Although the story did a good job explaining the diet, the story did not differentiate between an impact on risk factors and an impact on cardiovascular disease itself.
The story also never even mentioned significant questions and uncertainties that exist about the “metabolic syndrome.” Reporting – rather than just reflecting what appeared in a journal article – would have uncovered questions about the definition of, existence of, and utility of a metabolic syndrome.
There was no discussion of how the various diets compare in cost. Diets can vary substantially in costs, and healthier diets tend to cost more than less healthy diets. The potiential impact of dietary changes on diet costs should have been mentioned.
The story fell into a trap that was partially set by the parameters of the study on which it reported. While it is clear that risk factors are improved, it is not clear what the magnitude of the benefit is. The story should have mentioned this issue outright: that the nuts diet may help lower risk factors, but it is unclear from this study how much a person’s risk of cardiovascular disease is reduced by adopting this approach.
The story mentioned that the dietary intervention did not have any impact in terms of weight loss or improving blood sugar levels.
The story did not provide the evidence from the results section of the study clearly. The study clearly shows that the Med nuts diet was successful in reducing the metabolic syndrome; however, the Med olive oil diet was NOT. This is not clearly presented in the story, indeed the story suggests (2nd paragraph) that the Med olive oil study was successful.
The story began with an accurate summary of the benefits that might be obtained, i.e. reducing risk factors rather than reducing disease related outcomes.
Later, there was some warning about the number of people estimated to have ‘Metabolic Syndrome’ which does sound a bit like disease mongering, though the story did not describe much about what, if any, the ramifications were to having ‘metabolic syndrome’.
A scientist who was not involved in this particular study and the study lead author were interviewed for this story. The story would have been improved by obtaining insight from someone outside the field of nutritional epidemiology to comment about what utility the results of the study might have for people.
The story did a good job describing the details of the diet involved in the study reported on. It failed to mention that there are other interventions (dietary, exercise, medication) that have been demonstrated to be effective for making changing in those parameters which are said to define the metabolic syndrome. The story could have mentioned other ways to reduce cardiovascular risk.
The story described the essence of the Mediterranean diet as well as the amount of added nuts used in the study reported on.
The story didn’t say anything about whether it was a novel research question to look at the mixture of nuts and the Mediterranean diet.
It does not appear that the story relied solely or largely on a news release.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
The tale of two “negative” studies. Or, how spin is applied to make research findings look more impressive. A must read. https://johnmandrola.substack.com/p/the-tale-of-two-negative-studies
The @nytimes chose to interview one of the editors of the @AnnalsofIM (publisher of this paper) who "gushed with extraordinary glee: It’s huge! There are very few things that reduce your mortality by 30%."
Turns out coffee is not one of those few things despite all that glee. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1533202075928215558
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