It’s probably not the writer’s choice to submit such a short piece devoid of some of the context he could have provided. We don’t know why the New York Times continues to post such mini-briefs on complicated health/medical/science topics, but we don’t think it’s in the public interest. And when you read some of the comments left on the Times‘ website following this story, you’ll see that we’re not the only ones who feel this way.
The story leads with this: “Eating walnuts may reduce the risk for Type 2 diabetes in women.” But it never explained why the polar opposite – that eating walnuts may not reduce that risk – may also be true.
The cost of walnuts is not addressed. When we checked the comments left on the New York Times blog appended to this story, cost was mentioned in 4 of the first 10 comments left. So you may think our criterion is too strict, but apparently some readers don’t think so – one writing, “Walnuts are an EXPENSIVE luxury.”
The story stated:
“compared with women who ate no walnuts, those who consumed 8 ounces of walnuts or more a month reduced their risk for Type 2 diabetes by 24 percent.”
24% of what? Why not provide the absolute numbers of what was observed?
No mention of potential harms. Aside from the fact that walnuts carry a significant amount of fat and protein and should be eaten in moderation, we don’t know of other harms worthy of mention.
Awkward wording in the story. Example: “Though the findings are correlational….” Is this the best way to explain the evidence to a general news audience?
It certainly is not the best way to explain the limitations of such observational studies.
Not applicable. There wasn’t enough information given about Type 2 diabetes for any disease-mongering to have been committed.
No independent source was quoted – only the author of the study was quoted. The story did note that the study was partially funded by the California Walnut Commission. It did not mention that the researcher quoted in the story has received funding support from that commission.
Again, you can turn to the comments left after the story online to see what readers would have liked to have seen. Excerpts of the comments:
The availability of walnuts is not in question.
The story provided some historical perspective:
“Previous studies have suggested an inverse relationship between tree nut consumption and diabetes. … “There’s been a lot of research on nuts in general in relation to cardiovascular health,” said the senior author, Dr. Frank B. Hu, a professor of medicine at Harvard. “This is the first on walnuts and diabetes. Walnuts may have some unique benefits.”
Not applicable because we’re unsure. There was so little information provided in the story, it is not clear how much independent reporting took place.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
A great read on this weekend’s NYT claims of a cure for Type 1.
Cure for Type 1 diabetes? We’ve been down this road before with NY Times https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2021/11/cure-for-type-1-diabetes-weve-been-down-this-road-before-with-ny-times/
"But it is the framing and the emphasis of the #journalism by a leading science journalist at a leading newspaper that demands scrutiny. It has an impact on readers and on sick people that may cause harm by promoting false hope about extremely preliminary research"
👍👏💪 truth https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1465399358137024518
Why we should still miss healthnewsreview. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1465399358137024518
Comments (1)
Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.
R Neuville
June 15, 2013 at 5:58 pmCompletely reversed my Diabetes on the Walnut Way.
Took 7 months. Also need to avoid food with man made trans fats.
Wrote a short paper free on Kindle Prime “The Walnut Way to Reverse Diabetes Type2”
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