As we have seen, some pretty sensational headlines and scoop teasers have been lobbed out of local and some national media outlets regarding the JAMA article that studied Mevacor vs. a diet heavy in plant sterols, soy, and almonds. And of course, like the reporter who was sorely disappointed the Cyclospora was not a virus and it didn't kill anybody, people will be disappointed to find that the JAMA article is anything but a pilot study.
1. of the 55 subjects recruited, 9 dropped out before completion of the study, leaving only 46 people
2. ... and the study was only for 1 month
3. the study subject were recruited at a Canadian hospital-based outpatient center. They had to have high cholesterol (duh) BUT the women had to be post-menopausal.
4. They followed the patients for 1 month. No outcomes other than lipid levels were recorded.
This, my friends, is a little itty-bitty toe-in-the-water pilot project. No reasonable implications can be drawn from the study until larger, randomized trials with better stratification models and wider outcome ranges can be done. The same goes for the small study in JAMA with the low-fat vs. low-carb. The fact that the news media seem to think these studies mean anything speaks to the lack of integrity in journalism so prevalent today.
This irresponsible reporting also validates public complaints that diet science is confusing and contradictory. I myself get confused about the various warring diet factions and what studies support and detract each. How are we to know how many times a day we can eat a T-bone if we don't get some solid answers?
1. of the 55 subjects recruited, 9 dropped out before completion of the study, leaving only 46 people
2. ... and the study was only for 1 month
3. the study subject were recruited at a Canadian hospital-based outpatient center. They had to have high cholesterol (duh) BUT the women had to be post-menopausal.
4. They followed the patients for 1 month. No outcomes other than lipid levels were recorded.
This, my friends, is a little itty-bitty toe-in-the-water pilot project. No reasonable implications can be drawn from the study until larger, randomized trials with better stratification models and wider outcome ranges can be done. The same goes for the small study in JAMA with the low-fat vs. low-carb. The fact that the news media seem to think these studies mean anything speaks to the lack of integrity in journalism so prevalent today.
This irresponsible reporting also validates public complaints that diet science is confusing and contradictory. I myself get confused about the various warring diet factions and what studies support and detract each. How are we to know how many times a day we can eat a T-bone if we don't get some solid answers?