The ideal weight loss industry researchaganda piece is one where the sponsoring company has total control. This was the case with the Jenny Craig marketing piece masquerading as research that we discussed in Part 2 of this series. They funded the research, they paid for the food and program fees for the participants, they managed the process with their best counselors, and they undoubtedly hand-picked the researcher who led the study.
However, the vast bulk of researchaganda is not so tightly controlled. Control has to be exerted indirectly through academic self-censorship and spin management. But when handled correctly, even devastatingly bad research can be turned around. To mangle Donald Trump’s famous phrase about publicity, it seems that there is “no such thing as bad researchaganda.”
A good example of this is the study that we referenced in the last post that was published in 2007 in the international Journal of obesity. Although the study won’t be free online until next year, the abstract is available and, in this case, the abstract provides all the data that we need to know.
Usually weight-loss programs guard their retention data very closely, primarily because it is so bad. However, in this case, the researchers somehow managed to talk Jenny Craig into giving them data on 60,164 men and women ages 18-79 years who enrolled in the Jenny Craig Platinum program between May 2001 and May 2002.
The results of the study looked like this when placed in table format.
| Time in program | Weight Loss (% of Body Weight) | Loss For a Woman Weighing 180 Pounds* | Loss For a Man Weighing 209 Pounds** | Retention rate | Dropout Rate |
| 4 Wks | 1.1% | 2 lbs | 2 lbs | 73% | 27% |
| 13 Wks | 8.3% | 15 lbs | 17 lbs | 42% | 58% |
| 26 Wks | 12.6% | 23 lbs | 26 lbs | 22% | 78% |
| 52 Wks | 15.6% | 28 lbs | 33 lbs | 6.6% | 93.4 |
Given the above data, what do you think that the conclusion stated in the abstract should say? Well, it should probably say something like “If you stick with the program, most people can lose a pound a week for the first six months and then a little less than half a pound a week for the second six months. However, most people don’t stick with the program. By the end of the 13 weeks, 58% had dropped out and by the end of the year a whopping 93.4% had dropped out.”
So is that what the conclusion said? Of course not. It doesn’t make sense to bite the hand that feeds you. Jenny Craig gave the researchers the data. Jenny Craig can fund additional research in the future. So what did the conclusion say? It said “Weight loss was greater among clients who were retained in the program longer. The findings from this study suggest that a commercial weight loss program can be an effective weight loss tool for individuals who remain active in the program.” That’s how self-censorship works.
The next step in managing researchaganda is to spin the results. In this case, it’s simply a matter of cherry picking the data. You focus on the data you like and ignore the data that you don’t like. Go to Jenny Craig’s Medical Information page and scroll down to the paragraph entitled “How Effective Is the Jenny Craig Program?”
Does it mention the dropout rate at all? Of course not. We read instead that “Based on an external analysis by The Cooper Institute of 60,164 Jenny Craig clients, those who attended 85% of their consultations, had at the end of 13/26/52 weeks lost 8%/12%/15% of initial weight, respectively.”
Even a bad study can be spun. That’s how researchaganda works.
* A 5’5″ woman with a BMI of 30 weighs 180 pounds.
** A 5’10” man with a BMI of 30 weighs 209 pounds
