The results cannot be trusted, and journalists should not cite this study
En marzo de 2024, un estudio publicado en una revista médica de prestigio prometía algo que muchos querían escuchar: que el vinagre de manzana, tomado tres veces al día, podía reducir el peso y mejorar marcadores metabólicos clave. La promesa viajó rápido por los medios y llegó a millones de personas antes de que la ciencia pudiera alcanzarla. En septiembre de 2025, la revista retiró el estudio por completo, tras descubrir datos irrepetibles, métodos estadísticos cuestionables y violaciones a sus propias normas editoriales. Lo que ocurrió no es solo la historia de un error científico, sino la de cómo las verdades provisionales se instalan en la vida cotidiana mucho antes de que la revisión rigurosa pueda corregirlas.
- Un estudio sobre vinagre de manzana y pérdida de peso se convirtió en viral antes de que nadie pudiera verificar si sus datos eran reales.
- Más de un año después de su publicación, expertos en estadística descubrieron que los resultados no podían replicarse y que los patrones de datos eran inconsistentes con una asignación aleatoria legítima.
- Los propios autores admitieron errores —incompatibilidades de software, redondeos, diferencias de formato— pero el daño al registro científico ya estaba hecho: periodistas lo habían citado, investigadores lo habían usado como base.
- La editora de integridad de la revista advirtió públicamente que el estudio no debe volver a citarse, mientras el editor en jefe reconoció que publicarlo, sin registro previo del ensayo, fue una decisión equivocada.
- El caso expone una vulnerabilidad estructural: el sistema que detecta el fraude o el error científico opera lentamente, mientras la información —verdadera o no— se mueve a la velocidad de las redes.
En marzo de 2024, una investigación publicada en BMJ Nutrition, Prevention & Health afirmó que consumir vinagre de manzana tres veces al día durante doce semanas podía reducir el peso corporal y mejorar el colesterol, el azúcar en sangre y los triglicéridos en personas con obesidad. Era exactamente el tipo de hallazgo que el público quería creer: una solución barata, accesible y sin receta médica. Los medios lo difundieron ampliamente y muchas personas comenzaron a incorporar el vinagre a su rutina diaria.
Pero en septiembre de 2025, más de un año después, la revista retiró el estudio. Una revisión exhaustiva realizada por expertos en estadística y el equipo de integridad editorial reveló que los análisis no podían replicarse, que los datos mostraban patrones incompatibles con una asignación aleatoria correcta, que la metodología estaba descrita de forma demasiado vaga y que el ensayo nunca había sido registrado previamente, algo exigido por las propias normas de la publicación.
Los autores reconocieron los problemas y los atribuyeron a errores no intencionales: incompatibilidades entre versiones de software, redondeos y diferencias al exportar datos. Aceptaron la retractación. Pero para entonces, periodistas habían citado el estudio, otros investigadores lo habían tomado como referencia y consumidores habían tomado decisiones basadas en sus conclusiones.
Helen Macdonald, editora de ética e integridad de contenidos de la revista, fue clara: los resultados no son confiables y el estudio no debe volver a usarse en reportajes ni en práctica profesional. Martin Kohlmeier, editor en jefe, admitió que publicarlo sin el registro previo del ensayo fue, en retrospectiva, una decisión incorrecta.
El caso ilustra una tensión profunda en la circulación del conocimiento científico: los estudios ganan credibilidad por el prestigio de la revista que los publica, los medios los amplifican porque son útiles y atractivos, y el público actúa en consecuencia. Cuando los errores finalmente salen a la luz, la narrativa ya está instalada —y quienes la siguieron rara vez se enteran de que la evidencia en la que confiaron era, desde el principio, frágil.
A study published last March in a prestigious medical journal made a simple, appealing claim: drink apple cider vinegar three times a day for twelve weeks, and you'll lose weight. The research, which appeared in BMJ Nutrition, Prevention & Health, suggested the vinegar could also improve cholesterol, blood sugar, and triglyceride levels in people struggling with obesity. The findings spread quickly through media outlets and into the broader conversation about weight loss remedies. It was the kind of study people wanted to be true—a cheap, accessible intervention that required no prescription, no surgery, no complicated protocol.
But in September 2025, more than a year after publication, the journal retracted the entire study. The decision came after statistical experts and the journal's integrity team conducted a careful review and found the work fundamentally broken. They could not replicate the authors' analyses. The raw data showed patterns inconsistent with how participants should have been randomly assigned to treatment groups. The statistical methods were questionable. The methodology was described too vaguely. The trial had never been registered in advance, a standard requirement in the journal's own editorial policy. What had looked like solid science was, upon inspection, unreliable.
The authors themselves acknowledged the problems, though they framed them as unintentional errors—incompatibilities between software versions, rounding mistakes, formatting differences when exporting data. They agreed the work should be withdrawn. But the damage to the scientific record had already been done. Journalists had cited the findings. Other researchers had built on them. People had started buying apple cider vinegar based on what they read.
Helen Macdonald, the journal's ethics and content integrity editor, was direct about the implications: the results cannot be trusted, and journalists and other professionals should not cite or use this study in future reporting. Martin Kohlmeier, the editor-in-chief of the nutrition journal, reflected on why the study had been published in the first place despite the missing trial registration. "In retrospect," he said, "it was the wrong decision."
The retraction is a reminder of how scientific claims move through the world. A study gets published in a reputable journal, which lends it credibility. The media picks it up because the finding is newsworthy and useful. People act on it. By the time the problems are discovered and the study is withdrawn, the narrative has already taken root. The journal's decision to retract reflects what it calls a strategic and proactive approach to maintaining the integrity of its published work—investigating concerns, correcting the record, being transparent when things go wrong. But it also underscores a harder truth: the system that catches these errors works slowly, and the public often never learns that the advice they followed was based on flawed research.
Notable Quotes
The results of the study are not reliable, and journalists and other professionals should not cite or use the results of this study in future reporting.— Helen Macdonald, ethics and content integrity editor, BMJ Group
In retrospect, it was the wrong decision to publish the study without trial pre-registration.— Martin Kohlmeier, editor-in-chief, BMJ Nutrition Prevention & Health
The Hearth Conversation Another angle on the story
Why did this particular study gain so much traction if the problems were detectable?
Because it was published in a respected journal and the finding was simple and hopeful. People want to believe a cheap remedy works. The journal's own editors didn't catch the issues before publication.
What specifically made the data unreliable?
The statistical patterns didn't match what you'd expect from a properly randomized trial. The authors' analyses couldn't be reproduced. There were inconsistencies in how the raw numbers were recorded and reported.
Did the authors know they were publishing flawed work?
They say no—they claim the errors were accidental, things like software incompatibilities and rounding mistakes. They agreed to the retraction, so they're not fighting it.
What happens to people who already started taking apple cider vinegar based on this study?
They're left with a remedy that was never proven to work. The journal is now telling journalists not to cite the study, but that message moves much slower than the original headlines did.
Does this mean apple cider vinegar definitely doesn't help with weight loss?
No. It means this particular study doesn't prove it does. There may be other research on the topic, but this one—the one that got the attention—was unreliable.
What should have happened differently?
The trial should have been registered in advance, as the journal's own policy requires. The methodology should have been described in detail. Someone should have caught these problems before publication, not after.