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

For Lower Blood Pressure, Low-Carb Diet May Be Best

Rating

3 Star

For Lower Blood Pressure, Low-Carb Diet May Be Best

Our Review Summary

This story did a pretty good job of explaining what happened in a study comparing a low-carb diet to a low-fat diet plus the weight loss medication orlistat. Although the coverage had some holes, HealthDay earns points for not simply reprinting the Duke University press release on this study, which is what WebMD seems largely to have done. The extra effort paid off in the form of more balanced quotes from one of the study researchers and some important context-setting perspective from an independent source.

 

Why This Matters

The diet wars have been going on for decades, if not centuries, and don’t seem to be going away any time soon. This issue particularly important because modest weight loss can improve hypertension, a major risk factor for cardiovacular disease, the number one cause of death in both men & women in the US.

Criteria

Does the story adequately discuss the costs of the intervention?

Not Satisfactory

The story does not mention the costs of the medication used in the low-fat diet group. Including this information would have helped readers make a more informed comparison of the two approaches.  

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

Satisfactory

The story gives a reasonable overview of the effects of the two interventions on a variety of different markers associated with health. Although it earns points for noting the absolute reduction in blood pressures and not just providing them as a percentage, it should have provided the weight loss in similar terms of actual pounds or kilograms lost instead of as a percentage of bodyweight.
  

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

Not Satisfactory

The story does not mention any of the known adverse effects of orlistat, which include gastrointestinal upset that can limit the drug’s tolerability. It could also have mentioned some of the concerns (such as potential for nutrient deficiencies) that many health professionals have about diets that are high in meat and protein and very low in carbohydrate.

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

Satisfactory

The story does a pretty good job of explaining the basic study design and what changes the researchers observed in the two groups. However, it could have done more to tell us about the diets that produced these changes. The major problem with most diet plans is that people can’t stick with them over time. The story provides no information regarding how many people dropped out of the study in each group, which would be an important measure of how easy these diets are to follow for the typical consumer. In addition, the story states that participants were "assigned" to a low-carb or low-fat diet, but says next to nothing about what participants actually ate during the study.

Does the story commit disease-mongering?

Satisfactory

The story does not exaggerate the prevalence of obesity or its consequences.

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

Not Satisfactory

The story did not mention that two of the researchers on the study have received funding from the Robert C. Atkins Foundation, which promotes research on low-carb diets and is associated with the Atkins diet books and products. The story did include comments from an independent dietitian, which is a strength, but this isn’t enough to overcome the omission.

Does the story compare the new approach with existing alternatives?

Not Satisfactory

Given the story’s focus on blood pressure, it should have mentioned how the results of this study might compare to treatment with blood pressure medication.

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

Satisfactory

The story states that orlistat is available via prescription as Xenical and over the counter as Alli. The availability of the low-carb and low-fat diet options is not in question.

Does the story establish the true novelty of the approach?

Satisfactory

Neither the diets nor the medication discussed in the story are new, and the story does not suggest that they are.

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

Satisfactory

The story quotes two sources, including one of the researchers on the study and an independent expert. The content of the story does not appear to be lifted from the press release put out by Duke University about the study. 

Total Score: 6 of 10 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.