Oh, how the publishers of Glamour magazine must love NBC for the free publicity.
The magazine puts seven women through a loose little experiment.
And – based on their experiences – NBC’s medical editor draws conclusions like the projection that they “will probably add about seven years to their life, based on the fact that they figured out good sleep pattern.”
So Glamour got 5.5 minutes of free publicity for its pseudo-science, promoted to the hilt by NBC’s chief medical editor.
The segment even accentuated one of the confounders – that the woman who lost 15 pounds admitted she exercised more and made dietary changes. Yet the segment wanted to attribute all of the weight loss to sleep.
Further adding to the confusion was the on-air discussion of leptin as a “magic hormone” while the on-screen graphic was displaying the name of the hormone ghrelin.
Whatever. The segment put us to…. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.
Cost really doesn’t apply in this case.
The benefits were presented as occurring in 100% of the individuals studied; there was a statement made that the weight loss of the 7 women in the study ranged from 6- 15 pounds.
The medical correspondent also informed the participants that they had added 7 years to their life.
It is unclear that there is actually any scientific data substantiating these claims.
Harms not really applicable in this case.
The segment clearly explained the source of this information. Glamour magazine got a group of 7 women to follow some sleep guidelines. The medical correspondent should have taken the opportunity to help viewers understand the limitations of what can be learned by simply examining the experience of 7 individuals.
This sort of ‘evidence’ does not qualify as an objective investigation of how sleep affects body weight.
In addition, the medical correspondent said that the science about the link between weight and sleep time was ‘concrete’. This is does not provide the viewer with any information about the strength of the research that has been done on this topic. The medical correspondent also added that ‘we know if you get five hours sleep, you end up adding 200 calories to your diet’ without indicating anything about what supports this contention.
63% of Americans don’t get enough sleep – says who?
There was no insight by clinicians working in the field of sleep medicine.
This segment discussed only consecutive hours of sleep. Is this the only format in which individuals can obtain adequate sleep? Are there other things an individual can do that would serve the same function as 7.5 hrs of sleep? We don’t know because the story did not explore whether there might be other options.
Would power naps add to the total?
With exercise, for example, studies have now shown that several small periods of exercise are as good as 30 consecutive minutes. But, in line with our critique overall, this segment just didn’t discuss data-driven evidence.
Availability doesn’t apply in this case.
The segment did not have any information about how long the association between sleep and weight has been under study. Was the viewer supposed to think that Glamour magazine was the first group in the world to tackle this association?
This story was based on a magazine article. It seems more like a plug for the magazine than a serious effort to communicate validated scientific information to the viewers. Not independent journalism – pretty much the same as taking news from 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