This story went beyond the results of the study to opine about obesity in general. The story was good in that it indicated that adopting this type of diet meant more than simply eating more olive oil. But the story was devoid of data – meaningful information about what – precisely – the study showed.
And it was wrong to say the study “looked at over half a million people.” It looked at data. Researchers didn’t “look at” even one person.
Semantics are important.
It’s important to be clear with readers about what has been shown to impact risk factors – intermediate endpoints that may or may not matter – and what impacts end organ endpoints – stuff that really counts. This story didn’t do that.
Not applicable. There was no discussion of costs, i.e. how consumption of a ‘Mediterranean diet’ compared to more typical diets compare in terms of cost to the consumer. But we think most people would have a pretty good grasp of the general costs of the types of foods involved. But where this becomes an issue, for example, is with what the cost of fresh fish can do to a food budget.
The story described the health benefits associated with consumption of a ‘Mediterranean diet’ in the broadest of terms. It was not clear from this story the extent to which improvements in the parameters mentioned would impact health or even the obesity epidemic described in the second half of the piece.
What were the data results of the meta-analysis? That’s what supposed to be news here.
Not applicable. The study itself didn’t reflect on possible harms that might be associated with consumption of a ‘Mediterranean diet’.
The story says that the ‘researchers looked at over half a million people.’ They didn’t “look at” ANY people. They looked at data. That’s misleading.
No limitations were addressed, as they were in the competing Wall Street Journal story.
The story included data from the American Heart Association about the numbers /percentage of people who met the criteria for metabolic syndrome, and its prevalence in adolescents. But it made an awkward and unsupported transition immediately into obesity and a “global epidemic.” This story – as the opening sentence stated, was about “a cluster of risk factors for heart disease and diabetes.” The study was about risk factors for risk factors. It did not report on end organ disease endpoints. Metabolic syndrome is not a disease. It’s a fine point. It’s semantics. But it’s an important fine point about semantics. So we grade this unsatisfactory.
Independent perspective provided by a past president of the American Heart Association.
The story did not include information about how this dietary approach to cardiovascular disease and diabetes risk management compared with the use of medication or other dietary approaches. Other studies have compared the Mediterranean diet with a lower carb diet and others, and looked at intermediate endpoints that go along with the metabolic syndrome. This could have been addressed easily in just another line or two.
This story opened by indicating that readers had likely heard about or even tried the ‘Mediterranean diet’.
The story was clear that the ‘Mediterranean diet’ is not new.
Does not rely solely on a news release.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
Come on, NY Times; you must do better than this. Important research doesn’t need hype and the “breaking news” BS doesn’t help readers or patients. https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2022/03/nyt-proclaims-breaking-news/
Our editorial team was blessed to have Sharon as a contributor during our best years. As this obit states, she was “kind, patient, wise, thoughtful and generous.” Thank you, Sharon; now rest in peace. https://journalism.wisc.edu/news/in-memoriam-sharon-dunwoody-1947-2022/
We’ve written about the hype of liquid biopsies for years (see link in comment below). And now this…. https://www.statnews.com/2022/01/12/medicare-shouldnt-cover-liquid-biopsies-early-cancer-detection/
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