Last week he saw the publication of a new study at BJSM titled "Is the training space the magic sphere for fat loss? A systematic review and meta-analysis comparing medium-intensity continuous training with High Intensive Intercultural Training (HIIT)"It is an appreciative consideration as there was a famous medical magazine suggesting that there was a magic sphere for fat loss, I clicked and then reading the piece I learned that the amount of fat lost that BJSM calls the" magic sphere "was 1 about 28.5% greater reductions in total absolute fat (kg).) Surprisingly, then I went to Twitter to climb and found that one of the authors of the study, James Steele, drew a corrective thread in his own study's advertising campaign – an advertising campaign that, in a understandable and predictable manner, has led to an attack on excessive media coverage. Excited, I approached him directly to ask for the tweets between the tweets and the title and the conclusion of his study and he sent me such a careful and careful answer (explaining how he was the author of the BJSM that had changed both) that I asked him if he had the mind to share his thoughts here as a guest position. Suffice it to say that, in my opinion, medical journals and their authors should not engage in the campaign as they reduce themselves, research and promote social illiteracy, suggesting that such things as "magic spheres" there may be a loss.
I was initially a little anxious that the findings would overestimate and possibly be misled when they see the press release sent to the media. Different requests were sent to me from the newsgroup of our institutions and I saw the wording of the first line of which was
"High intensity exercise blasts are better for weight loss than the longer sessions in the gym, according to research."
My colleague, James Fisher, informed me that he also believed that the press release did not accurately reflect the findings and wondered if the title change resulted in the perception of a different finding.
The original title in our magazine submission was
"By comparing the results of the training at intervals in relation to the continuous training of moderate intensity in physical impurity: is it possible to find a signal in the noise? A systematic review and meta-analysis"
selected as a tribute to Nate Silvers' book and the use of meta-analysis to find the "signalAmong the & # 39;noiseConflicting Findings in Smaller Studies The document was peer reviewed as normal and made changes suggested by judges to improve the manuscript. but none of the judges commented on the title if I remember. Since the judges were pleased with the paper and had no other changes, they wanted to have a recommendation to be published but with minor revisions proposed by the author. Most of the revisions proposed were useful as they seemed to be aimed at improving the readability of the handwriting. However, it was also proposed to change the title as well as add the percentage difference to the conclusion of the summary. This is supposed to attract more attention to the article, make it more urgent and ensure recognition for the project. I did not particularly like the title proposed recently, nor some of my co-authors, but I do not say strictly that something "it was& # 39; a & quot;Magic ballAnd so I did not give the matter. I have to confess that I did not have the opportunity to observe the seemingly minor change in the abstract conclusion. Personally I do not like the presentation of% values in this way, as for me, they are often misleading and degraded by whether absolute values make sense or not (a big problem in sports and IMO exercise, where many studies make interventions to look better than they say% values). The value is not inaccurate, but leads the less cautious reader to make potentially wrong conclusions.
I suspected that the changes were proposed because the paper would probably have been selected for a press release which proved to be correct. I'm glad the paper got some broad coverage but wanted to make sure it was covered in a fine way. So I have a tweeted a little thread to try to give some balance when they interviewed me about the BBC World Service I also ensured a balanced comment as far as I could in the time allowed.
I am not surprised that the media had originally interpreted things to say that "HIIT(High Strength Training) was better than "MOD(Continuous Medium Strength training) for fat loss without taking into account all the hue … that's exactly what happens. I can also realize with the magazine and the publisher that they want to try to increase the amount of work they publish. In my opinion, if we can broaden the scope of good science and increase its appreciation of its importance, then that is good. This is something I would like to be able to do more. But, although this is good in principle, execution is proving difficult. It is difficult to get the shade because science is difficult and most people are not able to understand it. I guess it's part of the media circle. The broader media wants "storiesAnd just the regular dull old science does not make for a good story. So, in order to get media attention magazines and academic publishers, they should try to make things look more exciting. In this process, the shades are lost. However, I can not think of another way of communicating science more widely at this time. I suppose that what we have to make sure is that when the media get a story and want to run, the scientists themselves are the ones who talk and interview so they end up with a platform and a captive audience to explain hue and impact in an understandable way. At least that's what I tried to do and I hope to succeed.
I think if I was able to "renovate"This particular example would then probably have probably pushed more for the issues. I would like to keep the original title and I would support this position as I suspect that my co-writers would probably also have. I would certainly have promoted the change to the abstract conclusion and will look more for these issues in the future. Probably this meant that the paper would be less "impact"As a story about the media. But that would mean that the paper itself did not contribute to any misleading publicity. The publisher could still put the press release as they wished … He can not stop them from doing so. But at least paper would better reflect what we fully found. I think I would advise writers who face similar situations to make sure they think and have a conversation about it. We all want our work to reach the wider public to hope that it will have the greatest possible result. However, we do not want to distort her message. Make sure you've discussed it with your co-writers and magazine / publisher and find the right balance to maintain scientific integrity while maximizing range. It's hard to do, but it's worth fighting for IMO.
Dr. James Steele is the principal investigator at the research institute and partner of the sport and exercise department at Solent University. James completed his BSc (Hons) in Applied Sports Science in 2010 and hid his PhD diploma examining the role of lumbar extensions training in chronic back pain in 2014. He has extensive experience in research and applied counseling in the field of physical exercise, , and sports from the last decade, working with a wide range of populations ranging from elite athletes in a range of sports to the general population throughout their lifetime and both those who are c healthy and ill. James has published numerous scientific articles and has held several invited talks at international conferences in various fields related to sport, strength and preparation, physical exercise and exercise, health and fitness. He was appointed to the Expert Working Group on the Revision of the Guidelines for the Physical Exercise of Heads of Medical Services for the United Kingdom and is a founding member of Society for Endurance and Clinical and Society for Transparency, Openness and Reproduction in the kinesiology and membership of the British Athletics and Exercise Exercise Association and the American College of Sports Medicine.