The story reports on recently published data from the Nurses Health Study showing no association between breast feeding as an infant and protection again obesity in adulthood. The story appropriately mentions that there are many factors related to lifestyle and nutrition – in childhood and in later life – that can affect a person's BMI.
Breast feeding was previously thought to act as prevention against obesity in later life because breast-fed infants gain weight more slowly than formula-fed infants, and formula-fed infants have increased insulin resistance, possibly affecting metabolism. Therefore, the CDC and other groups who support breastfeeding programs may consider this latest data in an effort to provide up-to-date, evidence-based promotional materials.
Despite the evidence from this observational cohort study of women who were breast fed and those who were not, breast feeding is still a positive health behavior, and the story lists some of the positives of breast feeding, but only for children. The story does not list the potential health benefits of breast feeding for new mothers. There is evidence for both short-term and long-term health benefits of breastfeeding for both mothers and infants. Babies who are not breastfed are more likely to develop otitis media, gastrointestinal problems, and urinary tract infections. Women who breastfeed more quickly use the body fat stores from pregnancy and may loose pregnancy-related weight more quickly compared to women who do not breastfeed. Thus, they may reduce their risk of conditions related to additional weight (e.g. diabetes, high-blood pressure, etc.)
The story interviews the lead author of the study, an official from the CDC's maternal and child nutrition branch and pediatricians who provide clinical perspective on the results of this latest research regarding breast feeding and obesity.
Overall, a well-done story – and in only 605 words.
The story does not list the cost of bottle formula, which may be a significant issue for some. It would have been easy to note one of the benefits not called into question about this report is that breastfeeding is "free".
The story does not provide data showing there is no association between breastfeeding and protection against adult obesity. There is some evidence linking breastfeeding and reduced childhood obesity, but again, the data are not provided. Additionally, there is evidence for both short-term and long-term health benefits of breastfeeding for both mothers and infants. The story doesn't quantify either.
The story does mention some of the positives of breastfeeding, but does not mention some of the downsides of bottle-feeding compared to breast feeding. Breast feeding is not associated with reduced risk of obesity in adulthood, but neither is formula-feeding. Babies who are not breastfed are more likely to develop otitis media, gastrointestinal problems, and urinary tract infections. Women who breastfeed more quickly use the body fat stores from pregnancy and may lose pregnancy-related weight more quickly compared to women who do not breastfeed. Thus, they may reduce their risk of conditions related to additional weight (e.g. diabetes, high-blood pressure, etc.). This is alluded to in the article but not emphasized.
The story adequately describes the design of the observational cohort study and provides some of the major results of the study.
The story does not engage in disease mongering. The story does talk about childhood obesity, which has increased in recent years.
The story interviews the lead author of the study, an official from the CDC's maternal and child nutrition branch and pediatricians who provide clinical perspective on the results of this latest research regarding breast feeding and obesity.
The story reviewed evidence seen in breastfeeding versus bottle-feeding.
It's clear from the story how widespread is the practice of breastfeeding.
The story reports on recently published data from a cohort study showing no association of breast feeding with reduced BMI in adulthood. Breast feeding was previously thought to act as a prevention against obesity in later life. Therefore, the CDC and other groups who support breastfeeding programs may consider this latest data in an effort to provide up-to-date evidence-based promotional materials.
The story used several independent sources, so it's safe to assume it did not rely solely or largely on a news release.
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