Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

and_dont_blink t1_jdzcy5e wrote

Reply to comment by needtofigureshitout in Study Suggests Wild Blueberries Help Burn Fat. Results showed participants burned notably more fat after consuming wild blueberries. For example, fat oxidation rate rose by 19.7%, 43.2%, and 31.1% at 20, 30, and 40 min after cycling. by Wagamaga

>Edit 2: added more stuff because this comment is a horrible analysis of the OP study

needtofigureshitout, you don't seem to be aware that others don't see when you make a bunch of edits to your comments.

>Tart cherry is primarily investigated for recovery, not fat oxidation. Cite your source?

It's literally in the actual published article we're talking about, of which you said my analysis was "horrible" but which I actually read and comprehended. Open the article at the top of the page and search for "cherry." Best of luck.

Edit: Dear lord, this account is brand new, has 13 karma and almost their entire comment history is all over this one story... Interesting.

Are you involved with the study in any way, needtofigureshitout? If so I have some questions about the authorship and how it went from being someone's master's thesis in 2019 to someone else's paper, and how most of their committee ended up as authors?

1

needtofigureshitout t1_jdztgjt wrote

As far as i know, edits are visible on browser.

The study also cites other anthocyanin sources having similar effects, and specifically says the tart cherry one didn't provide anthocyanin content. That study also used 11 people, so it isn't "larger". If you truly comprehended you'd know that the blueberry diet was separate from anthocyanin washout diet, and that both tests were done fasted, one without anthocyanins and one with, which removes the variable of fasted exercise being the cause, and you'd notice their inaccurare carb intake assessment of the powder. There's no way 25g of a powder adds 92g of carbs and takes up nearly 30% of someone's carb intake unless they eat only around 70g per day. I'm pretty sure it's supposed to be 9.2g because then the math for carb, protein and fiber composition would be closer to 25g.

This is a junk account and i subscribed to r/science when making, but man people on subs (this and nootropics) that i would think would have the best reading comprehension regarding research have really been disappointing.

Is this the 2019 paper you're referring to? This is a different experiment entirely. https://digitalcommons.wku.edu/ijesab/vol8/iss7/74/

1

and_dont_blink t1_je1exd2 wrote

>As far as i know, edits are visible on browser.

...that isn't how this works, there's no track changes.

Again, were you involved in this study in any way?

>There's no way 25g of a powder adds 92g of carbs and takes up nearly 30% of someone's carb intake unless they eat only around 70g per day.

You should take that up with the authors. They would have to be wrong at multiple points, and they have the dietary data.

1

needtofigureshitout t1_je1kuvl wrote

They are wrong at multiple points regarding the carb content of the powder.

Why would i be involved in the study? Because I'm calling out the fact that you omitted information that would render your initial comment entirely pointless had you included it? Makes sense. For some reason you have yet to acknowledge the misinformation in your comment and keep focusing on my editting and supposed involvement based on the age of my account, as if just a random person can't come across this post then make an account to comment.

1

and_dont_blink t1_je1ooxw wrote

>Why would i be involved in the study?

...most people don't have a newly-created throaway almost entirely devoted to one post. It's fascinating, you are all throughout only these comments on a newly created account

It's interesting, so I'm trying to work out as to why -- and you won't actually say no. For the third time, were you involved with the study in any way, or know the authors?

>Because I'm calling out the fact that you omitted information that would render your initial comment entirely pointless had you included it?

I don't believe you did, there being a washout isn't really relevant for my points and something is lost in translation.

1

needtofigureshitout t1_je2g10p wrote

Check the rest of my comment history and age if you're so obsessed with who i am. It just so happens that this post has one of the dumbest conclusions I've seen about a study. No I'm not involved. I just dislike when people misinterpret studies.

You made several points to try to conver whatever conclusion you had.

You said the study had the participants remove anthocyanin containing foods while eating whatever they want, but that the were told to eat blueberries. Based on your wording, you're implying this was all in one period, which it wasn't. The first two weeks had removal of anthocyanin content from diet, then they did a fasted test, so the fasted exercise was already a controlled variable. The two weeks after that, they ate the blueberry powder, then again did a fasted test.

You mentioned the "larger" tart cherry study showing no effect and that this study was going against it. If the tart cherry study used actual juice, the anthocyanin content would likely have been significantly less since the highest anthocyanin content is right at harvest, and it degrades over time. Frozen berries have the highest anthocyanin content, but that's beside the point. You fail to mention how the study itself mentions similar results produced from anthocyanin-standardized new zealand black currant supplementation.

Then you mention how the blueberry powder added up to 30% of carb intake in the participants. If you had accurately read it you would've seen the discrepancy in carb calculation and realized it doesn't make sense. The carb intake is potentially also irrelevant, as the results showed lower carb utilization during the exercise.

The authorship "issues" of the study don't make sense either. Someone wrote a master's thesis, then the same person was involved in an experiment using 9 people. Then a bit later, someone else replicates the study with some more people to see if the results would match. This seems pretty standard because experiments need to be replicable. Then the study done at a university was funded by the university, go figure. And they were donated a product that is standardized for anthocyanin content, which would remove the variation in anthocyanins had the participants used fresh berries.

There's really not a whole lot to criticize except the macronutrient discrepancy.

1

and_dont_blink t1_je2ivq4 wrote

>Check the rest of my comment history and age if you're so obsessed with who i am.

I did, your account was recently created, has 11 karma and most of it came from commenting all over this one post.

I scanned your reply,and while I'd normally ask forfor the fourth time if you happen to know anyone involved with this study I'll leave that for others.

>You mentioned the "larger" tart cherry study showing no effect and that this study was going against it. If the tart cherry study used actual juice,

The study itself mentioned it, which you showed you hadn't thoroughly read. You're being disingenuous enough here it's time for me to move on, you have a great day.

1