The article on media release claims that 32,000 men were involved in the research while the peer-reviewed journal publishes 32,002 men. Further, the media release argues performing aerobic exercises for 150 minutes a week reduces disease development risk by 52 percent, and weight training for the same period resulted in a reduction of the risk by 34 percent. In contrast, the journal claims that the risk reductions are at 50 percent and 35 percent respectively. As illustrated, the media report had inconsistencies in giving the accurate figures as obtained from the study, which was conducted. These discrepancies in figures may lead to the attainment of confusion among the readers of the media report. As such, it becomes complex to understand why the media report would not provide the exact figures. However, these discrepancies could be based on the desire of the media, to attract more attention from leaders, by using figures, which the public could easily recall.
Further, the media report claimed that the results obtained from the study could be adopted at a global scene (O’Connor, 2012). This was different from the publication on the peer-reviewed journal, which argued that the results would be attenuated for men above 65 years based on the power of this subgroup (Grontved et al., 2012). In this, the media was in the process of seeking stronger attention from the public on the study findings and emphasizing these findings. The journal argues that further research is needed to investigate the intensity, type, and duration of weight training, which is essential in contributing significantly towards risk reduction (Grontved et al., 2012). This was not reported in the media report since the media did not want the public to have some doubts about the study.
Moreover, the media report argued that research findings could be generalized for the other gender (women), which was not reported in the journal article. Nevertheless, there was a similarity in the identification of the media report limitations of the study and the journal article study limitations. Despite this, the media report did not provide the strengths of the research, which was conducted as the journal article provided. The journal article argues that the study had some strength since the sample size, which was used was large (Grontved et al., 2012). This resulted in the attainment of accurate and reliable data, which could be generalized for a large population. In addition, the study had the strength of biannual assessment of confounders and exposures and illustrating that there were robust associations for several sensitivity analyses.
Nevertheless, the media report results seemed to provide accurate information on the study findings despite their discrepancies in the illustration of the exact figures. As such, the media had to provide the public with accurate information about the research conducted. This resulted in encouraging people, to be involved excessively in the activities of weight training and aerobic exercises, as a means of health improvement to suppress instances of disease development.
However, the media report provided some information on Walter Willett quotes, which argued that a few minutes (ten minutes) of training in a day were adequate for the health improvement of an individual. This information is misleading since it has not been backed by scientific evidence from the study, which was conducted. As such, there is a need for research to be conducted, which would lead to proving the claim that little exercise is adequate to minimize the risk of type two diabetes.
References
Grontved, A., Rimm, E. B., Willett, W. C., Andersen, L. B., & Hu, F. B. (2012). “A prospective study of weight training and risk of type two diabetes mellitus in men”. Archives of Internal Medicine. Advance online publication. Web.
O’Connor, A. (2012). “Weight training may lower diabetes risk”. The New York Times.