A Skeptical View Of ‘Eat Chocolate, Be Thinner’ Study


I’m starting a Yoni Freedhoff fan club. Who’s with me?

Twice now in the last month, Dr. Freedhoff, a Canadian obesity specialist, has brought much-needed, data-driven skepticism to splashy food research that got wide and potentially misleading coverage. (He calls himself a “certifiably cynical realist” in his blog subtitle.)

First it was a daunting study about red meat and mortality, and now it’s Monday’s article linking more frequent chocolate consumption with lower weight.

Confession: I wrote up the chocolate study — sounding maximally dubious, but I wrote it up. So I feel duty-bound to call attention to Dr. Freedhoff’s blistering post pointing out major flaws in the study’s methodology, including the fact that the researchers left major holes in their data on subjects’ diets beyond chocolate, fruits and vegetables, and saturated fat. He writes:

So to recount – basically here we have a study with no controls whatsoever rendering conclusions impossible, authors who rather than mention their study’s pretty much insurmountable methodological limitations instead made up a “growing body of literature” on magic calorie neutral or negative foods, a press release that spins it all as fact and as a result, as of early this morning, less than 24 hours after publication, there were already 443 chocolate makes you thin stories on the newswire to further misinform an already nutritionally confused world.

Once again I’m left scratching my head trying to understand how this could possibly have made it to – let alone passed – peer review, and why it is that ethics and accuracy don’t seem to matter to the folks who write press releases, or to the respected researchers who are drawing these unbelievably irresponsible and over-reaching conclusions despite undoubtedly knowing better. It also makes me wonder just how exactly they all manage to sleep at night.

Hat-tip to the Reporting on Health blog, which reprints Dr. Freedhoff here, and the post ran originally on his Weighty Matters blog.

  • Reasonable?

    Okay, maybe all these epidemiological survey based studies need the following disclaimer based on their methodology:

    GENERAL DISCLAIMER: “This is Tabloid science at best.  This should be read mostly for entertainment purposes.  This study cannot seperate correlation from caussation.  This study depends on self report which is inherently flawed.  There are most likely unmeasured confounders (known unknown  and unknown unknowns).  But hey, researchers need to publish to get tenure and it’s much cheaper and easier to do these studies than the randomized controlled cross over trials that are actually informative.  Only drug companies have the money and the legal requirement to do those……Enjoy the read….we hope you don’t misinterpret this data, but you probably will…..Thanks”

    • Carey Goldberg

      Excellent! I think I’ll use that on all future reports of such studies….! Also happy to have a watchdog who focuses not just on journalists — though goodness knows we’re far from perfect — but also on the researchers themselves and the peer reviewers….

  • http://twitter.com/YoniFreedhoff Yoni Freedhoff

    Thanks for the kind words!  If my Bubbie were alive, she’d sign up for the club.

    • Carey Goldberg

      :-) And she’d want you to keep writing often! Such nachas!