Walnut-cholesterol study needed more scrutiny in CBS story
Rating
The homeliest nut just got better
Our Review Summary
This story is about initial findings of a study abstract presented at the recent Experimental Biology conference in San Diego. The study looked at the effect of walnut consumption among older adults on cholesterol and other lipids.
On the plus side, the story made it clear that the research was funded by the California Walnut Commission. However, the story missed the mark in many other ways; chiefly, it didn’t provide any quantified results from the study, nor did the story make it clear that the study findings were initial, and not yet published in any journal.
Why This Matters
Many Americans are struggling with heart disease, and diet plays an important part in this. Finding out if walnuts can help with heart health is a beneficial research endeavor. However, because groups like the California Walnut Commission are actively funding research, it’s important that journalists scrutinize the results, provide specifics on the data, and seek independent viewpoints on the research.
Criteria
Not Applicable
Since this is a study of older adults–who are often on fixed incomes–an estimate of cost would have made the story stronger. But because walnuts aren’t notably expensive compared to other nuts, we’ll give this a pass.
Not Satisfactory
There is no quantification in this story. The story says that the walnut eaters had reductions in bad cholesterol, but not how much. Is it even clinically significant? The story also says that neither group showed weight gain or changes in other cardiovascular markers, but nothing concrete is presented. A mention of good gut effects of walnuts is totally without any supporting information. About the only information actually given is that walnuts can be a fattening food and that portion control is necessary.
Satisfactory
The only harm mentioned is that walnuts can cause weight gain because they are high in calories. Because walnuts are a common food, there are no real expected harms except for those who are allergic to them.
Not Satisfactory
The story did not contain adequate details to help readers discern if this was a high-quality study or not. For example, how did they insure people actually ate the walnuts? One big red flag: These were findings presented at a conference–they haven’t been published in a peer-reviewed journal. Whenever that’s the case, journalists should be extra cautious, as it means other experts haven’t had a chance to review the work.
Satisfactory
There is no disease mongering here. Weight gain with age is fairly common and maintaining cardiovascular health is important.
Satisfactory
Close call on this one, but we’re going with Satisfactory, since the story did identify that the walnut research was funded by the California Walnut Commission, and an independent nutrition expert was quoted–although she didn’t talk about the study. Ideally, an outside source could have provided commentary on the research, providing insight into the quality of the evidence.
Not Satisfactory
There was no comparison of alternatives, either other nuts or foods or pharmaceuticals. This was a missed opportunity: If the article had explicitly stated the amount LDL was lowered in the intervention vs the control group, it might have compared other known interventions (statins, etc) that would achieve a similar effect.
Not Applicable
Walnuts are widely available everywhere, so this is not applicable.
Not Satisfactory
There have been many studies done on nuts and their effects on cardiovascular health, but these past studies were not referenced. How does this study specifically add to the body of research? There’s an implied reference that this might be the first time cholesterol-lowering benefits were tested in older adults, but it’s not clear.
Satisfactory
There is a news release that was obviously used in this story, but there was also an outside source, which is just enough to rate as Satisfactory.
Total Score: 4 of 8 Satisfactory
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