The story discussed the impact of yoga on levels of ‘oxidative stress’. The story never clarified that the link between oxidative stress and disease is tenuous at best. Even the weight loss was not really quantified; what does “a handful of pounds” really mean?
There are many individuals managing type II diabetes with an interest in the most effective means of management. But they certainly need a lot more detailed information and context than what was provided in this story.
There was no discussion of class costs. How much do yoga classes – several times a week – cost?
The story provided much discussion about the impact of the yoga on levels of ‘oxidative stress’. Besides the fact that the link between oxidative stress and disease is tenuous at best, the story reported that those in the yoga group had a 20% reduction in oxidative stress when the study results showed that they had a 20% reduction in one marker of oxidative stress but at the same time showed reductions in two pathways form managing oxidative stress – which could be interpreted as increasing their risk from oxidative stress. Even the weight loss was not really quantified (the writer mentioned “a handful of pounds” lost).
This does not actually address what is known about any potential harms of the type of yoga reported on. The story could have mentioned that the study mentioned that there were no adverse events reported during the 3 months of yoga classes but that about 5% of those assigned to the yoga classes dropped out and were not included in the final analysis.
The story did not provide sufficient details for readers to evaluate how the study results might apply to them. And the story included only hand picked pieces of information from the study. While it is potentially exciting that the change in body weight between the groups was statistically different at 3 months, the magnitude of that change is not clinically significant. The story also didn’t explain what measures of oxidative stress were used.
The story did not engage in overt disease-mongering.
The story did not quote any independent sources.
There was no discusion about how adding other lifestyle changes in addition to the other management strategies in place affect the health of those with type II diabetes. For example, prior studies have examined the benefits of regular light exercise. A discussion of exercise alternatives and their relative benefits would have helped the readers judge the benefit of yoga in context.
The story indicated that gentle yoga classes might be found in hospitals and local community settings.
The story didn’t give any context about prior reports examining the potential for people with type II diabetes to benefit from participation in regular series of yoga classes.
We can’t be sure of the extent to which the story relied on a news release. We do know that it quoted only a single source – the lead researcher.
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