This article describes a small and limited study (men only!) concluding that “intermittent” dieting that gives participants alternating cycles of two weeks of less restrictive weight-maintenance eating after two weeks of more restrictive calorie counts results in more weight loss over time.
The article properly notes the potential benefits of such a plan–better compliance and some possible metabolic assist that prevents dieting “plateaus” that frustrate so many trying to lose pounds. But while the article acknowledges the flaws in most trendy diets, it doesn’t offer readers enough specific information to determine whether this variation on the dietary theme will work for them any better than any other diet. For example, it doesn’t say what the two arms of the intermittent diet included in actual calorie counts and/or foods; what the starting and ending average weights were for the study group; or even how the researchers kept track of what the participants were actually eating or doing other than (presumably) weighing them every two weeks.
It’s hard to exaggerate the confusion, frustration, misinformation, disinformation, and potential harm perpetrated by the gazillion diets proffered by those with and without any scientific basis to the growing numbers of obese and overweight in the U.S. and worldwide. Indeed, this Newsweek article starts out with just that notion, but can’t resist promoting yet another one based on very limited evidence and information. Diet studies are guaranteed instant news hooks, so it’s important that stories about them offer abundant context and detail.
No information was included about the nature of the two diets involved in the study or their costs. Readers might want to know if pre-packaged meals were involved, or liquid meals, for example.
As we found after reading the study, the food intake of the dieters was highly controlled, and this would presumably cost money to mimic in real life:
“Meals were prepared by a commercial kitchen under the direction of a dietician and delivered to the participants homes each week.”
The story notes that the men following the intermittent diet plan lost 47percent more weight than the control group, but not what the study group participants actually weighed before and after. It also notes that the intermittent dieters maintained an 18-pound loss six months after the study, but not whether they stayed on the diet or what other factors may have accounted for that outcome. Readers also won’t learn how many calories were consumed in each cycle of the study or what foods were involved.
We’ll rate this N/A since it’s hard to imagine harm from restricting a third of normal calories for two week cycles over 16 weeks.
As suggested above, readers needed more information about the men who participated (beyond age range), about what foods were in the diet plan and how the subjects eating, exercise or other habits were monitored; how active they were when not exercising, and what the follow up exam consisted of beyond a weight measurement. Also, what were the limitations of this study?
No mongering; the article did a pretty good job of noting the ups and downs of weight loss schemes.
The article included an “outside researcher” who has some bona fides in the study of intermittent fasting, albeit not dieting, and quotes her essentially saying that the findings were significant and made sense to someone who studies dieting challenges.
The story really could have used a sentence or two at least about published outcomes of other diet schemes to put this new one in context. The only hint of it is from the outside researcher who said her own study of intermittent fasting saw weight loss plateau around 16 weeks.
It was pretty clear from the article that this was a small study and the absence of any specific information about the diet itself would lead a reasonable reader to conclude that this one is not commercially or otherwise available. That doesn’t mean people won’t try to devise one on their own.
The article explains how this diet differs from some others.
There was a news release issued by the University of Tasmania but the article did quote an outside source.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
“to project certainty where it simply does not exist is communication malpractice at a time like this and with a public health issue like this.” @garyschwitzer on @ContentScience https://review.content-science.com/covering-covid-19-vaccine-news-part-two-from-the-publisher-of-health-news-review/
In case you weren't aware: Prestigious journalism organizations and outlets take money from pharma, @garyschwitzer https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2020/08/drug-company-influence-on-journalism/#.XyrYGZeNvXA.twitter @HealthNewsRevu
Addressing conflicts of interest ought to be a standard part of EVERY drug story. Journalism professors ought to be teaching students this, just as they teach them to include name, age and other standard story information. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1290973141758611459
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