News Article:“Whole Fruit and Green Leafy Vegetable Decrease Risk of Diabetes”
Original Article:“Intake of Fruit, Vegetables, and Fruit Juices and Risk of Diabetes in Women”
1) What specific claim(s) does the news article make about the study? That is, what did the news article say was discovered? For each claim, indicate if the original paper actually makes that claim.
The article claims that consuming whole fruits and green leafy vegetables decreases the risk of developing type 2 diabetes while fruit juices increase the risk. The paper claims that the overall intake of fruits and vegetables is not associated with Type 2 diabetes, but there seems to an inverse relationship between developing type 2 diabetes and consuming whole fruits abd green leafy vegetable, and a positive asssociation between fruit juices and the development of type 2 diabetes. There are a few errors in the article. It claims one or more servings of green leafy vegetables and an additional 3 servings of fruit may decrease the risk of type 2 diabetes, the paper discusses the results of a study where the average consumption of whole fruit was a little over 1 serving, and vegetables in general(not specifically leafy greens) were 3 servings. The article mentions specific percent increases and decreases in risk of developing diabetes that were not clearly present in the paper.
2) Most technical papers have a “Conclusions” section (often labeled as such). Find this section. Are the items which the original authors highlighted as conclusions of their study discussed in the news article? Indicate “yes” or “no”, giving your evidence.
The article discussed the conclusions of the paper fairly well. It addresses the points the researchers made about fruit juices increasing the risk because the high sugar load can be absorbed more rapidly in liquid form. The solid form of the fruit has more fiber and is absorped more slowly. The article also address the researchers advice that people should be more cautious about replacing other beverages with fruit juices because they consider them the healthier alternative, and also should be more cautious about the recommendation in national dietary guidelines that 100% fruit juice be considered a serving of fruit.
3) Most technical papers will describe the uncertainty around their conclusions and discoveries, often discussed in a section labeled “Discussion.” Does the original paper describe the degree of confidence the scientists have in their discoveries? If so, describe this, and indicate whether or not the news article also discusses the degree of uncertainty.
In this paper there was no section labeled. The conclusion section encompasses the discussion. The researchers conclude that the main limitation of the study is the potential for bias because of measurement error. Unknown variables cannot be ruled out and could have caused the results. The food supply has changed and the study did not account for fresh or canned fruits. Underestimation in the self-reporting of type 2 diabetes could be factor but it is unlikely to be a major one because all the subjects were nurses, so they are highly educated about medical conditions. Fruit punches are associated with an increased risk of diabetes in American women, and it is possible that they might have reporred fruit punches as juices in the self reports. The population was homogenous so the results can be generalized to women of other races or ethinicities until this is further examined. The news article does not address any of these limitations.
4) It is the job of the news reporter to make whatever item they are reporting on relevant to some larger issue or set of issues; in contrast, a technical paper is often much more focused and may not deal with broader implications of the work. Do you find examples of the reporter discussing “broader implications” not present in the original paper? If so, describe them. Additionally, if so, indicate whether you (as a reader) can see that this broader implication actually does follow from the conclusions of the study.
The paper does a good job of discussing the broader implications of the study and the article basically restates that. The article overgeneralizes and actually misreported some of the findings. The 9% or 18% decrease in Diabetes risk in not clearly stated in the paper. The article has wrong figures on the servings of the fruits and leafy green vegetables. The article restates the papers warning about the perceived healthfulness of fruit juices and also that consuming whole fruits and leafy vegetables does not negate other strong risk factors like obesity.
5) In some technical paper the original scientists might describes previous contradictory work of previous research (often in the “Introduction”), which they presumably consider their new work has overturned. If so, does the news article reflect that this study has resulted in the rejection of a previous hypothesis? There has been no rejection of previous hypotheses, however other studies that have found similar results were cited in the paper. The article does not mention any other research evidence.
6) Journalists very often couch science news items as “debates between equal sides”, even if the weight of the evidence is not equal. Does the news article discuss alternative hypotheses that are not mentioned in the original paper? If so, does the news article give a measure of what degree of evidential support exists for either of the alternative models?
The article does not report alternative hypotheses that are not present in the paper.