Reading through the news over the past week, one story really caught my attention. And it’s not surprising it did, given the headline: “Living Near Fast Food Ups Stroke Risk”. That’s a pretty striking headline if you think about it.
The article (and the study it was based on) is pretty interesting, but I thought the reader reaction was even more so. First, take a look at the study and some of its findings:
- Researchers looked at 1,247 stroke cases occurring in one county of Texas since 2003. They mapped those cases to regional areas, which were ranked based on the number of fast food restaurants.
- After controlling for other factors (demographic and socioeconomic), they found people who lived in neighborhoods with the highest number of fast food restaurants had a 13% higher risk of having a stroke than those living in neighborhoods with the lowest number of fast food restaurants.
- The relative risk for stroke increased by 1% for each fast food restaurant in the neighborhood.
(If you want to review the findings yourself, here’s a link to the press release about the study.)
In their most basic form, the findings seem to make sense. More fast food restaurants = more opportunity to eat unhealthy = more high sodium, which can lead to hypertension, which is a known risk factor for stroke. I realize it’s not quite that simple and that the study doesn’t demonstrate a causation, only a potential correlation. The authors very clearly state this as well – as they said, “the findings are purely associative and do not necessarily point to a direct link between the restaurants’ offerings and potentially deadly stroke.”
The headline is certainly designed to get attention (that’s the purpose of a headline, isn’t it?). Without the context of the article, one certainly could read the headline to mean that an individual who eats healthy, doesn’t smoke, exercises and so on would still be at greater risk for stroke just because they live near a bunch of fast food restaurants. But – and maybe it’s because I read a lot of health news – I didn’t expect the article to actually make that case – and I don’t think it did.
I looked at some of the reader comments on the story, as well as a bunch of other publications where the story ran. That’s when I was really surprised. Nearly every comment was critical of either: 1) the findings, 2) the implication that the study was showing a causation between fast food restaurant location and stroke or 3) the fact that the study was done at all. There were very few comments praising this type of research. Overwhelmingly, people were critical of the fact that the study didn’t take all of the other potential factors at work – like stress, age, obesity, socioeconomic status and so on. I thought that it was fairly clear that the authors recognized the study only looked at one variable and that it is showing a potential connection – not a cause and effect.
But my question is…why are people resisting this kind of research? My feeling is that anything that raises awareness about a health issue (and does so in a responsible way) is a good thing. And when an issue is as important as eating healthy, and simultaneously so complex as this one (looking at all the factors that contribute to our eating unhealthy), it’s even more important that it’s studied. In my opinion, the more information that’s available, the better. Maybe someone will read this story and remember that the reason they’re choosing fast food is that it’s close to home, and then think twice about tonight’s dinner. Or maybe it will encourage restaurants to offer even more healthy options and make their nutritional information even more readily available at the point of purchase (like what has happened in New York and some other major cities).
Those thoughts weren’t mentioned…and I don’t really get why. What do you all think?
Kerry
