This story does a solid job describing two newish treatments purported to dissolve targeted fat–the Zeltiq cooling system and the Zerona laser. The story manages to deliver the most important facts while maintaining some tongue-in-cheek distance. This is, after all, a purely cosmetic procedure for people bothered more about how their bodies look than their unhealthy lifestyles or disease risks. This cocked-eyebrow approach serves readers well.
Having said that, the story fails in one important way: It should have discussed potential harms. Technologies that claim to have such profound effects on lipid tissues cleary have potential risks, but the story doesn’t explore them. The question for consumers is not merely whether the techniques work–it’s whether they work and without significant risks [aside from wasting money]. The story leaves that important matter unexplored.
It would also have been useful for the story to positively state that there are no known health benefits associated with either technique. It’s easy to imagine people who are overweight showing interest in these techniques in the hope they might benefit their blood pressure, diabetes and heart disease risk and so on. They would likely be sorely disappointed.
The idea of losing visible fat quickly is sufficiently compelling that consumers spend many millions of dollars on treatments ranging from surgical removal of fat to topical creams. With two new technologies with plausible scientific validity entering the spot-fat marketplace, the New York Times provides a useful service by explaining what is known and not known about them.
The story states the price for the Zerona device: $1,700 to $3,800 for six sessions. The price of Zeltiq is also reported but is not as clear: We learn only that one doctor charges "$700 per spot"–but not how many treatments are provided or needed, what constitues as "spot," and so on.
The story duly reports that unpublished research showed Zeltiq resulted in 22 percent body fat loss in targeted areas. It reports that published, funded research showed patients lost an average of 3.5 inches after six sessions of Zerona laser work.
Given the thin body of research, this is adequate reporting of benefits.
The story fails to point out the potential harms of these devices.
The devices claim to be based on scientific principles involving the cellular destruction of lipids and their elimination from the body. This is serious metabolic stuff, presumably with serious potential risks. The story fails to acknowledge this.
The story does a solid job describing the amount and type of evidence supporting the devices’ efficacy–it’s mainly anecdotes, doctors’ casually reported cases, and some preliminary research. The story is usefully framed with the following statement: "It is too early, however, for consumers to know how effectively either device works."
About Zerona, we learn that an article showing some benefit has been published in a journal called Lasers in Surgery and Medicine. An independent source later calls the validity of those findings into question. We also learn that the FDA has not approved marketing the device for its claimed benefits of fat-zapping.
About Zeltiq, we learn that data has been submitted to the FDA for approval. We also learn that promising data was reported at a medical meeting.
The story does not medicalize the fat-melting treatments; it makes clear they are elective and cosmetic. No claims are made for medical benefits of the treatments or the risks of love-handles or muffin-tops. Still, a positive statement that there are no known health benefits would have been useful.
The reporter interviewed ten sources–two patients [one with good results, one with poor], one federal spokesperson, and seven doctors. Six of those doctors are not objective due to financial interest in the devices’ efficacy. But one is fully independent.
With a story like this, which features new technologies, it’s hard to find sources who know the devices well enough to understand them but have no interest in them. The reporter did a good job with sourcing under these circumstances.
The article could have devoted more space to comparing these procedures to the process, benefits, and risks of liposuction. It could have distinguished between the two new treatments and the existing heat treatments and topical creams also sold by some of the same dermatologists, chiropractors, plastic surgeons and web infomercials that support Zeltic and Zerona. It does get points, however, for mentioning two new ultrasound products about to enter the market.
The story explains that Zerona is available nationwide through medical spas, chiropractors, dermatologists and plastic surgeons. Zeltiq, the story says, is available at over five dozen clinics identified on a website.
The story correctly suggests these two new technologies lie somewhere between the invasive, surgical liposuction and highly questionable infomercial products. It also says they’ll shortly be joined in the market by competitors that use ultrasound technologies.
The story does not draw 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