The story makes it seem like the HDL cholesterol effect was the main thrust of the study, and it was not. Overall the story appears to slant in favor of the low-carb approach (e.g., "a low-carb diet works just as well … and it might be better for your heart"), despite the main result of the study finding essentially no difference between the two diets on most outcomes. Why emphasize that "The key difference was in HDL" without explaining the absolute differences and without explaining if that surrogate marker resulted in any difference in endpoints that matter, such as fewer heart attacks?
Americans are already overly obsessed with "scores." Emphaszing the HDL difference without adequately explaining its real significance in peoples’ lives feels like more scoreboard-watching without knowing the rules of the game.
There was no discussion about how the different food consumption patterns compared in terms of price. Doesn’t cost matter in this decision?
The story indicated that the 15 pound average weight loss observed at 2 years was the same for the two groups. The information about weight loss would have been better had it included insight about the variability in weight loss across the two groups.
There was no mention of any issues or problems that might arise from either of these diets.
The story opened by informing readers that the two dietary approaches to weight loss resulted in similar weight loss but that the low-carb approach might be better for your heart. The first piece of this statement is founded on the actual weight loss in the two groups; the contention about heart health is merely speculative. It is based on a difference in HDL levels between the two groups, but as the story indicated, neither of the groups had cholesterol problems to begin with. So it is really less clear that the difference in HDL was clinically meaningful.
It failed to report on the percentage of individuals who dropped out of the study.
The story did not engage in overt disease mongering. But the story’s emphasis on the surrogate endpoint of HDL cholesterol is borderline.
One clinician who headed up the study reported on was quoted in this story along with a clinician who was not involved in that study. But that clinician, Dr. Yancy, has a long-standing history of research favoring the low-carb diet approach. That was not disclosed, and he is not a truly independent commenter in this case.
The story should have included comments from independent experts to help readers understand the take home messages from the study reported on.
The story did not include a comprehensive list of evidence-based methods for weight loss. The story lacked a discussion about the essential role of caloric intake, even within the low-carbohydrate diet group.
It’s fairly clear from the story that these two diets have been in use for a long time by lots of people.
The story was clear about the fact that the dietary approaches for weight loss that were compared are not new or novel.
Does not appear to rely exclusively 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