Posted by A Hilarious Tale of Bad Science Reporting
After more than a decade of writing about science, I’ve seen my fair share of terrible science reporting in the media. When you’re analyzing how scientific studies are covered, there are countless ways news organizations can botch even the most basic research. Sometimes it’s sheer incompetence. Other times, it’s driven by misplaced incentives or even outright malice. Whatever the reason, I truly thought I had seen every possible way a science story could go wrong.
Boy, was I wrong.
A recent piece from Fox News has taken bad science reporting to a whole new level—so much so that it might just be the most hilariously misguided science story I’ve ever encountered.
Eating Oatmeal is good?
Let me set the scene for you. Imagine sitting down with your morning coffee, scrolling through the news, when you stumble upon a headline boldly claiming something like, “Eating Oatmeal Could Add Years to Your Life!” Sounds promising, right? Who wouldn’t want to believe that their breakfast routine is secretly a fountain of youth? But as you dig deeper into the article, you realize it’s less about groundbreaking science and more about… well, let’s just say it’s a masterclass in how not to report on research.
The Fox News story took a single study—already flawed in its design—and twisted it into a narrative so absurd that it feels like satire. Except it’s not. This wasn’t some clever parody written to make us laugh; this was a genuine attempt at journalism. And that’s what makes it so entertainingly tragic.
Stay tuned, because this deep dive into the world of oatmeal and overblown claims is just getting started. By the end, you’ll not only understand why this story is so off-base but also learn how to spot these kinds of blunders in the future. (And maybe have a good chuckle along the way.)
The Story in Question: A Masterclass in Vague Reporting
At first glance, the story seems like your run-of-the-mill piece of health journalism. The headline—“Eating this breakfast food could help you live longer, study suggests”—isn’t particularly groundbreaking. In fact, it fits snugly into the classic playbook of science reporting. It’s catchy enough to grab attention but vague enough to cover anything from a flimsy review paper to a rigorous randomized trial. You’ve seen this formula a thousand times before: “X food might cure Y disease,” or “Z habit could save your life.” It’s clickbait gold.
Is Eating Oatmeal good
But here’s where things start to get… interesting.
Almost immediately, the article veers off the rails. The opening paragraph doesn’t even quote a person—it paraphrases some nebulous statement from UC Davis, the university, about how eating breakfast might be good for your health. Groundbreaking, right? Who knew breakfast could be beneficial? (Sarcasm fully intended.)
From there, the piece takes a nosedive into what can only be described as filler content. It strings together quotes from two health professionals—a medical doctor and a dietitian—who essentially say, “Yeah, oatmeal is pretty good for you, but it’s not perfect.” Wow. Mind-blowing stuff.
Let’s be real: this isn’t journalism. It’s not even bad journalism. It’s just… empty words stitched together to fill space and rake in a few clicks. There’s no depth, no insight, no actual reporting. It’s the written equivalent of elevator music—bland, forgettable, and utterly devoid of soul.
And yet, somehow, it gets worse.
The Missing Study: A “Scientific” Mirage
Here’s the kicker: nowhere in the article does Fox News actually cite a study. Not even a bad one. There’s no reference to new research, no data, no methodology—nothing. Instead, the entire piece seems to hinge on a single statement from Dr. Mike Sevilla, a family physician interviewed for the story.
Here’s what he said:
“Included in the test group of a recent study by the American Journal of Lifestyle Medicine was a 105-year-old woman. One step in her normal daily routine was eating oatmeal.”
That’s it. That’s the foundation of this entire article. A single anecdote about a 105-year-old woman who happened to eat oatmeal. Oh, and just to clarify: Dr. Sevilla wasn’t even involved in this so-called “study.”
But Wait… What “Study”?
At this point, you’re probably wondering: What was this groundbreaking “recent study” that supposedly links oatmeal to longevity? Surely, there must be some robust scientific evidence behind such a bold claim, right?
Spoiler alert: There isn’t.
Fox News doesn’t bother to provide any details about the study—not the authors, not the sample size, not even a direct quote. It’s as if they’re daring readers to take their word for it. So, naturally, I decided to dig a little deeper.
By searching academic databases and Google for mentions of 105-year-old women, oatmeal, and the American Journal of Lifestyle Medicine , I eventually uncovered the origin of this dubious claim. And let me tell you—it’s as underwhelming as you’d expect.
