People Would Like to Tell You About This 3-Year-Old Study Because… Babies
Why is People magazine telling us about a three-year-old study, apropos of nothing? This week’s article:
There could be another (surprising!) anti-aging solution for women: having more children. According to a study conducted by researchers at Simon Fraser University in 2016, the number of children a woman gives birth to can have an effect on the rate at which her body ages — slowing the process down.
I’ll admit, the first time I read the opening my eye skipped over the date, and I felt like shit about myself. But the second time I read it, I felt like People thinks shit about me because they are delivering up a three-year-old study as if this is breaking news for seemingly no reason. Like reporting on the sinking of the Titanic as if it happened last night but including the fact that the news is 107 years old.
In other words, it’s not news, but they’re putting it out there because fertility sells. Articles about motherhood sells. Scaring you with ideas about your biological clock sells. Because they believe their audience wants to read about three-year-old studies as if it’s breaking news. There is no update, no reason for saying it now; this is not evergreen content.
I’m putting this out there in case you wanted an example to use to explain to people society’s hyperfocus on fertility and how it affects people who can’t conceive. You can show them a 2019 article about a 2016 study and ask them to find an article on any other topic that does the same, for instance, a 2019 article that solely covers the 2012 report about concussions and football as if the study came out this week. Strange how that never happens.
6 comments
Have you ever seen the Science News Cycle by Piled Hugher and Feeper (PHD) comics? (Here’s the link: http://phdcomics.com/comics/archive_print.php?comicid=1174) OMFG, does it apply with this article.
First off, here’s the original article in PLOS One, the science journal that people publish in WHEN THE CAN’T PUBLISH ANYWHERE ELSE: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0146424
Please note that the authors have only correlative data, speculating that telomere length (the end caps for our chromosomes) has anything to do with this supposed link between anti-aging and number of children. Side note, long telomere length is also linked to cancer. So chew on that one.
But more importantly, this paper has SO MANY ISSUES. The authors don’t have any direct data and their methodology is suspect. And yet, just as expected with the Science News Cycle, women are going to be freaking out about dying if they don’t have enough children. Reminds me of the paper that came out that stated a correlation between infertility and paternity leave (which is also bullshit).
Aluminum foil cap to ward off “A,” anyone?
Hmm maybe I’m not caught up on People, I missed that.
Ok this is not really the same as slowing down aging, but I *swear* during my two pregnancies my hair was less gray. I had my two kids at 42 and 44 and started getting grays at 26, and having to do my roots monthly by 30. Something about those hormones—less gray and I could go longer (yes I still did my roots). (And I’m a former scientist and not an idiot)
Sorry, this angered me.
This article is legit and contradicts the one People Magazine is citing: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30038336
“Reproduction predicts shorter telomeres and epigenetic age acceleration among young adult women.”
Translated into “Multiple pregnancies might make women’s cells age faster.” https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2018-07/nu-mpm072518.php
Suck on that, People Magazine.
Oh my GAWD, do I love Cristy.
I was of course quite depressed reading this for both reasons – the study’s conclusions and the focus on fertility as you pointed out so well. Then Cristy came along, and woo hoo! Thanks Cristy. Like Lori, I love you! (And apologise for over use of the exclamation mark.)
You’re absolutely right of course. There’s no way they would post a three-year-old study on concussion and sports injuries. Grr.
Cristy rocks. 🙂 And so do you, Mel. 🙂 🙂 🙂