The story states that it’s reporting on “a new study” but it never explains that the study is only an abstract of a presentation given at a professional meeting. Thus the data have not been peer-reviewed, and no detailed methods or results are available. The only perspective on the research comes from the lead author, and no other alternatives for marathon recovery are discussed.
The story specifically states that the beer was only effective if it was nonalcoholic. However, this was not tested, so this is unknown. In addition, the properties of the nonalcoholic beer that might be responsible for the beneficial effects are not known, since it’s not clear what placebo beverage was used. The lead researcher is quoted as hypothesizing that the beneficial effects of the beer might be due to the presence of polyphenols, but there is no evidence to support this. The story then focuses in on polyphenols, discussing other foods that contain large amounts of polyphenols.
Running a marathon can be grueling and can result in reduced immune function, which can lead to an increase in upper respiratory tract infections such as colds. Athletes, from weekend warriors to professionals, could benefit from treatments or products that aid recovery.
Discussion of costs is relatively unimportant as most individuals would know how much beer costs.
The story did quantify the benefits of one parameter by quoting the abstract “incidence of upper respiratory tract infections was 3.25-fold lower” – but it was not mentioned that these were self-reported upper respiratory tract infections.
The story mentions that there was ‘significantly less evidence of inflammation….and lower counts of white blood cells than the placebo group” but does not provide numbers. The story also states that the ‘beer experiment’ showed benefits of minimizing post-race damage. But the study didn’t measure damage, it measured blood markers of immune function.
In the study, participants consumed 1-1.5 liters/day of non-alcoholic beer (or a placebo) for 5 weeks total. There could be several potential adverse effects such as weight gain from extra calorie consumption, imbalances in nutrients if the liquid replaced other fluids, etc.
No potential harms were mentioned.
The quality of evidence in the research study was low as it was a non-peer reviewed abstract that was presented at a scientific meeting only, and this is not mentioned.
While the treatment (non-alcoholic beer) was compared to a placebo in a double-blinded design, the nature of the placebo is not known, other than that it was a beverage.
The research does not mention whether numerous important factors were controlled in the study design (the training regimens of the participants, their diets, their total beverage consumption, etc) and these extensive limitations are not mentioned in the story.
No disease mongering. Marathon running was described as “punishing to the body, causing muscle soreness and inflammation.” This is accurate.
The story quotes the lead author extensively. Unfortunately, no other independent perspectives are provided.
No potential conflicts of interest are noted.
The article does not mention potential alternatives that might aid marathon recovery, including any other dietary alterations, and does not discuss the advantages and disadvantages compared with any other approaches.
Not applicable. The availability of nonalcoholic beer is not in question.
However, it is not clear from the original abstract whether the type of beer matters, as the brand and/or the characteristics (such as calories) were not provided. This is not mentioned in the story. (note: the brand was provided in a press release)
The treatment, beer, is not novel, and is not presented as such. Other substances that also contain the purported active ingredient, polyphenols, are discussed.
There was an American College of Sports Medicine news release for the abstract, but it doesn’t appear to have been relied upon. Maybe it should have been, since the news release actually includes a disclaimer the story did not include – that the research was presented at a professional meeting but has not been peer-reviewed.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
Puleeeeease... this 'game changer' weight loss drug causes more nausea and vomiting than a placebo. Some game, some change. My friend Gary would spank you for using the eighth word medical reporters should never, ever use. @garyschwitzer @thackerpd
https://www.healthnewsreview.org/toolkit/just-journalists-writing-tips-case-studies/7-words-and-more-you-shouldnt-use-in-medical-news/ https://twitter.com/OttawaCitizen/status/1361426796126830597
A scary @statnews Op-Ed warns that govt attempts to rein in Pharma may cut off access to "life-changing" drugs.
It takes @garyschwitzer to let us know: the author spent 10 years as Pfizer's public-policy chief. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1360325022578053123
.@TranspariMED criticizes STAT op-ed for not disclosing pharma funding of author’s institute - similar to criticism we’ve made of STAT op-eds in the past. @transparify @ThinkTankWatch @icer_review https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2021/02/transparency-watchdog-criticizes-stats-non-disclosure-on-pro-pharma-op-ed/
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