I'm technically a freelance science/medical writer. I do lots of other things, but if I need to make money, I ask people very kindly if they will let me write something for them, and then give me money in exchange for my words. Weights in the intervention group were lower than those of the control group, who followed their usual eating pattern during the follow-up period, suggesting that a low-fat dietary pattern may help attenuate the tendency for weight gain commonly observed in postmenopausal women.
Nice system, really.
What I'm learning here at school is that there is not only an art to writing about science, but also an art to creating the stories you want to write. I didn't realize what a strange, bizarre world I was about to enter.
Any time you write a story, there's going to be spin. Sometimes, writers have a specific idea of what's happening and it can show. The infamous epidemiology maxim: you tend to find what you're looking for. Looking for stories on how bad overweight is? You'll find them.
The problem comes when you're looking for stories on how essentially inconsequential overweight is.
Those don't really exist.
The horrors of obesity are promulgated far and wide- so far and so wide, in fact, that hardly anyone seeks to question them any more.
Sandy at Junkfood Science posted two recent updates on the Women’s Health Initiative (WHI) Dietary Modification Trial, the latest results of which were published in the Journal of the American Medical Association. I read the science and health news section of most major publications on a very regular basis, yet I hadn't heard anything about the study.
So I searched Google News. I plugged in "Women's Health Initiative Dietary Modification Trial" and hit Enter. Nineteen results popped up. All of them- all, every last one- said that a low fat diet could reduce the risk of ovarian cancer.
Of course- the results of any study having anything to do with food/weight, has to have a conclusion that the intervention or whatever it is, helps people lose weight. Therefore, that must be the main point of this study. The actual objectives of the study are quite different:
To report data on body weight in a long-term, low-fat diet trial for which the primary end points were breast and colorectal cancer and to examine the relationships between weight changes and changes in dietary components.
However, after reading the results of the trial and then going back and reviewing the abstract, I realized that the scientists themselves were putting spin on this issue.
The results section- which consists of megalith tables, many over a page in length- posted many results. Some of them weren't all that surprising- the women placed on the low fat diet consumed slightly less calories from fat, more whole grains and more non whole grain carbohydrates. However, the interesting results were the issues of weight.
BOTH women who were told to follow and low-fat diet (the intervention group) and those who were told to follow their normal eating routines (the control group) lost weight during the study. They intervention group lost approximately 1.5 pounds, and the control group lost approximately 0.5 pounds. The difference, when you look at a massive group of 44,000 women, was statistically significant. However, is it meaningfully significant? Does one measly pound difference warrant all of this effort, time, and money (not to mention blood, sweat and tears)? I mean, if you told the control group to drink an extra glass of water on the morning they were weighed, there would have been no difference at all.
The researchers concluded the following:
Weights in the intervention group were lower than those of the control group, who followed their usual eating pattern during the follow-up period, suggesting that a low-fat dietary pattern may help attenuate the tendency for weight gain commonly observed in postmenopausal women.
Something has to be in it for the scientists. Money, for one. I'm not necessarily talking about billion-dollar greed here. But if they scientists want to keep their jobs, they need to bring money to the university. It's a brutal reality. The fact of the matter is that the NIH has money to spare if you look at "preventing obesity"- what lawmaker would want to say that obesity isn't a problem? It's a given. So scientists study obesity prevention. It's a cash cow.
Then there's the simple fact that scientists aren't immune to ignorance. There are some who believe, promote, and teach Intelligent Design. Sorry, but that's not science.* The anti-obesity message is so prevalent that it's hard to think otherwise. I sure as hell didn't until recently.
Lastly, there's that maxim I quoted earlier: you tend to find what you're looking for.
Just like researchers did in the most recent issue of JAMA. The title of their analysis was titled: Childhood Obesity as a Chronic Disease: Keeping the Weight Off
The conclusions were quite telling of the general attitude towards obesity prevention. If "A" didn't work, then we need "AAAAAAA!!!!!" What they never stop to ask is whether "A" in any variation, had a change of working. Or, first, whether there was a problem to begin with.
Nevertheless, the data provided a sobering message— despite a statistically significant effect of at least 1 of the active maintenance interventions over the longer term (with exclusion of outliers), the effects of all interventions diminished over time and even at their peak were small.
Then, two paragraphs later:
Further research to identify the most successful dietary and physical activity interventions could also augment the effects of the maintenance programs used in this study. For example, the authors used the traffic-light diet, which advocates reduction in fat consumption as its primary nutritional focus. However, the efficacy of dietary fat reduction has been questioned because prospective observational analyses do not show consistent associations between dietary fat and body weight, and because weight loss among interventional studies is not greater in lower- vs higher-fat diet groups.
That really says it all.
*This is also a bugbear of mine, as you would say, Marcella. One that I won't get into now.
**Sorry about the wacky fonts. I tried to change it for a long time, but I'm too frustrated now.