This short story describes an observational study of 15,482 people from 39 countries around the world who were already diagnosed with heart disease and almost all taking medication for it. The people who reported eating a Mediterranean diet–heavy on fruits and vegetables and low on red meat–showed a reduced risk of heart attack, stroke or death, compared to those who said they ate a Western diet with more meat and animal fats.
This story does include quantified benefits, including a helpful statistic about “how many people out of 100” would likely develop heart disease, stroke, or die. However, it doesn’t provide much analysis that wasn’t already in the news release. A robust discussion of the study’s many limitations would have been useful, for example. For more about the limits of observational studies, see our guide.
This matters because cardiovascular disease is a common cause of death. People love the idea that just adding a few healthy foods or taking a vitamin will reduce their risk of a disease while they still make poor dietary choices (hamburger and French fries). Media reports about a study like this, likely to interest a lot of people–and possibly affirm not-so-healthy dietary choices–should include a robust discussion of the study’s caveats, as well as a discussion of past studies on the topic, so people are fully informed.
The story does not talk about costs. Eating fresh fruits and vegetables–and fresh seafood, especially–is associated with higher costs in many countries.
The story helped clarify the somewhat confusing data points in the study by quantifying the benefits this way (italics added by us):
“Over nearly four years, 1,588 (about 10 percent) of the study participants suffered either a heart attack or stroke, or died. Those who ate more foods in the Mediterranean diet category were 3.5 times less likely to experience one of these three events than people whose diets more closely resembled the Western standard.
In fact, every one-point increase in a participant’s Mediterranean diet score was linked with a 7 percent reduction in risk of heart attack, stroke, or death. Look at it this way: if 100 people ate the highest proportion of Mediterranean foods and 100 ate the least, there would be three fewer heart attacks, strokes, or deaths among those who ate more foods from the Mediterranean diet. These findings held for every geographical region.”
We applaud the writer for including the 100 people example to help readers understand the risk reduction.
Because this is a story about a study of dietary habits, this is N/A.
The story explained the way the study was conducted, which is important. But, the story does not mention some key limitations, including that the short survey did not include as many foods as typically measured in diet studies, and the study did not account for possible benefits of olive oil. To put it another way: What if eating olive oil has a positive effect by itself? If that accounts for the three fewer bad outcomes, then the rest of the diet differences are not statistically significant.
The story would have been stronger if it had included analysis from at least one independent source who had no connection to this study. Especially considering that many of the study’s authors, including the source who was indirectly quoted in the story, received support from a variety of pharmaceutical companies, including GlaxoSmithKline, which is mentioned in this story.
The story did an adequate job of explaining the two diets, and it mentioned medication, which is another approach to preventing heart disease.
Both Western and Mediterranean foods are widely available. However, Western foods are known to be cheaper and more widely available in low-income areas, and that could have been mentioned.
Novelty is addressed with these statements, “Surprisingly, the results suggest it might be possible they can have their cake and eat it, too.” and “Now here’s the interesting part: eating more foods thought to be less healthy — those typical of Western diets —did not link to an increase in heart attacks, strokes, or deaths. Eating more healthy foods was the key, even if some unhealthy foods were also consumed along the way.”
We saw quite a few repeated phrases from the news release here and the story. It appears it did rely very heavily on the release, especially considering there wasn’t an outside source commenting on the study, nor direct quotes.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
I miss @HealthNewsRevu popping up in my feed. Loved seeing this one today.
https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2021/06/zombie-health-care-news/
#healthcare #journalism #ethics #conflictofinterest
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
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