The “Science” Behind the Sensation: A Single Anecdote About Oatmeal
So, after some digging, it turns out the “scientific” foundation of this oatmeal longevity claim is… well, not science at all. The best source I could find wasn’t even a peer-reviewed study—it was an article from People magazine, published in late 2024. (Yes, you read that right. People magazine.)
The People article references a paper published in the American Journal of Lifestyle Medicine (AJLM), and thankfully, they even include a link to it. This should be where things get interesting, right? Surely, this paper must contain groundbreaking research or compelling data to justify such bold claims about oatmeal.
Spoiler alert: It doesn’t.
Meet the Blue Zones Paper
The original paper is titled Blue Zones: Lessons From the World’s Longest Lived . Sounds impressive, doesn’t it? However, here’s the catch: it’s not a study. It’s an editorial—essentially an opinion piece—written by the CEO of the Blue Zones marketing company and one of his employees.
Now, if you’re unfamiliar with Blue Zones, it’s a concept popularized by Dan Buettner, who identified regions around the world where people tend to live exceptionally long lives. These zones are often studied for their lifestyle habits, which include diets rich in plant-based foods, regular physical activity, and strong social connections.
But here’s the kicker: the authors of this editorial have direct and considerable financial conflicts of interest . They’re not just researchers or scientists—they’re marketers. Their entire business model revolves around promoting the Blue Zones brand, selling books, and consulting on wellness programs. And while they do mention these conflicts briefly at the bottom of the page, it’s easy to miss unless you’re specifically looking for it.
The Case Study That Wasn’t
Within this editorial, the authors spend exactly two sentences discussing a case study about a woman named Marge Jetton, who lived to be 105 years old. Here’s what they say:
Similarly, Marge Jetton, aged 105, woke up every morning at 5:30 AM, read her Bible, and had a breakfast of slowly cooked oatmeal, nuts, dates, soy milk, and a shot of prune juice. She then spent 30 minutes on a stationary bike, hopped into her Cadillac, and drove to volunteer for seven different organizations.
That’s it. That’s the entire basis for the claim that oatmeal can help you live longer.
Not a controlled study. Not a rigorous assessment. Not even a detailed biography. Just a single anecdote about what one very old woman reportedly ate for breakfast.
The Problem with Anecdotes
Here’s the thing about anecdotes: they’re fun to read, but they’re terrible evidence. We don’t know if Marge Jetton ate oatmeal every day, once a week, or even once a month. We don’t know if her longevity was due to her diet, her active lifestyle, her faith, or genetics. Heck, we don’t even know if this story is accurate—it’s just a brief mention in an editorial with no citations or references to back it up.
And yet, somehow, this fleeting reference to oatmeal made its way into a Fox News article claiming that eating oatmeal could help you live longer.
The Bigger Picture: A Cautionary Tale
This whole saga is a perfect example of how shaky science gets amplified in the media. A single anecdote buried in an opinion piece becomes the “study” cited by a major news outlet. The public, trusting that journalists have done their due diligence, ends up believing that oatmeal holds some magical life-extending properties.
But the truth is much less exciting—and far more human. Marge Jetton was just living her life, doing what worked for her. Maybe oatmeal played a role, maybe it didn’t. Either way, her story is fascinating—but it’s not science.
This Isn’t Science—It’s Storytelling in Disguise
Let’s call this what it is: this isn’t science. It’s not even a well-rounded anecdote. At best, it’s a story—a fleeting, unsubstantiated tidbit about an old woman’s morning routine, buried in a paper that stretches the definition of “academic” to its breaking point.
If you’ve been following my writing for any length of time, you’ll know that I’ve long been skeptical of the Blue Zones concept. For those unfamiliar, Blue Zones are regions around the world where people supposedly live longer, healthier lives due to specific lifestyle habits. While the idea has gained widespread popularity (and spawned countless books, documentaries, and wellness programs), the science behind it is shaky at best. The data is often cherry-picked, the conclusions are overblown, and the financial incentives driving the narrative are impossible to ignore.
But even if we set aside my skepticism about Blue Zones for a moment, this particular snippet about Marge Jetton is so far removed from anything resembling scientific rigor that it’s laughable. You simply can’t base public health advice—or headlines claiming oatmeal will help you live longer—on vague pronouncements about what one centenarian allegedly ate for breakfast.
