This is a story looking at a data analysis of a large Danish health registry, in which researchers determined that the BMI (body-mass index) “associated with the lowest risk of death has increased … from 23.7, in the ‘normal’ weight category, to 27, which is deemed ‘overweight.'”
The story would have been much stronger if it had included that this type of finding is not new, and has been written about before and is known as the “obesity paradox.” This was an opportunity to rise above some of the criticisms leveled at journalists for simplified coverage on this topic.
This matters because much of the world has been gaining weight in recent decades. How that might affect individuals’ likelihood of dying prematurely is important to many of us.
While the benefits–increased survival–were discussed, they were quantified in a confusing way. For example, the story says that the risk of death for obese people, defined as having a BMI of at least 30, declined “to the point that it was on a par with some people of so-called ‘normal’ weight. So being fatter, at least a bit, may be healthier.”
It is hard to figure out what that means. It would have been more helpful if the story had quantified the death rates of the various groups discussed–that way readers would have a clearer sense of how likely it is that the extra weight will help you “cheat death.”
The story did a good job describing why some people with low BMI might be at higher risk of dying– i.e., they may be suffering from cancer or another disease that could cause weight loss.
We’re giving this rating a barely-passing Satisfactory. The story points out some limitations, but doesn’t get into the larger issue of this being an observational study.
And some of the language, including the headline, suggests that there could be a cause-and-effect relationship– something this type of study isn’t designed to prove.
It didn’t mention the many factors — beyond age, sex, smoking, cancer and heart disease — that could confound the relationship between BMI and mortality in this type of study. There was an extensive discussion of those factors the last time this type of research made the rounds, and the same concerns apply here.
The story noted that the number of people who are overweight or obese has been increasing in many countries in recent decades–an assertion that can be backed up with data–and did not overstate the case.
There were no apparent conflicts of interest. However, only one researcher was quoted, but nobody else independent of the work.
The biggest gap in this story is that it didn’t put this study in context with older studies raising the same issue. With no mention of past research, it makes it sound like a novel finding. But it’s not: On the JAMA study page, over on the right-hand side of the page are links to “related” research, including a large meta-analysis on the topic.
The story does not appear to rely on a news release.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
We’ve written about the hype of liquid biopsies for years (see link in comment below). And now this…. https://www.statnews.com/2022/01/12/medicare-shouldnt-cover-liquid-biopsies-early-cancer-detection/
Case counts still matter. “(There) are stories that may not be told adequately if only hospitalizations and deaths are emphasized.” @garyschwitzer interviewed by @dbauder of @AP. https://apnews.com/article/omicron-changing-news-outlets-covid-data-da9272f7c4c8a109c3bfb56bed9e9c76
My friend Gary @garyschwitzer wrote to his city council representative in a Minnesota town about a Viva Las Vegas event scheduled for January.
The response he got seems to perfectly capture where we are now.
https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2021/12/2021-ends-with-covid-craziness-in-sports-and-politics/
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