This Good Morning America! video and accompanying article from ABC News extrapolate wildly from a study looking at the effects of three exercise types on molecular changes in the skeletal muscles of younger (18-30 years) and older (65-80 years) adults.
Unfortunately, the story takes a statement from the study abstract — “high intensity interval training (HIIT) improved age-related decline in muscle mitochondria” — and incorrectly suggests this translates to an anti-aging effect in people. In reality, there is no proven link between changes seen at the molecular level, nor with aging at the individual level.
The story also glosses over the harms–HIIT exercise should be used very judiciously in older adults. In fact, the vast majority of people who signed up for the study were excluded because of a variety of health concerns. This is important information since the article and video take a promotional stance toward HIIT, claiming it “could keep you younger,” without informing people that it is clearly not appropriate for everyone and may even cause significant harm.
“Anti-aging” is one of the most entrenched and enticing click-baits out there. Taking a biochemical study (with a very small sample size no less) and applying the results to individuals is misguided, misleading, and perpetuates misinformation. Rule of thumb: There is nothing in the history of science that has been proven to reverse aging. Slow aging? Debatable. Stop aging? Death.
The article briefly summarizes the findings of a study looking at three forms of exercise. Theoretically, all three could be performed without investing in specialized equipment or health club membership. Given that, cost is not a major issue here.
The story claims that high intensity interval training improves the exercise capacity of muscle mitochondria. How much did it improve? Neither this nor any of the other benefits attributed to HIIT is described with any specifics.
All exercise regimes carry some risk, and that risk usually increases with age. High intensity interval training, by definition, involves a very significant level of cardio-respiratory stress. This risk is underscored by the fact that the vast majority of people who signed up for the study were excluded because of a variety of health concerns (see next criterion). This is important information since the article and video take a promotional stance toward HIIT, claiming it “could keep you younger,” without informing people that it is clearly not appropriate for everyone and may even cause significant harm.
The ABC news coverage fails to mention there is no proven link between changes seen at the molecular level and with aging at the individual level. It also fails to mention that after the vast majority of study candidates were excluded, and others dropped out, the final study group who participated in the HIIT training consisted of just 10 subjects. That’s a very small group from which to draw bold conclusions about reversing aging.
The assumption of this story is that aging is bad and something that needs to be “reversed.” Aging is a normal process.
Both the article and the video quote independent sources not involved with the study. That is enough to rate satisfactory, but we do have some concerns with their commentary.
Chris Powell, a personal trainer and “transformation specialist” featured in ABC’s “Extreme Weight Loss,” incorrectly defines HIIT as “aerobic training with short bouts of weight training in between.” HIIT — as was also defined in the study — is actually alternating between short bouts of intense (anaerobic) activity and recovery pauses. The exercise bursts are done at near maximal effort. In this case, it was very intense cycling for four minutes, followed by light cycling for three minutes, repeated four times; along with two days a week of treadmill walking for 45 minutes at a relatively intense pace.
The study looked at three forms of exercise, including HIIT. The story implies that HIIT training has an an anti-aging effect — and even though that’s wildly speculative — they make no effort to discuss other forms of exercise that might impact the aging process.
The health intervention addressed in the study is three forms of exercise that can be done without specialized equipment. The story could have said something about how easy it might be to find a trainer who knows about HIIT.
No mention is made of other studies looking at the effects of exercise on skeletal muscle in the young or old, and how this one differs from others.
The story does not appear to rely on a news release.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
A week like this should teach you how/what to ignore: #COVID19 news & PR about studies in monkeys & mice...about studies of dishonesty & BMI…and about rating attractiveness of women with endometriosis!!! https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2020/08/crazy-week-of-pr-news-on-studies-should-teach-us-how-what-to-ignore/
“to project certainty where it simply does not exist is communication malpractice at a time like this and with a public health issue like this.” @garyschwitzer on @ContentScience https://review.content-science.com/covering-covid-19-vaccine-news-part-two-from-the-publisher-of-health-news-review/
In case you weren't aware: Prestigious journalism organizations and outlets take money from pharma, @garyschwitzer https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2020/08/drug-company-influence-on-journalism/#.XyrYGZeNvXA.twitter @HealthNewsRevu
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