This news release summarizes a meta-analysis of studies measuring the cholesterol-lowering properties of barley. The analysis found that barley consumption was associated with lower cholesterol but its effectiveness in reducing risk for cardiovascular disease (CVD) is implied, not proven. The release would have been much stronger had it quantified benefits and been more descriptive of what the research actually found: that barley can modify various cholesterol levels, but whether this contributes to lower CVD risk is still an open question.
This is important research that is essentially gathering together (and meta-analyzing) randomized trials that examine the cholesterol-lowering potential of barley β-glucan on low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (non-HDL-C) and apolipoprotein B (apoB). Since modifications of these cholesterol markers may contribute to CVD risk reduction, they are worth studying. It is important, however, that dietary or nutritional studies include appropriate caveats, and not claim effects that are not seen in the research.
Barley, like oats or other grains are cheap and plentiful. Mentioning their cost in the story is unlikely to be an important factor.
There was no quantification of benefits. You have to go back to the original study to learn this: “A median dose of 6.5 and 6.9 g/day of barley β-glucan for a median duration of 4 weeks significantly reduced LDL-C (MD = − 0.25 mmol/l (95% CI: − 0.30, − 0.20)) and non-HDL-C (MD = − 0.31 mmol/l (95% CI: − 0.39, − 0.23)), respectively, with no significant changes to apoB levels, compared with control diets.” It would have been nice to have had these reductions contextualized in a form that makes sense to the readers.
There are unlikely to be harms for most people if they increased their barley consumption, but upping their daily intake could also lead to gastrointestinal problems in some people. The recommended daily consumption of barley in Canada is 3 grams but the study recommends that it be increased to 6.5 to 7 grams daily. People diagnosed with Celiac disease have most likely already been advised that consuming barley (as well as other foods containing gluten) can cause complications.
The claim here is unsubstantiated: “‘After looking at the evidence, we can also say that barley is comparably effective as oats in reducing overall risk of cardiovascular disease’ said Dr. Vuksan.'”
Were oats compared directly with barley in this meta-analysis? No.
The study in question was a meta-analysis of more than a dozen studies on barley. It was a well conducted meta-analysis with pretty high-level evidence. The release does not mention that and muddies the waters by saying this was the first study of barley on several types of cholesterol. Well, if this is a meta-analysis of 14 studies on this question, how can it be the first?
There’s no mention of funders and financial ties to industry which should always be disclosed as a potential conflict of interest. Several of the researchers involved have financial ties to both trade groups and corporations, according to the published report. For example, one of the authors holds Canadian and U.S. patents on a medical use of viscous fiber for certain health conditions.
The release makes brief mention of barley in comparison to oats. It states that “barley is higher in fibre, has twice the protein and almost half the calories of oats, which are important considerations for those with weight or dietary concerns,” We aren’t provided any quantification of the claim.
The release also skipped over some of the other common ways there are to lower cholesterol including medications, exercise, other foods and dietary supplements, and weight loss.
We learn that barley is everywhere, readily available and ready to add to your food.
We don’t think the release established the novelty of the research in the manner it’s claimed:
“It is the first study to look at the effects of barley and barley products on both LDL and non-HDL cholesterol in addition to apolipoprotein B, or apoB, a lipoprotein that carries bad cholesterol through the blood.”
How could it be the “first study” when it is looking at a group of studies? Is it the first meta-analysis to examine this question? If so, that should be mentioned.
The release doesn’t engage in sensationalist or unjustified language.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
Puleeeeease... this 'game changer' weight loss drug causes more nausea and vomiting than a placebo. Some game, some change. My friend Gary would spank you for using the eighth word medical reporters should never, ever use. @garyschwitzer @thackerpd
https://www.healthnewsreview.org/toolkit/just-journalists-writing-tips-case-studies/7-words-and-more-you-shouldnt-use-in-medical-news/ https://twitter.com/OttawaCitizen/status/1361426796126830597
A scary @statnews Op-Ed warns that govt attempts to rein in Pharma may cut off access to "life-changing" drugs.
It takes @garyschwitzer to let us know: the author spent 10 years as Pfizer's public-policy chief. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1360325022578053123
.@TranspariMED criticizes STAT op-ed for not disclosing pharma funding of author’s institute - similar to criticism we’ve made of STAT op-eds in the past. @transparify @ThinkTankWatch @icer_review https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2021/02/transparency-watchdog-criticizes-stats-non-disclosure-on-pro-pharma-op-ed/
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