5/ Still, at least that document talks about HFSS (high in fat, sugar or salt) unlike their tube ads which use the legally meaningless term “junk food”. HFSS is a far broader category than what most people think of as junk food. The ads are misleading. https://health.spectator.co.uk/the-proposed-junk-food-ban-is-aimed-at-you-not-your-children/ …
-
Show this thread
-
6/ But what about the claim that seeing an extra “junk food” ad leads to kids eating an extra 18,000 calories per year? This news was reported exclusively in The Grocer last March.https://www.thegrocer.co.uk/buying-and-supplying/health/hfss-food-ads-mean-teens-eating-18000-extra-calories-a-year/564254.article …
1 reply 1 retweet 3 likesShow this thread -
7/ It claimed that kids see 6 such ads per week and that those who see 7 per week consume an extra 350 calories a week. A striking and specific claim. Was there a linear relationship? How much did those who recall no ads eat?pic.twitter.com/rE9jdpfgio
1 reply 1 retweet 3 likesShow this thread -
8/ Alas, the study was unpublished at the time so we couldn’t assess it. The rest of the media reported it in May when the findings were due to be presented by lead author Jyotsna Vohra at the European Congress on Obesityhttps://metro.co.uk/2018/05/22/junk-food-adverts-are-fuelling-teenage-obesity-according-to-new-research-7567483/?ito=cbshare …
1 reply 1 retweet 2 likesShow this thread -
9/ And now it’s all over London, but where is the study? There’s nothing about it on PubMed under the lead author’s name. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Jyotsna+Vohra …pic.twitter.com/Gkh5ls4y0U
2 replies 1 retweet 2 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @cjsnowdon
To be fair here, they did publish the whole study themselves publicly, which is not unusual for NGOs who conduct their own research: https://www.cancerresearchuk.org/sites/default/files/under_pressure.pdf …
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @GidMK @cjsnowdon
That being said, their conclusions are far too solid for the research that was conducted. It's a very complicated inference model, definitely not something you can put that much confidence in
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @GidMK @cjsnowdon
They basically took self-reported advertising exposure, converted into a linear scale, then did the same with self-reported HFSS foods, and used linear regression to estimate the increased consumption
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @GidMK @cjsnowdon
Then they converted the increased consumption to an estimated calorie intake, based on previous literature, and used that as their final estimate. That's a lot of steps where something could've gone wrong
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Just a lot of unknowns. Doesn't mean the relationship isn't there, but I'd definitely be skeptical about the specific point estimate of 18,000 calories because that figure is very tenuous
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.