This story advances the claim that egg protein may be better than other types of protein for curbing your appetite and helping you lose weight. But like its competition at the LA Times, this story never fully explains why readers shouldn’t accept that conclusion based on this very preliminary evidence. Here’s what we would have emphasized:
Our nation is struggling with a big weight problem. It is useful to know if small, attainable behavior changes — like eating eggs for breakfast instead of cereal — can help people lose weight or stop them from gaining it in the first place.
The cost of eggs and cereal is not in question.
There was no quantification of results, like hunger levels or changes in hormone levels. The story also didn’t tell us how much less participants ate at the buffet following the egg breakfast vs. cereal breakfast. We really need such details in order to figure out if the findings are a big deal or not.
We’ll rate this not applicable, as the potential harms of eating eggs are minimal. In just a line, though, the story could have addressed whether eating an egg a day, as participants did during this study, is safe from a heart health standpoint (eggs contain a lot of cholesterol). Most research from large cohort studies (Nurses’ Health Study and Health Professionals Follow Up study) of diet have shown no increased risk of cardiovascular disease among regular egg eaters. Nonetheless, just as it popped into our reviewers’ minds, we bet it popped into readers’ minds as well – yet wasn’t addressed.
The story did a decent job of explaining how the study was conducted, and it does alert us to the fact that certain details about the design are uncertain (e.g. “It’s unclear how the eggs were prepared, how many were served, or what other foods were included in the breakfast meals.”) It also nods to the fact that the study was presented as an abstract at a conference and hasn’t yet been peer reviewed.
With that being said, the story still tilts too far in favor of the idea that “Starting your day off with an egg may help curb your appetite better than cereal” — something that this vague abstract, which presents no actual data, just doesn’t support very strongly. The story should have found a way, perhaps via an independent source, to more forcefully bat this down.
The story notes that the study was funded by egg producers, but the only source quoted is the study author. This story would have benefited immensely from an independent perspective.
The story doesn’t mention other approaches, besides eating eggs for breakfast, that are helpful for weight loss. Even one additional line could have addressed this idea.
The availability of eggs and cereal is not in question.
This research builds upon many previous studies suggesting that protein calories may be more satiating than other types of calories. The story doesn’t mention this background.
The story identifies one of the quotes as coming from a press release, but it actually seems to have come from the study abstract itself. In either case, that’s not best journalistic practice.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
Monday at #ADA2021, an infectious disease epidemiologist, a journalist, and a researcher shared perspectives on communication of risk in the era of COVID-19: http://ow.ly/ROfR30rMeE7 @AstleyCM @garyschwitzer @berthahidalgo @ADA_DiabetesPro
Shoutouts to @susan_bewley @drkevinknopf @MichaelBaum11 in this call for more than fawning coverage from press releases for these kinds of stories.
Also, linked history inside goes back 5 years just on Grail apparently trying to become Holy Grail. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1408849696416841731
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