This was a very clean and efficient story summarizing what the evidence showed and what it didn’t.
Consumers may want to believe that supplements can’t hurt – they can only help. It’s worth it for journalists to report on studies that show that good diet and exercise works to prevent bone-thinning – but that supplements may not add any protection.
It is rare to see a story include costs of what might be viewed as inexpensive supplements, but this story included the costs – at least – of vitamin D supplements.
From a purist’s perspective, we wish the story had quantified the benefit seen from exercise. We’re told that adding supplements to the exercise program didn’t provide any extra benefit. But just what was the degree of benefit from exercise? We’re never told.
In a sense, the story was all about a finding that might help people avoid the “harm” of thinking that supplements do more for them than they actually do.
The story was very clear on what the study showed and did not show, and what the take-home ramifications were.
The story cited clear numbers and broke down categories of older women, white men and black men.
The story cites the researchers’ published findings, then turns in large part to an independent expert to evaluate the evidence.
At least the story gave some broad contex about other approaches to prevent bone-thinning:
“To build bone density, weight-bearing exercise is needed, such as running or weight-lifting, according to the NIH.
To reduce the risk of bone weakening, the NIH recommends not smoking, drinking less alcohol and exercising more.
Zaidi said that both vitamin D and calcium are extremely important for human health, so people should follow the previous vitamin D and calcium recommendations.”
The availability of calciium and vitamin D are not in question.
There was room for improvement here. The story could have done a better job of putting the new finding into the context of past research in this field.
It’s clear the story didn’t rely solely on a news release.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
Monday at #ADA2021, an infectious disease epidemiologist, a journalist, and a researcher shared perspectives on communication of risk in the era of COVID-19: http://ow.ly/ROfR30rMeE7 @AstleyCM @garyschwitzer @berthahidalgo @ADA_DiabetesPro
Shoutouts to @susan_bewley @drkevinknopf @MichaelBaum11 in this call for more than fawning coverage from press releases for these kinds of stories.
Also, linked history inside goes back 5 years just on Grail apparently trying to become Holy Grail. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1408849696416841731
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