NOTE TO READERS: When this project lost substantial funding at the end of 2018, I lost the ability to continue publishing criteria-driven news story reviews and PR news release reviews - once the bread-and-butter of the site going back to 2006. The 3,200 archived reviews, while still educational, are getting old and difficult for me to technically maintain on the back end of the website. So I am announcing that I plan to remove these reviews from the site by April 1, 2021. The blog and the toolkit - two of the most popular features on the site - will remain. If you wish to peruse the reviews before they disappear, please do so by the end of March 2021. After that date you may still be able to access them via the Internet Archive Wayback Machine - https://archive.org/web/.
Read Original Story

Low-Fat Diet Does Not Cut Health Risks, Study Finds

Rating

3 Star

Low-Fat Diet Does Not Cut Health Risks, Study Finds

Our Review Summary

This story covers another finding from the Women’s Health Initiative study – this one questioning the impact of low-fat diets on heart disease. The story fails to adequately present the results of the study and what those results mean. Instead, the personal opinions of a variety of scientists are presented with little context for understanding their perspectives. We are told that this study is “likely to be the final word” and that the “overall message is clear” along with “the diet studied turned out not to be protective at all” and “that it doesn’t say this diet is not beneficial.” It is unfortunate that the quotes used focused more on personal beliefs than on evaluation of the evidence.

Criteria

Does the story adequately quantify the benefits of the treatment/test/product/procedure?

Not Satisfactory

Absolute rates of breast cancer seen in the study are presented but not those for cardiovascular disease or colorectal cancer rates.

Does the story adequately explain/quantify the harms of the intervention?

Satisfactory

The story includes many questions about whether a low-fat diet is worth the trouble.

Does the story seem to grasp the quality of the evidence?

Not Satisfactory

This article did not adequately deal with the actual data in the studies. The story should have pointed out that small changes in diet (which didn”t significantly improve levels of overweight or obesity, CVD risk factors such as cholesterol levels or blood pressure), in a population that had lower than expected rates for the diseases studied don”t change the rates of heart disease, breast cancer or colorectal cancer.

Does the story use independent sources and identify conflicts of interest?

Satisfactory

Scientists with a variety of different perspectives and interests are quoted. It is unfortunate that the quotes used focused more on personal beliefs than on evaluation of the evidence.

Does the story compare the new approach with existing alternatives?

Not Satisfactory

This article failed to provide context for the study diet in terms of typical diet, intended study diet, and actual study diet. Mention is made that there is more recent evidence suggesting that not all fats contribute equally to cardiovascular disease risk. Failed to mention caloric intake limitation for managing weight as an alternative to solely targeting fat consumption.

Does the story establish the availability of the treatment/test/product/procedure?

Not Satisfactory

The story failed to point out how the study goals were different than the existing FDA dietary guidelines. FDA calls for percentage of calories from fat (20-35%) with saturated fat (< 10%) and trans fats (limited intake) as compared to the study goals of less than 20% of calories from fat with no target set for either saturated or trans fats. Why were the study goals different than federal agency guidelines? The audience should be told.

Does the story appear to rely solely or largely on a news release?

Satisfactory

There is no evidence that this story relied solely or largely on a news release.

Total Score: 5 of 9 Satisfactory

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.