This is a quick story about the findings from a small study of pregnant mice. The study showed that mice given the opportunity to exercise during pregnancy (by running on a wheel) had offspring that were more physically active than the offspring of pregnant mice who were not permitted to exercise.
This story was concerning on several fronts:
We suggest an alternate message for moms: Wait for larger, controlled human studies before buying into such a link. And we would urge on all of us a greater degree of skepticism for news releases that promote such generalizations on the basis of a small study.
Active human beings are generally healthier human beings. But the prospect that level of parental activity during pregnancy might influence the eventual activity levels of their children—and that such influence is biological, not environmental—is novel and would be of great interest if it proved to be true.
The intervention here is the act of running—in the case of these furry participants, running in an exercise wheel. If the assumption is that the human equivalent is also running (and not weight lifting as the story’s image indicates), the primary cost to people would be one of time.
The story explains that levels of physical activity in mouse kids of active mouse moms were 50% greater than were activity levels of kids of mouse moms who were prevented from using a wheel. Normally, we’d expect to see these numbers quantified in absolute terms, but since we’re talking about mice, we don’t think it’s essential to get too precise, as that might feed the perception that the results are applicable to humans.
Possible harms of vigorous activity during pregnancy were not discussed.
While the story makes clear, early on, that this study was conducted in mice, it fails to note that the design utilized only a handful of the little critters: 12 to 16, according to the peer-reviewed article in The FASEB Journal. The reporter clearly understood the potential gap between mouse and human studies and included a brief section heralded by the question “How does this relate to our own species?” But the subsequent text, instead of highlighting the challenges of generalizing from mice to moms, offers the reader encouragement to make that jump.
In some ways, this story is not about disease but about wellbeing.
The unfortunately thing here is that a small mouse study is now circulating the internet on a number of news sites, possibly impacting the decisions pregnant women make, when this research isn’t at all conclusive about what humans should or shouldn’t do during pregnancy.
There appear to be no overlooked conflicts of interest in this story. However, because there were no independent sources, this falls under Not Satisfactory.
Although the story refers repeatedly to “exercise,” the only physical activity studied here was mice running on an exercise wheel, and not other forms of vigorous activity. That’s the limitations of mouse research, and why these sorts of stories should be reported on sparingly.
Running as an activity is presumably accessible to women.
The article notes that the current study goes beyond available observational studies in humans by utilizing an experimental design in mice.
This brief story is highly reliant on a news release. The reporter has made no obvious attempt to contact the researchers for further information or to obtain reactions from other scientists.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
Following a shift in journalism’s business model, a diverse ecosystem of publications, many covering science, has sprung up online. This has made it more difficult to sort out what qualifies as journalism, what doesn’t, and whether the public even cares.
https://t.co/qO2a27FiSe
Researchers and journalists do the public a grave disservice when they spin health study results to make them appear safer or more effective than warranted, says @HealthNewsRevu founder @garyschwitzer https://t.co/QIKsRbP6Ed
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