Can you blame them? Click bait title + pay wall + detached social media. Expecting more when the rules don't enforce it is pretty goofy.

If you say a new study reiterating what we already know dressed up as a "new discovery" that sentence can be interpreted as you saying the new study is dressing up the discovery as something novel. I don't see why you needed to take a jab at my reading comprehension / character here, you could have just said, "I meant ... by this sentence not ..." and we'd be in agreement.

I read your comment as; first critiquing new studies trying to propose old discoveries as novel, and then going on to say you get annoyed at how the media or other people handle these studies and insert a lot of hyperbole.

I don't think this is an unfair interpretation, although if my reading comprehension has gone wrong somewhere, then explain where and how, because I evidently can't see where I've gone wrong (or I wouldn't have interpreted like so).

Pre-workout as in the supplement powder not as a reference to timing. Basically to compare it to other supplements.

And per my understanding they fasted overnight for a morning workout. I’m interested in the timing between ingestion and beginning the work. Does the benefit decrease with increasing time and if so how much - is 12, 8 or even 2 hours enough to see a noticeable decrease in effectiveness?

11 isn't that bad to establish a preliminary base for other researchers to further investigate.

[removed]

If you can observe it objectively in humans, why do you need to do it to mice? Like just leave the mice alone.

That isn't what is measured though. The study measured for a change in fat burning by addition of anthocyanins into the diet, not whether fit people burn more fat. It is not useless to untrained people because these effects in trained people are a measure of the effects of blueberries for fat oxidation during exercise, so untrained people would theoretically have greater benefit from exercise by adding anthocyanins into their diet.

[deleted]

I agree with all this.

I guess when I think of science, I think of a machine that sucks up judgments from biased humans, and somehow spits out results that converge on the truth. Of course, this convergence happens faster when the humans do their best to be less biased in advance. And the convergence can be reversed if the biased humans are bad enough.

So I'm willing to tolerate a lot of trash criticism if it means that a little good criticism also gets through. Maybe in the face of the current political environment, I should be less tolerant of trash criticism; not sure.

I think you aren't understanding. Yes fit people burn more fat. Which is why using fit individuals to measure an increase in fat oxidation is more significant than using untrained people. If it worked for the fit people, it would work for untrained people on top of their adaption to exercise. Using fit people is more accurate because it already accounts for a variable.

It's a near perfect example of confirmation bias and that's actually one of the central kinds of reasoning science challenges and tries to overcome with the hypothetico-deductive mode or more simply, deductive reasoning. I also agree, you can have two studies side by side, with roughly the same degree of validity, but the reaction in the comments can be of different polarities really entirely dependent upon preconceptions.

[deleted]

Yes, “dressed up as a new discovery” by how it’s treated by other people.

What is up with Reddit the last week or so? It’s like half the user base’s reading comprehension has gone on vacation or something.

It’s either that, or people are just extra argumentative or something.

What would be the point of using less trained individuals? That creates another variable to account for, since training adaptations would be greater in novices than those already adapted. Using trained individuals would give a more accurate representation of the effects the study is researching.

[removed]

[removed]

They didn't eat it preworkout, and they used a blueberry powder. The point was to measure differences of adding anthocyanins into the diet.

> so a new study reiterating what we already know dressed up as a “new discovery” is eye-roll worthy.

You also said this.

[removed]

Yes That is frightening

Critical analysis, and criticality are not always the same thing. So I can probe at the logical validity of a claim as a way to critically challenge the material, or I offload a bunch of adversarial gish gallop.

Both are being critical, one is doing it in an analytical or constructive mode. The other is doing it in a rhetorical or biased mode. Just being "critical" is not sufficient, science is critical in of itself but via the hypothetico-deductive model, it's not just critical, it has a logical system by which it facilitates criticality, that is, the criticality is systematic.

Criticality can be as irrational and illogical as it can the opposite. That shines here, the amount of criticality that stems from A) not actually reading the study or cherry picking small sections, B) not reading the authors conclusion or analysis and C) just reacting to the title, it's not that some individuals are spurious, it's that criticality without the scientific or philosophical foundations of reasoning is spurious.

Which I think has potential for feedback loops. Commenters without the academic understanding of the topic and systems might make judgements, that means you get an overly skeptical (or positive too) presentation in the comments, people reading the comments might derive their conclusion from the theme of the comments, rather than the paper itself, and thus you have a process by which a skepticism develops that sits upon rickety, rotten foundations. But the real crux is that a lot of critical comments can completely stem from a preconception (I disagree with the study -> so I'm going to find things to be critical of), that means that criticism is literally antithetical to science.

Freeze dried is not frozen. Also freeze drying and freezing maintains nutritional content.

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]