The story is about a USC study that links partial fasting for five days each month to a number of health benefits. But it fails to quantify those benefits in any way and fails to note that two of the researchers have potential conflicts of interest when promoting this line of research. The story receives 0 out of 5 stars — reflecting failure to earn a Satisfactory rating on any of the 7 applicable criteria.
The benefits of fasting are well known, but so too are the risks. This study offers what may be a happy medium — a diet that is linked to health benefits, yet one that appears safe and, perhaps, may be easier to follow.
The story described what the diet would contain (and would not contain), but it did not say how much it would cost to follow the regimen composed of the foods that were given to the study participants. However, since participants were mostly eating what they would normally consume (and less on partial fasting days), we’re guessing that the cost implications are not significant. We’ll rate it Not Applicable.
Alas, the story says “the results are so promising that the University of Southern California researcher who helped develop the regimen is already talking about trying to get approval from the Food and Drug Administration so that it can be recommended for patients.”
But it fails to quantify those results — at all.
There is no discussion of harms, beyond the story’s undocumented claim that the modified fast is safe. At a minimum, low-calorie diets can cause problems with fainting and poor concentration that could have been mentioned. And if the study that’s the basis for the story found no adverse effects at all, the story should have said so.
The story’s description of the findings as “promising” is as detailed as it gets.
The story says nothing about the incidence in the United States of obesity and the diseases linked to it. In fact, there’s so little context that we’re hesitant to rate this Satisfactory. “Not Applicable” seems more appropriate.
The story fails to note that Longo and a second author have financial ties to L-Nutra, a company that develops foods for use in such diets. The study itself says Longo plans to donate all of his equity in the company to non-profit organizations; it does not say what the second author’s plans are.
It also fails to note that the University of Southern California has licensed intellectual property to L-Nutra and that, as part of the license agreement, the school may receive royalty payments from L-Nutra.
And it does not say that the clinical part of the study on which the story focused was funded by the USC Edna Jones chair fund.
The sole independent voice comes in the form of comments from a nutritional therapist that are lifted, inexplicably but with attribution, from a newspaper. Performing a real interview with a nutrition expert would likely have led to a deeper, more thorough report on this research.
The story mentions “extreme dieting” and its attendant dangers, but does not say what those dangers are. A brief discussion of other fasts/very low calorie diets would have been useful. Or, even better, the story could have discussed the role of known programs that result in weight loss that most physicians would recommend (e.g. behavioral counseling or Weight Watchers).
The story notes that the FDA has not approved the regimen, though it is not clear what exactly it would be asked to approve — since one does not need FDA approval to fast. This description is arguably confusing to readers, and the story contains no information about how one would actually learn more about the details of the fasting protocol. .
The story suggests that the modified fast described here is new. But the concept of intermittent fasting is not novel.
The quote below is lifted directly from this news release — but the story never identified where the quote came from.
‘It’s about reprogramming the body so it enters a slower aging mode, but also rejuvenating it through stem cell-based regeneration,’ Longo said. ‘It’s not a typical diet because it isn’t something you need to stay on.’
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
Why it’s time that the US National Library of Medicine added OVERDIAGNOSIS to its medical subject headings. By Steve Woloshin & Barry Kramer, who’ve been teaching us about this for years. https://www.bmj.com/content/375/bmj.n2854
This thread on #Gates funded pandemic reporting is worth reading
cc @garyschwitzer @DavidCallahanIP @thackerpd @natashaloder @donatopmancini @jamie_love @HansGutbrod @transparify @HAITim @deb_cohen @OSFHealth @SteveJGoodrich @diarmaidmcd @thackerpd @HealthWatchUK @YNatsis https://twitter.com/TimothyWSchwab/status/1448321233326592007
Great advice for reporters and biomedical PR folk via the @AHCJ blog and @garyschwitzer: https://healthjournalism.org/blog/2021/09/elizabeth-holmes-trial-a-reminder-to-never-fall-for-the-hype/
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