October 6, 2017 Read Original Story

‘May help’…’may prevent:’ Conditional statements water down TIME’s look at exercise and depression study

Reviewed By

Rating

Just One Hour of Exercise a Week May Help Prevent Depression

Our Review Summary

This Time magazine story describes a large study that looked at survey data from Norway to determine if exercise played a role in reducing the risk of developing depression among the 22,000 participants. The story suggests that it does and, to its credit, points out that this kind of study cannot show a causal relationship between exercise and the prevention of depression.

The story is filled, however, with conditional statements about what may or may not be happening in this research. It also lacks any statements from sources independent of the study.

Why This Matters

Independent sources provide an important counter-balance to comments from researchers directly involved with the study. Conditional statements like “may help” can also be phrased as “may not help”–more specific language helps readers understand the real benefit.

Criteria

Does the story adequately discuss the costs of the intervention?

Not Applicable

Costs aren’t a factor in this story given that the researchers are suggesting that even minimal exercise, such as walking and cycling, can lead to the decrease in depression they say that they have found. It costs nothing to walk and, aside from the cost of a bicycle, cycling is also free. Perhaps the biggest cost is a time cost–people who work long hours at sedentary jobs may have a hard time fitting this into their schedules.

Does the story adequately quantify the benefits of the treatment/test/product/procedure?

Satisfactory

The story barely passes this criterion with, “People who said they didn’t exercise at the study’s start were 44% more likely to become depressed, compared to those who exercised at least 1 to 2 hours a week.” Also, “they say, 12% of depression cases could be prevented if everyone got just one hour of exercise a week.”

But to be fully informative it’s important to put the 44% percent in absolute terms. How many people in the exercise group developed depression, and how many people in the non-exercise group developed depression?

Does the story adequately explain/quantify the harms of the intervention?

Not Applicable

We’ll give this N/A since the risks associated with light exercise are fairly minimal. However, we think it’s always a good idea to discuss the potential harms of an intervention. In this case, the story implies that very light and infrequent exercise provides this benefit. Does this encourage people to exercise less and to then lose out on other health benefits of more exercise? Injuries are also an issue for those going from no to some exercise.

Does the story seem to grasp the quality of the evidence?

Not Satisfactory

The story explains the results of a study that “followed more than 22,000 healthy Norwegian adults without symptoms of anxiety or depression for an average of 11 years.” It also explains that, “The study could not prove a cause-and-effect relationship between exercise and the risk of depression.”

The large size and the statement that the findings aren’t causal are both indicators of the quality of the evidence.

But then the story adds, “but the authors say it strongly suggests one,” referring to a causal relationship. Studies like this one cannot prove causality and since they were based on the self-reporting of participants, their conclusions should maintain some skepticism. Add to that the fact that the story is loaded with conditional statements: “Regular exercise may prevent,” “If their hypothesis is right,” “depression cases could be prevented,” “People seemed to have mental health benefits,” “benefits of exercise are likely responsible,” “exercise may also have a role in preventing people developing depression” All of these conditional statements suggest that the evidence may or may not hold up over time.

Other factors: The study is of Norwegians. How generalizable is it? And, the self-reported exercise information was collected only at the start of the study, the amount of exercise that participants completed regularly was not assessed at any other time. The study itself is careful to say this, but the story makes it sound as if ongoing exercise was documented.

Does the story commit disease-mongering?

Satisfactory

No disease mongering here.

Does the story use independent sources and identify conflicts of interest?

Not Satisfactory

The story doesn’t include any content from independent sources.

Does the story compare the new approach with existing alternatives?

Satisfactory

The study does mention that exercise, if it is proven to have a positive effect on depression, should be used along with medications and counseling in people who already have been diagnosed.

However, it does not discuss methods for preventing depression. Are there any? Even if there are none, that should be mentioned.

Does the story establish the availability of the treatment/test/product/procedure?

Not Applicable

While it makes no statements about availability, most readers will realize that exercise, such as walking and cycling, are usually readily available.

Does the story establish the true novelty of the approach?

Not Satisfactory

Exercise for mental health is not a new concept. What makes this study novel is that it’s looking at exercise’s potential to prevent depression, and if that impact would be useful enough for a public health level initiative. As the study explains:

“While many agencies are keen to promote the potential mental health benefits of exercise, at present the literature is unable to provide the most basic information needed for effective, targeted, evidence-based public health campaigns concerning depression and anxiety.”

The story didn’t explain this.

Does the story appear to rely solely or largely on a news release?

Satisfactory

The story does not appear to rely on the news release as it includes quotes from an email interview with the author. However, it did not provide any information not already found in the news release.

Total Score: 4 of 7 Satisfactory

Comments

We Welcome Comments. But please note: We will delete comments left by anyone who doesn’t leave an actual first and last name and an actual email address.

We will delete comments that include personal attacks, unfounded allegations, unverified facts, product pitches, or profanity. We will also end any thread of repetitive comments. Comments should primarily discuss the quality (or lack thereof) in journalism or other media messages about health and medicine. This is not intended to be a forum for definitive discussions about medicine or science. Nor is it a forum to share your personal story about a disease or treatment -- your comment must relate to media messages about health care. If your comment doesn't adhere to these policies, we won't post it. Questions? Please see more on our comments policy.

COMMENTS button We welcome comments, which users can leave at the end of any of our systematic story reviews or at the end of any of our blog posts.

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:

“Shed light, not just heat. Facts, challenges, disagreements, corrections — those are all fine. Attacking the person, instead of the idea or the interpretation, is neither acceptable nor helpful.”

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.