This story looks at an observational study comparing frequency of exercise vs no exercise on early risk of death, with an emphasis placed on “weekend warrior” style exercise.
Like we saw in our review of Newsweek’s take on this study, this story from The UK Guardian confuses association with causation. It also didn’t mention any of the study’s limitations, which were plentiful.
However, we were pleased to see the inclusion of an independent source, who helped establish what was novel about the study findings.
Many people struggle to get enough exercise, and if the study’s findings are verifiable, then this is good news for people who can only exercise on the weekends. However, news stories shouldn’t overstate the findings nor mislead people about just how beneficial it really is.
We don’t think that cost is relevant here.
Like the story in Newsweek, which we also reviewed, this story does not provide an adequate sense of the size of the potential benefits, stating:
In the study, those who met the physical activity target by exercising through the week had a 35% lower risk of death than the inactive adults, with cardiovascular deaths down 41% and a 21% lower risk of cancer death.
Using only relative risk rates such as these doesn’t tell the full story. Read more on why absolute risk rates should also be included in news stories.
It also makes the study sound like it was experimental in fashion, conflating association with causation.
“People who cram all their exercise into one or two sessions at the weekend benefit nearly as much as those who work out more frequently, researchers say. A study of more than 60,000 adults in England and Scotland found that “weekend warriors” lowered their risk of death by a similar margin to those who spread the same amount of exercise over the whole week.”
See more on the importance of not overstating observational findings.
Although not explicit the story does provide some information on the potential harms before embarking on a “weekend warrior” status. The lead author of the paper recommended, “… to start with moderate exercise, such as brisk walking, and then to set realistic, incremental goals to boost confidence without running the risk of setbacks due to injury. “A middle aged or older person should do as much as 12 weeks of moderate exercise before introducing vigorous exercise.”
The story provides some information about the study design, but is silent on the limitations, and they are significant. For example, the inactive population studied was 7 years older, had more current smokers, and suffered more from unspecified “long standing illness” than the participants who were active. Physical activity was only recorded at baseline. Also, more than 90% of the participants were white.
The sources don’t appear to have any conflicts of interest, and there was one additional source included beyond the lead researcher.
The story discusses the impact of different activity levels on early death risk.
The ability to exercise is generally available, so this is N/A.
Unlike the Newsweek story, the Guardian does discuss what’s novel:
“The novel finding is that it appears the duration, and possibly the intensity, of leisure time physical activity is more important than the frequency,” Ekelund said.
The story does not appear to rely on 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