Note to our followers: Our nearly 13-year run of daily publication of new content on HealthNewsReview.org came to a close at the end of 2018. Publisher Gary Schwitzer and other contributors may post new articles periodically. But all of the 6,000+ articles we have published contain lessons to help you improve your critical thinking about health care interventions. And those will be still be alive on the site for a couple of years.
Read Original Story

NYT blog post on sugar’s effect on heart disease markers was a little too short and sweet

Rating

3 Star

Categories

Cutting Sugar Rapidly Improves Heart Health Markers

Our Review Summary

Choosing between apple and doughnutReducing sugar—but not calories—in the diets of a small group of children who have obesity led to substantial reductions in heart disease risk factors in only nine days, a new study shows. This brief New York Times Well blog post does a good job explaining these details, including the cautionary information that the study was small and of short duration.

But the cost of brevity is that it fails to offer readers the kinds of methodological and explanatory details that would have helped them judge the relatively cursory nature of the research. Instead, it encourages readers to view the study as part of a growing body of research by referring them to a longer and more detailed 2015 post about a study conducted by some of the same scientists.  Alas, a quick look at the methodological details suggests that both studies stem from the same group of child participants. It is not unusual for a single study to generate several research articles.  But one could make the argument here that holding such small studies in abeyance and waiting for the bigger picture would serve readers better. Including commentary from an independent expert also would have strengthened the post.

 

Why This Matters

Although we Americans cling desperately to our sugary foods, learning that reducing sugar could markedly improve our health might encourage significant behavior change in this country.

There is a growing–but certainly not conclusive–body of evidence that suggests there might be unique concerns with sugar beyond just its calories, such as being a possible contributor to heart disease.

Criteria

Does the story adequately discuss the costs of the intervention?

Not Applicable

The brief text reflects only on removing highly sugared foods in the diet of children.  Replacement foods used in the study were commonly available at no obvious extra cost.

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

Not Satisfactory

This short narrative does an admirable job of getting specific about physiological changes that took place in these children over the course of nine days.

However, the story should have established what this means in terms of an outcome that someone cares about. What would be the expected reduction in risk of heart attack or stroke? How big are the changes clinically, and how do they compare with other approaches? It’s probably hard to say since these are children, but then the story should acknowledge that.

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

Not Applicable

The study sought to hold number of calories constant in order to examine the impact of reduced sugar.  While many health experts would point out that substituting pizza and bagels does not meet the criteria for an overall healthy diet, that was not a concern of this design.

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

Satisfactory

This was a modest study, with only 37 or 43 (the blog post indicates 37 while a UCSF news release indicates 43) child participants who were tracked over nine days.  The reporter does label the effort “small and short-term.”

Does the story commit disease-mongering?

Satisfactory

Calls to reduce sugar in our diets have burgeoned in recent years, and data do seem to suggest that eating less sugar is beneficial.  Just how beneficial is still a matter of study.

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

Not Satisfactory

There are no independent sources–the one person quoted is study coauthor, Dr. Robert Lustig, who has a potential conflict of interest. Lustig wrote a book that’s extremely critical of sugar, and has spoken of fructose as “poison.”

Does the story compare the new approach with existing alternatives?

Not Satisfactory

The story makes no mention of other strategies typically employed to reduce markers of heart disease, including other types of dietary changes, exercise and drugs such as statins (which are typically reserved for adults). The UCSF news release did include this type of information.

Does the story establish the true novelty of the approach?

Not Satisfactory

The extent to which the research is novel is left unexplored.  The blog post does reference a 2015 post about a research report that, while examining different physiological end points, reaches similar conclusions about sugar as a bad actor.

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

Satisfactory

The UCSF news release provided a lot of information about this study, but the blog post sticks with a short summary of the findings. The one quote in the story appears to be original, and not taken from the news release.

Total Score: 4 of 8 Satisfactory

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.

Comments are closed.