They are all inflammatory / auto immune diseases. That's the link.

Eczema and asthma are both autoimmune diseases. It suggests that either osteoarthritis is an autoimmune disease (like rheumatoid arthritis) or that immune suppressing drugs cause it.

One thought here, it’s my understanding that some of the medications for these increase the risks. I grew up with pretty bad asthma and had to take prednisone for a while and I know I was told prednisone can increase this risk. I don’t know if prednisone specifically is prescribed for eczema but I wouldn’t be surprised if something similar was since both are autoimmune.

So I’m wondering if it’s due to medications that are used for these conditions that’s causing this

This looks promising but the translation from animal successful trials to successful clinical trials is 8%. I’m hoping it falls in the 8%.

Eczema and asthma are inflammatory conditions, pointing that the development of osteoarthritis is also an inflammatory condition. Poorly controlled eczema and asthma that over relies on the use of oral steroids can also lead to osteoarthritis.

That would be interesting to see. It really is amazing how much stuff is already out there, sometimes I'll randomly think of an effect a food may have on a condition or body function and after looking it up there's already a dozen experiments regarding it.

The happy little mouse king is so cute

So you're implying that this is misleading research but it's not for you to decide why?

they've had to do this to fight off the threat from Big Strawberry

Ah I see where I wasn’t clear. That’s my bad. To clarify, I was wondering what the results would be if they added controls.

Something like: Group 1: 0 supplements + healthy diet + 12 hr fast

Group 2: pre-workout + healthy diet + 12 hr fast

Group 3: blueberries + healthy diet + 12 hr fast

Group 4-n: (same as 1-3 but vary fasting time and dosage to establish max/min recommendations).

I took a look back at some of the reference papers and there’s been several studies already on this particular supplement. I wouldn’t be surprised if someone else has already looked into my questions and I just haven’t come across it yet.

[removed]

That's not for me to decide. Either way, I'm not saying to ban the content, but tagging it appropriately so that headline readers don't run with misinformation would be prudent.

Who are these people that don’t realize the internet is just a bunch of people posting stuff to upset each other? None of it should be taken seriously!

Can you elaborate on what is poorly designed and why it is manipulative or misleading? Merely because of the funding?

And wouldn't small sample sizes be necessary to spread to reach researchers on reddit who may be interested in further looking into the subject, who may not have seen it otherwise? Should no research be published unless it's a 100+ sample? Or 1000? 1 million? What even defines a small sample size? This study could be used as part of a meta analysis that reviews similar studies, and if they all have samples of 15 or less, are they all invalid? Particularly when using trained athletes of specific levels, finding a sample size over 100 may be difficult. Many studies regarding hypertrophy and strength use around half of that.

[removed]

Geez...I'm getting tired, man. Real tired, Boss.

[deleted]

Man, sorry, but you're kind of dense. What do you think would happen if they tested moderately trained people? That they don't further develop aerobic adaptations from training?

It's hard for me to understand the importance of this correlation - it seems like having any chronic illness makes you more likely to have nearly any other chronic illness.

[deleted]

“When you're accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression"

Im so mad that no one mentioned the fact they only looked at r/science. It’s literally a subreddit to complain and comment about science headlines. And then sometimes for people to share some neat insight or expertise they got on a topic they love.

Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our normal comment rules apply to all other comments.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

"Or if eating anything healthy before a workout"

I understood that as you meaning that they had the blueberries before working out. The study was meant to evaluate anthocyanin content in the diet having an effect, i don't think they were considering timing. But that would be interesting to see. EGCG shows increased fat oxidation when taken prior to exercise.

Your other reply isn't visible to me in the comments.

I'm not sure what is difficult to understand. Trained people burn more fat, yes. Untrained people burn less. So the experiment wants to see what eating blueberries does in regards to the fat burning effects of exercise. To remove the potential of beginner gains from skewing the results, use trained individuals to study the effects. The participants abstained from anthocyanins, and tested the fat oxidation. Then introduced anthocyanins, and tested again, showing an increase. Your point is irrelevant. The result of the study is that blueberries in the diet increase fat oxidation in response to exercise in humans. Like i said, if it showed effects in trained people, it would likely show effects in untrained people. There isn't some switch that just rejects anthocyanins because you aren't aerobically trained.

A small sample size isn't necessarily bad, it provides a stepping stone for the next group to investigate.

Edit: the authors of the study also declared the funders (blueberry company) basically didn't touch the study, and it is published in a peer reviewed journal.