 | | | | |  | An antidote to panics based on dodgy statistics and dubious arguments.
Edited by Rob Lyons. |  | | |  |  |
|
| | | 14 July 2004 | Bread and obesity
Panic: 'White bread could spoil your diet', says a story from BBC News. Researchers from Tufts University in Boston looked at five different diets where one food-type was prominent - 'healthy food' (ie, whole grains, fruits and vegetables), white bread, alcohol, sweets or meat and potatoes - in 459 healthy men and women. Those who ate a diet with a relatively large amount of white bread saw the biggest increases in their waist measurement. In a year, their girth increased by an average of about one centimetre, three times more than people who ate a diet high in fibre and whole-grain foods such as brown bread. Professor Katherine Tucker said: 'Waist circumference was very much associated with this high-refined grains pattern.' White bread is the mostly commonly consumed food in Britain, with an average daily consumption of three slices.
Don't panic: This is a small study with a variety of flaws, which make it difficult to draw definitive conclusions.
To determine whether white bread causes weight gain, you would need to have a controlled study in which the only difference between two groups was the consumption of white bread. Unfortunately, that was far from the case here. As a spokeswoman for the British Nutrition Foundation told BBC News: 'Looking at the data, those that ate white bread consumed more calories, more fat and less fibre, than those that ate wholemeal bread, so it is hard to say that white bread is the reason for this weight gain.' Nor do we know if there were differences between the exercise levels of the various groups.
However, this study fits with the widespread prejudice that refined food is bad, and 'wholefood' is good. In reality, there is no such thing as bad food. A diet where a variety of different foods are eaten is probably better, if only from the point of view of avoiding boredom, but human beings have demonstrated a remarkable capacity to live perfectly healthily on diets made up of entirely the 'wrong' things.
Snootiness about bread quickly disappears when that bread is from France or Italy - despite these countries' preference for the white stuff. Both countries have lower levels of obesity than Britain or the USA, too - which suggests that this study bears little relationship with reality. Still, researchers have got to earn a crust....
Read: |  | White bread could spoil your diet | | BBC News, 13 July 2004 |
| |
| | | 1 July 2004 | Passive smoking
Panic: 'The risks of passive smoking could be twice as bad as previously feared', according to a BBC News report on a study by London's St George's Medical School and Royal Free Hospital. The researchers studied 4792 men, aged 40-59 years old, over a period of 20 years. They found that those non-smokers with the highest levels of cotinine (a byproduct of nicotine) in their blood were between 50 and 60 per cent more likely to suffer from coronary heart disease than those with very low levels. Professor Peter Whincup, who led the study, told BBC News: 'The effects of passive smoking are likely to be bigger and more widespread. This adds weight to the argument that we should do everything we can to minimise passive smoking exposure.'
These results have been seized upon to support the case for a ban on smoking in public places. Reports suggest that Labour may include a ban in its general election manifesto, while doctors at the British Medical Association annual conference produced a giant prescription demanding a ban.
Don't panic: Previous studies have failed to prove a firm link between passive smoking and ill health.
A big problem with many previous studies has been that they simply asked a non-smoker how much their partner smoked. This study is better, in that it attempts to provide a more objective measure of nicotine exposure. But only one sample was taken from the study subjects, between 1978 and 1980; this was then frozen and thawed for testing 20 years later. Even if these results were sound, they would give us a picture of the effect of passive smoking 20 years ago rather than today - when smoking rates have declined significantly, smoking has been banned in the workplace, and ventilation has been improved.
Newspapers reported that passive smoking could raise the risk of heart disease by 60 per cent. This is the relative risk of increase claimed by the study. In absolute terms, it corresponded to 12 per cent of light passive smokers suffering a major heart disease event in later life, compared to 18 per cent of heavy passive smokers. By the end of the study the surviving subjects were aged between 60 and 79 years old.
But the main problem is that the study's results seem to be perverse. The risks for non-smokers with 'heavy' levels of passive smoke exposure are very similar to those of people who smoke between one and nine cigarettes a day - even though the cotinine levels for the smokers are on average 28 times higher. Those with 'light' levels of passive smoking suffered few incidents of heart disease in the first few years of the study - but, surprisingly, in later years they suffered just as many incidents per year as the heavy passive smoking group. This suggests no clear direct relationship between levels of exposure to smoke and coronary heart disease.
None of the shock-horror headlines about the study mentioned its authors' own note that their study was 'modest in size with limited precision'. The attention it received in the papers has little to do with the facts unearthed, and more to do with the political mood in favour of banning smoking in public places. (A piece of research by Warwick University in February 2000 found that studies that discovered a link between passive smoking and ill health were more likely to be published than those that failed to find such a link.) It was surely no coincidence that Labour's manifesto plans happened to be leaked on the same day that the study's results were announced.
Read: | | Passive smoking and risk of coronary heart disease and stroke: prospective study with cotinine measurement, | | British Medical Journal, 30 June 2004 | | Passive smoke risk 'even greater', | | BBC News, 30 June 2004 |
| |
| | | 25 June 2004 | Road deaths
Panic: Reports warn that 'road deaths have risen to the highest level since Labour came to power', going above 3500 deaths for 2003. This has sparked demands for legislative changes, with road safety groups arguing for new regulations to crack down on bad driving - which would make it easier to catch drink drivers and increase the penalties for careless motoring. Meanwhile, the RAC Foundation blamed the government's reliance on speed cameras, arguing that more driving offences are going unchecked. 'The government must concentrate more on effective and visible enforcement and education', said a spokesperson.
