SciAm, You Disappoint Me

(cross-posted on One Astronomer's Noise)

I recently subscribed to Scientific American with the intention of keeping up to date with a broad range of scientific topics, and reading their in-depth magazine articles to compliment the barrage of short news stories we get flooded with everyday. I've been pretty happy with that so far, and have also been getting their daily email updates on news stories, which I browse through if it looks interesting. Yesterday, there was a story called "Is Cellulite Forever?" with the tagline,

Some claim creams can bust the bulgy bane of many, whereas others swear by pricey procedures. But what is cellulite? And can it really be banished for good? A doctor gives the bottom line.

I have a really positive body image, in a large part thanks to bellydance. Nevertheless, when someone claims that they will shine a scientific spotlight on a topic that is related to beauty and is shrouded in so much pseudoscience, my interest is piqued. Imagine my surprise when the article interviewed an "osteopathic physician... [who] runs a clinic for mesotherapy (injections of homeopathic extracts, vitamins and/or medicine designed to reduce the appearance of cellulite)." Homeo-whatnow?

Homeopathy, briefly, is the belief that "like cures like" and that an extremely diluted solution of a substance that causes a symptom will cure that symptom. Homeopathic remedies have virtually no trace of the so-called active ingredient in them, and thus fail every scientific study of their potency. Not to mention, the very philosophy flies in the face of everything we know about physics and chemistry. In a word, it's pseudoscience. So now, Scientific American is interviewing a doctor that espouses pseudoscience to talk about cellulite in a strictly scientific light? My skeptical sense is in overdrive.

Unfortunately, I don't know much about the science of cellulite and how it works. In fact, that's why I clicked on the link to the article! Now, I'm motivated to learn more about it, in order to check on the claims presented in the interview. Some portions seem reasonable, even testable, such as the origin of cellulite, why women may get more as they age, why it's more prominent in women than men, etc. If anyone can get back to me on the science behind those, I'd appreciate that! I'm very much a non-expert but curious.

But then he delves into some pretty heavy cultural biases, claiming that cellulite only became a problem in the 1970s because we became a sedentary culture and don't work physically. It appears to be based on anecdotal evidence of him finding old photographs or photographing women around the world. (Excuse me, may I take a picture of your buttocks for research?) Surely, calories in vs. calories burned has a lot to do with fat retention in the body as a whole (science!), but will eating organic foods, not working at a desk, and wearing a thong really reduce your cellulite? How does fat loss in general affect already thin women who have cellulite?

On the third page, my incredulity really spikes. He talks about the use of various creams to target the fat itself that "transports fats into the [cells'] mitochondria to be used as energy" or "by blocking the making of fats by the alpha receptors." Last time I checked, creams do not target cells very far inside the body. And although you may be able to firm up the skin itself, there appears to be no scientific proof that creams reduce cellulite. Next he talks about sucking, rolling, even using radio waves to break up the fat. You can find a bit on questionable cellulite reduction schemes at Quackwatch. His claims are dubious, even if you look past the introduction.

Hey, I know how we can make cellulite problems go away! Get over it. Proudly wear that bathing suit and show the world that we're not all Barbie dolls. Staying fit and healthy is a generally good thing. Worrying over the appearance of bumpy fat in the butt, not so important. Until science-based medicine tells us that cellulite is a health threat, I won't worry about mine.

And Scientific American? Shame on you. I expect your work to be held to a higher standard of scientific rigor.

UPDATES! Rebecca of Skepchick wrote a lovely post entitled "The Top 5 Things Wrong With SciAm’s Cellulite Article" and PZ Myers asks, "SciAm, how could you?"

Homeopathy

At the CVille Skeptics second meeting, the food will be delicious, and the topic will be homeopathy. Amanda has already posted a whole bunch of great links to start the discussion on the message boards. I'd like to point out some of these and add a few more, especially since I won't be able to attend. (Instead I'll be running around midtown Manhattan with some old college buddies!)

Homeopathy is basically the claim that a substance that creates ill-effects in a healthy person can be used to treat the illness in a sick person after being massively diluted as to be rendered no longer harmful. This is a form of alternative medicine, which is the growing field of promised cures that fall outside conventional (some would say evidence-based!) medicine. The American Cancer Society gives a good basic description of homeopathy's origins and claims. Homeopaths, as the practitioners are called, have a society* and journals which I encourage you to browse, although most content is certainly geared towards their own members and dealing with the media. Homeopathy has found a forum with Oprah, and an interesting introduction can be found on her website. Yes, many of you skeptics will cringe at the section citing "vital life energies" and such things, but hasn't science uncovered even weirder sounding phenomena? There is no scientific basis for such a phenomenon... but what if?

Homeopathy promises to be safe and effective, more so than conventional measures. It sounds so great! However, one needs to look carefully at the studies. There's a good, short introduction to the most often cited positive studies on homeopathy, which includes the Benveniste study from the 1980s, which was later shown to be due to bias on the part of the researchers. Skeptical superstar James Randi was involved in that affair, and has also been known to down large amounts of homeopathic sleeping pills in front of Congress to demonstrate their ineffectiveness. (See his take on homeopathy here.) Homeopathy is also a popular topic with the doctors at the Science Based Medicine blog.

So if homeopathy is ineffective after all, then what's the harm? I'm sure this will prove to be a fruitful discussion topic at the upcoming meeting!

*Don't worry, SkepTools fans, I used nofollow on some of these links!