An incorrect opening sentence in the original version of the story (apparently corrected later) was the only significant flaw we found with this story.
People want to believe that there’s a diet that will make it easier for them to shed pounds and keep them off over the long term. And this JAMA study does provide some evidence to support the superiority of diets with lower carbohydrate content and more protein for weight loss maintenance. However, just a few months ago, the same journal was trumpeting the findings of a study that appeared to show just the opposite — i.e. that “a calorie is just a calorie” and that the source of the energy (fat, protein, or carb) doesn’t matter. So we need strong health reporting to be able to make sense of these competing claims.
The cost of these diets is not really in question. We’ll call it not applicable.
The opening sentence of this story as originally published is incorrect. It states that dieters “were more successful maintaining weight on a low-carb diet than they were on a low-fat diet.” According to the study, there was no statistically significant difference in participant weights during the 3 diet phases. The main finding was that participants resting energy expenditure was increased during low-carb and low glycemic-index phases than during the low-fat phase, which might theoretically improve weight loss maintenance. The story did do a good job of characterizing the difference in energy expenditure between the 3 diets and what it would take to burn the same amount of energy via physical activity.
[Note: the incorrect opening line appears to have been pulled from an updated version of the story.]
The story notes that the low-carb diet raised some risk factors for heart disease.
Caveats are introduced high up in the story and, unlike the competing WSJ coverage, USA Today provides 3 independent perspectives on the findings. Two of these experts mention important limitations, including the fact that the study was short-term and conducted under highly controlled conditions.
The story provides comments from 3 outside experts who have differing takes on the research. It notes that one of the experts is the author of an Atkins diet book.
The focus of the story was on different dietary approaches to weight loss.
The availability of the 3 diets is not question.
The independent experts allude to the fact that there have been other studies that found no difference in weight loss between diets with varying proportions of fat, protein, and carbohydrate.
The story is not based on a press release.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
Puleeeeease... this 'game changer' weight loss drug causes more nausea and vomiting than a placebo. Some game, some change. My friend Gary would spank you for using the eighth word medical reporters should never, ever use. @garyschwitzer @thackerpd
https://www.healthnewsreview.org/toolkit/just-journalists-writing-tips-case-studies/7-words-and-more-you-shouldnt-use-in-medical-news/ https://twitter.com/OttawaCitizen/status/1361426796126830597
A scary @statnews Op-Ed warns that govt attempts to rein in Pharma may cut off access to "life-changing" drugs.
It takes @garyschwitzer to let us know: the author spent 10 years as Pfizer's public-policy chief. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1360325022578053123
.@TranspariMED criticizes STAT op-ed for not disclosing pharma funding of author’s institute - similar to criticism we’ve made of STAT op-eds in the past. @transparify @ThinkTankWatch @icer_review https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2021/02/transparency-watchdog-criticizes-stats-non-disclosure-on-pro-pharma-op-ed/
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