I have written elsewhere on how mistakes in science reporting distort or alter the facts and often seem to be motivated by a desire to sensationalize the topic, possibly in an attempt to get more clicks. A headline caught my eye today in Newsweek: "What Scientists Are Saying About the Viral Fast Mimicking Diet." Fortune Magazine corroborates with "A 5-day, fast-like diet could lower your biological age and help you live longer, shows new study. Here’s what to know." Healthline is also covering it: "Fasting-Like Diet Reduced Prediabetes Markers and Signs of Aging by 2. 5 Years."

I can just hear the diet fascists at work touting their new proof that this fad is the latest cure for aging.

But at least the sources I listed above have the integrity to cite their own source in primary research: the unimpeachable publication Nature Communications, with the headline, "Fasting-mimicking diet causes hepatic and blood markers changes indicating reduced biological age and disease risk." The first two words in the abstract are entirely missing in the sources cited above: "in mice." One would think that Fortune Magazine, with its phrase "Here's what to know," would include the fact that the study was conducted in mice.

I allowed myself a bit of smug satisfaction by noting that one of my favorite sources of journalism, the BBC, got it right. In BBC Science Focus, the article "New fasting-like diet could reverse your biological age, study claims."