Health and fitness mags not necessarily giving best nutrition information
Some U.S. magazines that you'd expect would be excellent sources of health and nutrition information aren't, according to a story in MediaDaily News. And some unlikely popular lifestyle publications are more reliable on the subject.The American Council on Science and Health produced a ranking of magazines based on the accuracy and relevance of their nutritional information, measured by provision of factual information, objective presentation and presentation of sound recommendations. And coming out on top were titles like Consumer Reports (excellent) and Glamour and Ladies' Home Journal.
Surprisingly, a number of health and cooking titles, mostly targeting female readers, were ranked merely "good" by ACSH in their delivery of nutritional content: Cooking Light, Fitness, Health, Runner's World and Prevention all fell in this category. Child, Parents, Woman's Day, Redbook, Better Homes and Gardens and Self also drew the third place "good" spot.
Health and fitness titles targeting men appear to be the most inaccurate when it comes to nutrition, according to ACSH. Men's Health and Muscle & Fitness both earned a mediocre "fair" ranking, along with Cosmopolitan and Reader's Digest. Meanwhile, the only "poor" rating in the study went to Men's Fitness.
Labels: Industry studies
posted by D. B. Scott at
10:39 am
1 Comments:
Interestingly, the American Council on Science and Health has come under fire before for bias...
The Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), for example, argues that "the American Council on Science and Health is largely funded by chemical, food, and agribusiness companies and is widely quoted downplaying various risks to public health or discrediting studies indicating risks to health." (http://www.cspinet.org/integrity/press/200407071.html)
A Mother Jones article on the ACSH: http://motherjones.com/news/outfront/2005/11/dr_ross.html
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home