There’s no denying our collective interest in treatments that will magically burn fat without requiring us to eat less or get off of our couches. And we’ll grant that the “brown fat” discussed in this story is scientifically intriguing in that it seems to burn calories rather than storing them as garden-variety “white fat” does. But we think it’s far too soon to be touting a group of heart hormones as holding “the key to an effective weight loss treatment” merely because they increase brown fat levels in a single study conducted in mice. Although the story did introduce some caveats, they came too late to counterbalance the overoptimistic tone of the coverage.
How long will it be before supplement marketers start touting pills that “activate brown fat” based on this very preliminary research? Oh, wait– they already are.
Not applicable. There are no established ways to increase brown fat.
The story suggests that certain heart hormones, if they behave the same way in humans as they do in mice, may hold “the key to an effective weight loss treatment.” We think this is a premature and misleading statement. Even if these hormones do activate brown fat in humans (something yet to be determined), there’s no guarantee this will translate into weight loss or that the weight loss that is produced will be safe or beneficial (see more under the “harms” criterion).
We’ll give the benefit of the doubt here because the story does mention the possibility of unintended harms from brown fat-activating treatments. However, we thought it was worth noting — as the authors of the study did in their paper — that the hormones that activated brown fat in this study are elevated during heart failure and cancer-related wasting. Thus, any weight loss they produce may be accompanied by important adverse effects.
Although we’re tempted to award a grudging satisfactory based on the caveats introduced late in the text, we think the story didn’t quite measure up. The studies discussed involved mice and 6 human volunteers. In other words, they represent very preliminary steps toward understanding how brown fat works and how we might be able to manipulate it. We are years away from any drug that might capitalize on this research. The story should have been clearer about this and included its cautions higher up in the text.
The story quotes an independent clinician, who offers useful context. We are not aware of any conflicts that should have been identified.
The story does not discuss evidence-based strategies for weight loss, such as behavioral weight loss programs. It could also have mentioned other new research which shows, at least in mice, that exercise helps turn white fat brown.
Not applicable; there’s no product or treatment that can increase brown fat.
The story quotes Dr. David Katz regarding the clinical importance of this research. It could also have cited his blog post on the topic, which discusses other recent studies on brown fat and notes that brown fat’s role in regulating body temperature is long established. This line of research is not as new as recent media reports suggest.
Since it includes an independent perspective, we can be sure the story was not based entirely on a press 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