This article summarizes a recent research study comparing the long-term effects of three popular diets: low carbohydrate (Atkins style, unlimited meat and fatty foods), Mediterranean (high in olive oils, whole-grains, fruit, wine), and low fat (conventional American Heart Association diet). This study was done to fill in missing information about these different diets, specifically whether one was better than another for weight loss and to examine whether the non-conventional low carbohydrate and Mediterranean diets are safe. Previously, safety was a particular concern among the medical community as it was thought that weight loss resulting from non-conventional diets might be at the expense of increase heart disease risk. This is a 5-star article. Accurate, balanced, reliable, and well written.
We wish the story would have at least mentioned whether there were any cost differences among the three diets. Was there a cost to the workplace cafeterias to offer these diets in the specialized manner in which they delivered them? We also wish the story had mentioned whether the study subjects had to pay, or were paid, to participate (a criticism of another diet study).
This article does a very good job of documenting the absolute and relative benefits of each of the three diets. Also see Evidence comments.
This article addressed the safety issue of of the three diets, which was a main outcome of the research study. There had been concern among medical and health professionals that low carbohydrate diets like the Atkins Diet, which allow large amounts of meat and cheese, could cause harmful increases in LDL ("bad cholesterol") and increase the risk of heart disease. An important message of this article is that alternative dietary approaches can be safe and beneficial to reduce serious health risk of overweight and obesity.
This article receives high marks for accurate presentation of medical evidence. This article devoted enough space to adequately cover the study methodology, e.g. the study setting, participant characteristics, calories and composition of each of the three diets, etc., which is not always provided in the such stories. This article did a thorough job in presenting detailed results of the three diets for several outcomes in addition to weight loss: blood lipid profiles (LDL "bad cholesterol", HDL "good cholesterol", triglycerides), blood sugar levels, and adherence to the diets.
This article article does not pander to popular fad diets. Obesity is a significant health problem that has reached epidemic proportions among all segment of the population. Current dietary guidelines do not appear to be helping Americans maintain a healthy body weight.
This study accurately summarized the results of the New England Journal of Medicine article on weight loss with three popular diets. This article provided a good balance of commentary by independent experts representing alternative opinions and interpretation of the results.
This article concludes with the bottom line for weight loss, cutting calories and exercising are the key, regardless of the type of diet.
The three popular diet plans discussed in this article are widely available and have been used by thousand of people in the U.S. and elsewhere. This article does due diligence in pointing out that the dieters in the study received support in the workplace to help them stick to their diets. In addition, the study dieters had the advantages of purchasing meals in their work cafeteria with color-coded menu information corresponding to their diet requirements.
These diets are not new or novel and are not presented as such in this article. This article is clear that the new information being presented is the comparison of health benefits.
Because of the number of sources and perspectives represented, it’s safe to assume this story did not rely solely or largely on a news release.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
I miss @HealthNewsRevu popping up in my feed. Loved seeing this one today.
https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2021/06/zombie-health-care-news/
#healthcare #journalism #ethics #conflictofinterest
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
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