This article reports on a study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, “the first rigorous test of calorie restriction in people who are overweight but not obese.†The story states potential benefits of calorie restriction without providing adequate context for understanding what it would take to maintain adequate nutrition long-term. People were paid $7,000 to be in the study and all the food consumed in the study was provided to the participants to ensure adequate nutrition. The story didn’t explore the long-term practical implications of that approach for the average American. The long-term effect of maintaining body weights in the range supported by calorie restriction has not yet been established. This is an important caveat before concluding that the evidence demonstrates that such limits in caloric intake are beneficial.
Everything has a cost. Yet the story gave no cost estimate for the costs associated with consumption of foods ‘high in nutrients but low in calories.’
The story didn’t quantify the suggested benefits (decreased insulin level, decreased body temperature, drop in thyroid hormones, and decline in DNA damage) gained by the study participants. And the study didn’t mention the parameters that failed to demonstrate change during the study (protein carbonyl, glucose, and dehydroepiandroestrone sulfate (DHEAS).
This article does a good job of highlighting the weight regain that occurs when peoples’ adherence to a dietary program that provides all the food ends. However, there was no mention of potential side-effects or harms of long-term calorie restriction such as decreased testosterone, muscle mass or bone density.
This article reported on the results of a randomized controlled trial comparing the outcomes from 4 groups. There is no framework provided to assess the magnitude of potential improvement. Presentation of the results follows the opinions of the authors of the study without critical examination of that interpretation.
There isn’t any discussion of how many Americans are overweight but not obese, so we can’t judge the story unsatisfactory on this criterion. However, we are tempted to do so when the story states, without attribution or evidence to back it up: “The notion that going hungry could be the fountain of youth has captivated scientists and the public.”
The main expert quotes in the story came from people with a vested interest in showing positive results. Evan Hadley of the National Institute on Aging (source of funding for the study) called the results of this pilot study “striking”. In addition, an estimate for the number of individuals currently engaging in calorie restriction appears to have been obtained from the president of the Calorie Restriction Society. While this study is one of three pilots studies for the feasibility of calorie restriction in humans, no comments from the other research groups was included.
The story is about calorie restriction in overweight but non-obese people. But no alternative treatment options are discussed.
The story mentions ‘people experimenting on themselves’, indicating the potential for anyone to self-impose calorie limitations on themselves. However, the article failed to explain that all the food consumed by the research subjects in the study was provided for them thus ensuring nutritional adequacy while restricting calories. That’s beyond the reach of the average American. People were paid $7,000 to be in the study!
This is not a novel ‘treatment’ for the length of life, notwithstanding the quote from Dr. Hadley from the National Institute on Aging stating that “There’s never been a study like this one”. This research is actually one of three pilot projects; results of the other two were published in 2005. The story explains that this “is the subject of intense research, and some people have already begun trying it on their own.” And it explains that there is no data in non-obese but overweight people.
We can’t judge if the story relied solely or largely on a news release.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
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