The news release is a recap of a recent journal article published in the journal Neurology, and reports that older adults who eat seafood at least once per week saw slower declines in two specific cognitive areas (semantic memory and perceptual speed) than older adults who eat less than one serving of seafood per week. The release provides a good measured overview of the study but does not quantify the benefits or address the limitations of the study.
Most people plan on aging; it happens whether we like it or not. And many people have experiences with loved ones whose cognitive abilities — such as memory — have declined with age. In short, issues regarding cognitive decline associated with aging are relevant to almost everyone. Research that offers simple steps that could slow memory loss are, therefore, of widespread interest. For the same reason, it’s important to approach these simple solutions with caution. How much does it slow loss, for example? That’s not clear from the release, and yet it’s likely the most pertinent question for many readers.
Cost isn’t discussed. And because it’s about a widely-consumed food that is a staple for many diets, we’ll rate it not applicable. However, it’s worth noting that seafood can be more expensive than many other types of food. What’s more, since the story discusses seafood primarily as a vehicle for omega-3 fatty acids, cost becomes even more of an issue. And when it comes to omega-3 fatty acids, not all seafood is created equal. Salmon, for example, has a lot more omega-3 fatty acids than a similar serving size of catfish — but it’s also a lot more expensive. There is also the issue of accessibility. People living in so-called “food deserts,” which are often found in socioeconomically challenged areas, may have difficulty even reaching stores or restaurants that sell seafood.
Benefits are discussed using only vague language. For example: “age-related memory loss and thinking problems of participants in the study who reported eating seafood less than once a week declined more rapidly compared to those who ate at least one seafood meal per week.” How much more rapidly? Or: “People who ate more seafood had reduced rates of decline in the semantic memory, which is memory of verbal information. They also had slower rates of decline in a test of perceptual speed, or the ability to quickly compare letters, objects and patterns.” But how much less decline was there of semantic memory? And how much slower was the decline in regard to perceptual speed? The release doesn’t tell us.
It would have been helpful for the news release to present the raw numbers relating to cognitive decline in each group and to provide some context to help readers understand their significance (such as “performance on the semantic memory test dropped by X amount in this group and Y in the other group,” for example).
The study population in this specific study was made up of older adults (mean age of 81.4 years old). There are few, if any, risks associated with eating one seafood meal per week for older adults. However, the release might have warned that both the FDA and the EPA, while encouraging pregnant and breastfeeding women to consume two to three servings of fish weekly, now recommend that they choose fish that is low in mercury (which include salmon, shrimp, pollock, tuna (light canned), tilapia, catfish, and cod).
The news release does a good job of explaining the size and design of the study. However, it doesn’t point out that the study is observational which means it doesn’t show there is a cause and effect between seafood consumption and cognitive decline. In some instances the release uses active verbs: “may protect,” “may slow” which imply causality that isn’t proven in observational studies.
The release would also have been stronger if it had addressed the study’s limitations. For example, data on the diet of study participants was collected via an annual questionnaire completed by study participants. This presents two challenges. First, it relies on the memory of the study participants, which introduces significant room for reporting errors. Second, the questionnaire categories are extremely broad (e.g., “fish sticks, fish cakes and fish sandwiches” and “fresh fish as a main dish”). These broad categories are problematic because eating a salmon filet and eating a serving of popcorn shrimp are given the same weight, even though they are nutritionally dissimilar. Also, while the release tells readers the number of study participants (951), it doesn’t offer readers any insight into whether that’s a big number or a small one. As the Neurology paper itself notes: “Another limitation of the study is the relatively small sample size to detect modest associations within subgroups.”
The opening paragraph talks about protecting against “thinking problems.” Readers could be excused if they translate “thinking problems” to mean senility or dementia. But the story quickly notes that “cognitive abilities naturally decline as part of the normal aging process” — and that’s what we wanted to see. This study was about slowing that normal decline, not addressing specific medical conditions such as Alzheimer’s disease.
The story clearly and prominently lists the sources of funding for the work, and there are no apparent conflicts of interest.
The story says that “researchers adjusted for other factors that could affect memory and thinking skills, such as education, physical activity, smoking and participating in mentally stimulating activities.” It doesn’t tell us which are potentially good (and which are bad), but it’s sufficient for a Satisfactory rating.
The release would have been stronger if it had addressed the question (probably on some on readers’ minds) about whether fatty acid supplements could possibly have the same effect that the researchers observed with seafood consumption. These supplements are widely used, not to mention costly, so this may have been worth including.
People have been eating fish for rather a long time, so we’ll rate this Not Applicable.
The story states that: “While epidemiologic studies have shown the importance of seafood and omega-3 fatty acids in preventing dementia, few prior studies have examined their associations with specific types of cognitive ability.” That gets it a satisfactory rating. However, it’s worth noting that the story does not get to the novel aspect of the findings — the “associations with specific types of cognitive ability” — until the sixth paragraph. If that’s what’s new in the news, one wonders why it wasn’t addressed higher.
This is a close one, but mainly because of the headline. Declines in semantic memory and perceptual speed weren’t prevented, or even postponed, they were simply slowed down. That said, we’ll give the release the benefit of the doubt. The body of the release used language that was measured and appropriate.
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