The story focuses on a June paper from the journal BMJ, which looked at the role that a particular bacterium found in the human gut (Akkermansia muciniphila) may play in influencing metabolic health and reports that a high-fiber diet can influence an individual’s population of A. muciniphila. The story does a good job of explaining what happened in the study and providing outside expert commentary on the role of fiber in regulating the immune system. It also communicates what we think is a good science-based message about the value of a diet rich in a variety of plant foods. But the story doesn’t explain for readers the many limitations of the study or the fact that there was significant variability in how a fiber-rich diet affected an individual’s A. muciniphila levels. And the number of qualifiers needed in discussing the study raise the question of why this study was written about at all. Why not wait for the additional research that’s needed? There is a lot of speculation here about how this bacterium might impact obesity, with a paucity of evidence to back it up.
Research that can help the public make informed decisions on how to maintain a healthy body weight and control related risk factors, such as blood sugar level and cholesterol, has real value. However, there can also be value in not covering a single study — particularly when that study is promising, but really only points the way to more targeted research that may have more relevant findings. In this instance, at least one of the researchers is already working on a follow-up study that focuses specifically on the impact that A. muciniphila may have on reducing risk factors for cardiovascular disease. Looking at the BMJ study in conjunction with the findings of that ongoing study (and of other work in the field on fiber and the gut microbiome) may offer greater insight into the role of A. muciniphila (and fiber) in helping to maintain cardiovascular health.
The story does not mention cost. However, the intervention being discussed here is increasing one’s dietary fiber intake. And the cost of high-fiber foods is widely variable. While some high-fiber foods may be costly (e.g., fresh vegetables are not readily available for those in urban “food deserts”), others — such as beans — are not. We’ll rate this Not Applicable.
The story states that: “People who started out with lower stores of Akkermansia had more after they followed the fiber-rich calorie-restricted diet. You can increase these bacterial populations by eating fiber, Cani’s research suggests, which acts as a prebiotic in the gut and has a beneficial effect on some bacteria.” We applaud the cautious language used here (i.e., employing the phrase “research suggests”). However, that language only presents half of the research findings. As the BMJ paper itself reports, study participants who began the study with higher levels of A. muciniphila actually saw their abundance of the bacteria decline after following the six-week, high-fiber, calorie-restricted dietary intervention in the study. And that decrease in A. muciniphila abundance continued even after the participants returned to a more “normal” diet for an additional six weeks. While it’s not clear if that decrease in A. muciniphila has any affect on reducing health risks, it’s worth mentioning. In addition, the story would have been more useful for readers if it had offered even general information on what constitutes a “healthy” amount of fiber. For example, Harvard’s School of Public Health reports that adults and children should get “at least 20 to 30 grams of fiber per day.”
The story does not discuss risks associated with increasing your intake of dietary fiber. However, that’s likely because there are few (if any) health risks associated with increasing fiber in your diet. We’ll rate this Not Applicable.
The story says the study evaluated 49 overweight and obese adults over the course of “a six-week calorie-restricted diet (between 1,500-1,800 calories per day) while increasing their fiber intake. The diet was followed by six weeks of eating normally. They kept a food journal throughout, and the researchers biopsied their fat tissue.” That’s a fine description of what happened, but the story doesn’t place the study design in any sort of context for readers. For example, there was no control group — is that relevant for this type of study? And is this study capable of telling us whether higher A. muciniphilaIs levels caused the beneficial changes in health risk factors that were observed or whether they were merely associated with those outcomes? (Maybe bacteria levels are simply a reflection of some other characteristic of certain people that causes them to respond better to calorie restriction?) Is 49 study participants a large enough sample size to be meaningful? Some comment on these limitations would have strengthened the coverage substantially.
The story does a good job of distinguishing between risk factors and actual health problems. No disease mongering here.
The story includes one source who was not affiliated with the relevant study, but makes clear that the source is a vocal proponent of the idea that a high-fiber diet is important for maintaining a “healthy” gut microbiome and that the microbiome can have a significant impact on health.
The story was mostly about gut bacteria, but it does discuss the potential impact of A. muciniphila on cholesterol, glycemia (i.e., blood sugar levels), and other risk factors for cardiovascular disease. It would have been useful here to discuss other interventions, such as exercise, that can influence these risk factors.
The story mentions a range of healthy dietary options for increasing fiber intake — all of which are available to consumers.
The story makes clear that the recent BMJ study is part of a larger field of work evaluating both the role of gut bacteria in human health and the role of dietary fiber in influencing the make-up of the gut microbiome. (It even links to another study on fiber and the American diet.) However, the story would have been stronger if it had included slightly more information, or links to additional information, that would have helped readers place the new work in context.
The story incorporates input from an independent source, references outside research, and does not appear to draw from a news release.
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