Don't panic: The increase in road deaths between 2002 and 2003 was from 3431 to 3508, a change of just two per cent. Among pedestrians and cyclists - the categories that often spark most concern - the death toll actually fell slightly: by one death for pedestrians, and by 16 (12 per cent) for cyclists. The only notable increase was among motorcyclists, a 14 per cent rise from 609 to 693. These changes barely register on the radar of statistical significance - how could legislative changes make any difference to them whatsoever?
This year's statistics come in the context of a long-term fall in road deaths, mainly due to new car safety measures, such as sturdier bodywork, air bags and anti-lock breaking. Only back in 1990, road deaths were around 5250 - which puts the fuss about 3508 into some context. Pedestrian deaths peaked at 3153 in 1966, a far cry from last year's 774. This fall in deaths is testimony to developments in technology and medicine, and hopefully this will continue. Unfortunately, given today's cultural preoccuption with the 'killer car', actual improvements in road safety will no doubt continue to be overlooked in favour of statistically insignificant scares.
One striking feature of these figures is the low number of road deaths among children aged 0-15 - which has fallen from 179 to 171 between 2002 and 2003. If people want to reduce this number even more, they might worry less about new legislation and try teaching kids how to cross roads.
Read: | | Despite cameras and promises, road deaths rise to 3,500 a year, | | The Times, 25 June 2004 |
| |
| | | 16 June 2004 | Air pollution and skin cancer
Panic: 'Cancer warning in heatwave' warned the London Evening Standard this week. It follows a warning issued by the Met Office that levels of UV light were very high, with increased risk of sunburn. The rising levels were blamed on a lack of cloud and lower-than-normal levels of air pollution.
There are currently record UV levels because there is not a great deal of pollution around. Wayne Elliot of the Met Office told the Standard: 'Normally our air is brought up through Europe, and has a lot of pollutants in it. But currently the warm spell is coming from the deep tropics and it is unusually clear. This means far more UV gets through the atmosphere than normal.' Not only could this mean more sunburn, but there are warnings that it could increase the risk of skin cancer in later life.
Don't panic: This report came a week after another Standard article suggested that air pollution levels could, in extreme circumstances, knock 10 years of the lives of some Londoners. Now we have a warning of a cancer risk based on too little air pollution.
As we have pointed out before on spiked, the link between skin cancer and sunlight is complex, with the most dangerous forms having the weakest association with sunlight (see Don't panic: Getting burned). Air pollution has been a major health hazard in the past, but levels are now so low that only those who are already very sensitive to air quality due to pre-existing conditions are affected - and even then, they are generally affected only on days when weather conditions conspire to push pollution levels well above average.
These stories show how the proliferation of health panics means that almost any behaviour can be deemed dangerous. Avoiding one risk opens you up to another. Going by the reports above, we could only avoid risk if we walked around with oxygen masks on, dressed from head to toe in black, and wore factor 50 sunscreen - but we would still need to take vitamin D supplements to make up for our losses due to a lack of sun on our skin. But this would surely be to no avail because someone would then produce a report saying that wearing suncreen causes cancer.
Oh dear, they already have.
Read: | | Cancer warning in heatwave, | | Evening Standard, 14 June 2004 | | Pollution could cut your life by 10 years, | | Evening Standard, 7 June 2004 |
| |
| | | 9 June 2004 | Sofa supporters
Panic: According to the Chartered Society of Physiotherapists (CSP), fans are at as much risk during the Euro 2004 football tournament as the players - even if they don't attend any matches. 'It's easy to get caught up in the tension and excitement and forget about the pressures we're putting on our bodies. This makes us far more likely to pick up or aggravate an existing problem,' said Sammy Margo of the CSP. Fans are advised to position the TV directly in front of them, get up slowly to their feet before starting to celebrate, and place snacks within easy reach to avoid unnecessary lunging. Meanwhile, the Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists warns that excessive shouting and screaming can lead to long-term voice damage.
Don't panic: While this particular advice is no doubt meant in a light-hearted way, it is also a sign of the times that no aspect of everyday life can be enjoyed without someone telling us of the risks involved. For example, would the world be any poorer without this advice: 'In a situation when you can reasonably anticipate a goal, prepare your body by getting up off the sofa carefully so that you are already standing and then you can jump up and down, instead of springing off the sofa'?
If you're out-of-shape and attempt to perform a cartwheel celebration in your living room while the worse for drink, chances are you'll do yourself a mischief. But the chances of doing any harm to yourself in front of a television at home are minimal - unless you attempt to rewire it while lying in the bath, perhaps. Half the fun of a major football tournament is to let off steam and do mildly stupid things in the name of supporting your team. And if you aren't hoarse at the end of a game, it can't have been that interesting.
The notion of enjoyable abandon seems anathema to anybody connected to healthcare. Instead, every action has to be double-checked against one risk or another - however minimal that risk might be. Now, it seems you can't even watch TV safely.
| | Injury warning for armchair fans, | | BBC News, 8 June 2004 |
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
What is spiked?
spiked is an online publication with the modest ambition of making history as well as reporting it. spiked stands for liberty, enlightenment, experimentation and excellence.
Read on...
|
| |
|
|