Why This Matters: The Danger of Junk Science in Media
The problem here isn’t just that Fox News got it wrong (again). The real issue is how this kind of sloppy reporting shapes public understanding of health and wellness. When people read headlines like “Eating Oatmeal Could Help You Live Longer,” they don’t stop to question whether the claim is backed by solid evidence. They trust that the journalist did their homework—that there’s a study, or at least some credible research, supporting the assertion.
But in this case, there’s nothing. No study. No data. Just a single sentence about a woman who may or may not have eaten oatmeal every day. And yet, thanks to the amplification power of mainstream media, this baseless claim now has the potential to influence thousands—if not millions—of people.
The Bottom Line: Science Requires More Than Stories
Science isn’t built on stories—it’s built on evidence. Rigorous studies. Replicable results. Peer-reviewed research. A single anecdote, no matter how charming or inspiring, doesn’t cut it.
Marge Jetton sounds like a remarkable woman. She woke up early, stayed active, volunteered for seven organizations, and lived to be 105. That’s incredible. But her life wasn’t a controlled experiment, and her breakfast choices weren’t the sole determinant of her longevity. To suggest otherwise isn’t just misleading—it’s irresponsible.
So, the next time you see a headline promising miracle health benefits from a single food or habit, remember Marge and her oatmeal. Ask yourself: Is this science, or is it storytelling? And more importantly, who stands to benefit from me believing it?
The Funniest Science Story I’ve Ever Seen: From Breakfast to Immortality
Of all the ways I’ve seen science make its way into a published media piece, this one takes the cake—and by cake, I mean a hilariously half-baked anecdote about oatmeal. Here’s how it went down:
A journalist interviewed a doctor.
The doctor cited an 8-year-old perspective piece (not a study, mind you) that briefly mentioned one old woman’s morning routine.
That mention somehow morphed into a headline screaming, “Eat This Food To Not Die.”
If that doesn’t make you chuckle—or cry, depending on your mood—I don’t know what will.
Oatmeal: A Perfectly Fine Breakfast, Not a Fountain of Youth
Let me be clear: I’m not here to bash oatmeal. It’s a perfectly reasonable breakfast choice. Packed with fiber, low in sugar (if you don’t drown it in syrup or candy), and versatile enough to suit most tastes, oatmeal can absolutely be part of a healthy diet. As with most foods, whether it’s “good” for you depends largely on what it’s replacing. Swapping out a sugary cereal or a greasy fast-food sandwich for a bowl of oatmeal? Great idea. Adding a KitKat on top of your oatmeal? Maybe not so much.
But let’s get one thing straight: the idea that eating oatmeal for breakfast will magically extend your life is, in this case, utterly baseless. This claim isn’t built on groundbreaking research, clinical trials, or even observational studies. It’s built on fluff and air .
One anecdote about what an old woman said she liked for breakfast tells us almost nothing about human health. Was Marge Jetton’s longevity due to her oatmeal habit? Her prune juice? Her Bible-reading? Her volunteer work? Her genetics? We’ll never know, because there’s no evidence to support any of these claims.
Why This Story Is So Ridiculous (And Why It Matters)
What makes this story particularly absurd is how far it strayed from its original source. Let’s recap:
An editorial in the American Journal of Lifestyle Medicine briefly mentioned a 105-year-old woman who reportedly ate oatmeal.
A doctor cited this editorial in an interview with Fox News.
Fox News turned this tenuous connection into a headline implying causation between oatmeal and longevity.
At every step, the story grew more exaggerated, more detached from reality. By the time it reached readers, it had transformed into something entirely unrecognizable.
And that’s the real issue here. When bad science reporting goes unchecked, it doesn’t just mislead—it erodes trust in legitimate science. People start to wonder: if oatmeal headlines are bunk, what about advice on vaccines, climate change, or cancer prevention?
The Takeaway: Don’t Fall for Fluff
So, what’s the lesson here? First, don’t believe everything you read—especially when it comes to health claims. Second, remember that correlation does not equal causation. Just because someone lived to be 105 and ate oatmeal doesn’t mean oatmeal was the secret to their longevity.
Finally, approach sensational headlines with skepticism. If something sounds too good (or too simple) to be true, it probably is. Ask yourself: Where’s the evidence? Who stands to benefit? And most importantly, does this pass the sniff test?
In the end, Marge Jetton’s story reminds us that life is messy, complicated, and beautifully unpredictable. Longevity isn’t about one magic food—it’s about a lifetime of choices, habits, and maybe a little bit of luck.