• BT_7274@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    So the study asked them to consume 1500 extra calories per day? Regardless of the source, that’s a confounding variable right there. I’d like to see this done again with a steady calorie count and just a different source for those calories. Personally, if I go nuts on the junk foods for a meal I typically find myself compensating by eating less of my normal, healthier diet.

  • hmmm@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    Did people actually eat Junk food like normal diet?

    Damn, I can’t even imagine that.

    • the_q@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      Americans have to go out of their way to not buy junk food since nearly everything sold in stores technically falls into that category.

  • dingdongitsabear@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    never heard of:

    • zme science
    • nature metabolism
    • mihal andrei
    • tibi pulu

    also sample size. Imma assign this the weight of an eye-lash suspended in vacuum.

    • JokklMaster@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      OK so let’s start with Nature Metabolism because that’s the big one here. Nature is one of the number one scientific journals to get published in. They are so big they have a portfolio dedicated for different fields. This is one of them. This tells me you are not familiar with the field. Getting published in Nature alone is impressive and tells us this article did go through a rigorous peer review process.

      Secondly, the effects mentioned in the news article align with similar research I am familiar with, and in science consensus is usually a good sign for the findings being valid.

      I haven’t had time to look through the actual published article yet but I’m inclined to believe this. Regarding the sample size, yes it’s smallish, but you can’t judge it on its own. You have to look at the stats to see if it was sufficient or not. The larger the effect the smaller the sample size you need to show it. Liver fat went from like 1.5-2.5% which is a huge difference. I have definitely seen legitimate studies before with similar sample sizes.

      Imma assign this weight heavier than the average study you come across, though less groundbreaking.

      Source: neuroscience PhD student.