability of these blood changes remain unproven.
Not applicable … see “Costs” above.
The exact results of this small human study are new but many researchers have been working on theories and rodent studies regarding heat therapy and chronic inflammatory diseases. Much of this was summarized by Ely et al in 2017 in the journal Temperature, “Meta-inflammation and cardiometabolic disease in obesity: Can heat therapy help?“
The headline is both unjustified and inappropriate. First of all, most people don’t bathe for one-hour straight in a bath locked in at 102º F.
Second, a study of 10 men over 2 weeks can’t draw any conclusions regarding inflammation and metabolism.
Finally, what’s inappropriate here is that there are plenty of people physically incapable of conventional exercise; why lead with the enticement of “Can’t exercise?” when the referenced study offers no proof that the hot water immersion offers the benefits of exercise?
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
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.
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