[swatcoder]

Remember that studies almost never make the strong claims that headlines do.

What the study actually demonstrates is more narrow, as befits science:

"Overweight young adults who usually sleep less then 6.5 hours a day and are coached in sleep hygiene tend to sleep about an hour longer, consume fewer calories proportional to how much more they sleep, and have no significant change in today daily energy expenditure"

https://oa.mg/work/10.1001/jamainternmed.2021.8098

[civilized]

I enjoy a round of "the media distorted science again" as much as anyone, but this seems misleading. The abstract literally makes a weight loss finding:

> No significant treatment effect in total energy expenditure was found, resulting in weight reduction in the sleep extension group vs the control group.

I don't see any way in which the headline made stronger claims than the science. Simplification, or omitting details, is not the same as hyperbole or misrepresentation.

[swatcoder]

The headline suggests that the findings are generally applicable and that the weight loss comes simply from sleeping more than 6.5 hours per night. The study -- which is a great study -- demonstrates neither of those things.

The study has no demonstrated applicability to:

* older adults

* teenagers or children

* BMI obese individuals

* BMI normal/underweight individuals

* people who already sleep more than 6.5 hours per night

* people who sleep longer without being counseled in sleep hygiene as performed by the clinicians -- which presumably involves a comprehensive set of sleep guidelines and possibly even personalized assignment of guidelines and other forms of coaching

Do you think most people reading the headline or even the article would recognize that? Do you think most commenters did?

[civilized]

The title says "can" help, implying a contingent claim with limitations.

As for the rest - I think everything you note here falls in the class of omitting details, which is not in itself misleading. Classifying any headline that omits any details as misleading sets an impossible standard. It basically makes it impossible to provide a responsible headline of any kind.

Even the title of the original scientific article itself fails to disclose several of the limitations you list here. Is a popular media article required to have a title that discloses limitations more comprehensively than the scientific article it reports on?

[swatcoder]

I don't see myself as "taking issue" with anything and am certainly not responsible for any sort of standards in headline writing. I agree with you that the headlines can't include every detail, which is specifically why it's important to practice deeper digging when a headline personally intrigues you.

As far as I can tell, I'm just sharing the details that the headline left out with a community who has the scientific literacy to make sense of them.

A lot of us have a hair trigger around "Can't Trust That Damn Media!" claims (myself included), so I understand why you're trying to stand up for the article here. But if you look back over what I wrote, you'll see that I wasn't criticizing it. Digging deeper is what we want to do so that we can trust the imperfect media that we know we receive.

[civilized]

I still don't agree that the headline made a stronger claim than the article, but I get where you're coming from, and sharing the details and the link to the original study is of course great and what HN is for, so let's call it good :)

[a123b456c]

These is one of the most civil exchanges I've ever read on the internet.